There is likely a qualitative difference in the information you get from a 'self-appointed expert" and an actual expert.
It's likely that most 'self-appointed' experts don't have the requisite knowledge of the subject (whatever it may be) to allow them to see through a well crafted 'one way hash' type argument.
Determining who the actual experts really are and what their biases are is a more attainable goal for most than unwinding an argument that requires advanced knowledge of the subject.
Recognition of our own lack of knowledge in a particular area should lead us to defer (in some measure) to actual, not self-appointed, experts.
Just like deferring to the knowledge of a surgeon rather than an auto mechanic in the proper circumstance.
One thing I've noticed in a lot of North American construction is that it's basically the same regardless of where in N.A. you are: concrete foundation, cinder block basement, 2x4 framing, fibre glass insulation.
I'm sure they exist but I've never had a basement anyplace I lived in Ca.
Apart from some larger commercial buildings they're not very common.
And most of the houses I've seen in Fl don't use stick construction; cinder block seems to be the material of choice.
(dictated by hurricanes I'd assume)
Constructions styles across the US do differ pretty significantly.
All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.
This was modded 'insightful'?
Assigning somebody membership to a group and then ascribing all of the negative things about that group to that person isn't 'insightful' it's 'prejudice'.
When I lived in the bay area I loathed Fry's but grudgingly went there when I *had to have a cable, CD drive, or some other widget immediately.
Now the nearest Fry's is over 1,000 miles away and the most similar store is Best Buy.
I never thought I'd miss Fry's but there's nothing even slightly comparable where I am now.
The honest way of asking the question would be "do you believe murderers should be executed?"
This assumes everybody who is executed for murder is, in fact, guilty... and we know this isn't true.
The flip side of your question would be to ask Do you believe innocent people should be executed?
A less stilted question would be Do you believe people convicted of murder should be executed?
Answer: as a non-nerd, you're willing to pay about as much as a nerd is willing to pay for $USELESS_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM. (Fill in that var with something you don't like. Maybe it's the war in Iraq. Maybe it's cancer cure research. Maybe it's tobacco farm subsidies. Surely there's something the government spends money on that you don't feel is worth the expense.)
We have plenty of vision. What we don't have, is consensus on what things are worth.
Actually, your illustustration of different people valuing different things is the perfect argument FOR government to engage in things like space exploration.
If we all waited for the dust to settle over whether we should have a highway between points X and Y, or for sewage service to be provided in the *whole town, or any number of other things, the progress of our society would slow to a crawl.
A principle function of govt is to provide infrastructure that benefits the growth of society... even when the majority of society doesn't see that infrastructure as worthwhile.
And as to the foolishly simple explanation, H.L. Mekcken is quoted to have said, "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct, plausible, and wrong".
since we're apparently tossing about platitudes, think Occam's Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best solution"
Why would I say "that obviously isn't working"?
Because the post I responded to posited that the problem with universal health care was that it didn't give people a chance to take care of societal ills (literally and figuratively).
We have never had universal care yet we do have healthcare problems- and not just overpricing.
Therefore these imaginary good samaritans have not taken care of the problems.
Regarding overpricing of what we do have, I have to disagree.
How many people are *now given insurance by charities?
There is currently no disincentive to do so and the number is small enough that I can't even find a statistic on it.
I'm pretty sure if it was in anyway significant the charity providers (churches?) would be telling everybody who listen about it.
So why should we think that the "generosity of Americans" will contribute more and fill gaps in the future that they obviously don't fill now ?
Regarding socialism... get over it.
Our society is rife with "socialism" that people like to ignore.
Fire departments? socialism
parks and roads? socialism
weather broadcasts? socialism
clean water programs? socialism
To be more than a despotism any modern government needs to have some blend of socialist leaning programs.
This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil. They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now.
As long as we have had our current system people have had the chance to be "warm and loving to those less fortunate". That obviously isn't working.
Universal access to healthcare is a benefit to society, not just to those who didn't have that access prior to some sort of universal plan. As such, if it's not being provided (ie: by those looking to have the warm fuzzies about helping their fellow man ) then government should ensure that it is somehow provided. Just like they build roads, maintain a military, or provide any of a number of things for the benefit of their people.
As someone who is relatively healthy, I'd really rather not call paying for people with genetic conditions 'insurance', as it isn't.
The important bit, to me anyways, isn't discrimination against somebody who *has a inherited illnesss... it's discrimination based on a genetic predisposition.
OneLink uses the phone line running into your house and connects to your existing phone jack--no phone service is necessary (Speakeasy pays the phone company for this). http://www.speakeasy.net/home/onelink/
How is this "no phone service" ?
You still have to have a line to your abode with a live connection to the telco... and the telco is still collecting money for allowing that line to carry traffic.
"Phone service" is still required, it's just not voice and you're paying the ISP for it rather than the telco.
Trying to wrest residential customers from cable rivals, SBC will launch TV over fiber by late next year, the regional telecom said today.
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3434 931
SBC is pushing hard for fiber.
If they can finish what PacHell was trying to do, they'll be able to stream IPTV, internet, and voice.
And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how?
mmmm... maybe it's different in that Sinclair is billing this as "news" and pushing it out just before the election commercial free in prime-time to stations that reach 25% of American households?
Would you be OK with this if they were planning on doing the same thing with F9/11 instead?
When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship.
There is a difference between something that is created solely to be a hit peice on somebody, and a news story that is less than flattering to somebody.
I realize that can be sujective as you get towards the middle, but Stolen Honor and F9/11 are both clearly hit peices.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you've missed the point.
There is likely a qualitative difference in the information you get from a 'self-appointed expert" and an actual expert.
It's likely that most 'self-appointed' experts don't have the requisite knowledge of the subject (whatever it may be) to allow them to see through a well crafted 'one way hash' type argument.
Determining who the actual experts really are and what their biases are is a more attainable goal for most than unwinding an argument that requires advanced knowledge of the subject.
Recognition of our own lack of knowledge in a particular area should lead us to defer (in some measure) to actual, not self-appointed, experts.
Just like deferring to the knowledge of a surgeon rather than an auto mechanic in the proper circumstance.
I think the "loser pays the winner's legal fees" thing only applies in small claims court (at least in Ca)
Your descriptions of Tiger Direct make me think of Fry's. Heaven for the hardcore, so long as you don't expect too much, and know what you're doing.
spot on
One thing I've noticed in a lot of North American construction is that it's basically the same regardless of where in N.A. you are: concrete foundation, cinder block basement, 2x4 framing, fibre glass insulation.
I'm sure they exist but I've never had a basement anyplace I lived in Ca.
Apart from some larger commercial buildings they're not very common.
And most of the houses I've seen in Fl don't use stick construction; cinder block seems to be the material of choice. (dictated by hurricanes I'd assume)
Constructions styles across the US do differ pretty significantly.
All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.
This was modded 'insightful'?
Assigning somebody membership to a group and then ascribing all of the negative things about that group to that person isn't 'insightful' it's 'prejudice'.
If this were about race it would be 'racist'.
When I lived in the bay area I loathed Fry's but grudgingly went there when I *had to have a cable, CD drive, or some other widget immediately.
Now the nearest Fry's is over 1,000 miles away and the most similar store is Best Buy.
I never thought I'd miss Fry's but there's nothing even slightly comparable where I am now.
I'm really curious about how they're cooling this thing. I looked on their site and didn't see anything about it.
Desktop? Really?
8 dual quad nodes can generate a LOT of heat.
definitely more than my office could deal with
Will it make the entire office sound like an airstrip?
How much is it going to warm up the room?
(or is it just going to start frying components)
The honest way of asking the question would be "do you believe murderers should be executed?"
This assumes everybody who is executed for murder is, in fact, guilty... and we know this isn't true. The flip side of your question would be to ask
Do you believe innocent people should be executed?
A less stilted question would be
Do you believe people convicted of murder should be executed?
and has for a very long time.
Answer: as a non-nerd, you're willing to pay about as much as a nerd is willing to pay for $USELESS_GOVERNMENT_PROGRAM. (Fill in that var with something you don't like. Maybe it's the war in Iraq. Maybe it's cancer cure research. Maybe it's tobacco farm subsidies. Surely there's something the government spends money on that you don't feel is worth the expense.)
We have plenty of vision. What we don't have, is consensus on what things are worth.
Actually, your illustustration of different people valuing different things is the perfect argument FOR government to engage in things like space exploration.
If we all waited for the dust to settle over whether we should have a highway between points X and Y, or for sewage service to be provided in the *whole town, or any number of other things, the progress of our society would slow to a crawl.
A principle function of govt is to provide infrastructure that benefits the growth of society... even when the majority of society doesn't see that infrastructure as worthwhile.
And as to the foolishly simple explanation, H.L. Mekcken is quoted to have said, "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct, plausible, and wrong".
since we're apparently tossing about platitudes, think Occam's Razor
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best solution"
Why would I say "that obviously isn't working"? Because the post I responded to posited that the problem with universal health care was that it didn't give people a chance to take care of societal ills (literally and figuratively). We have never had universal care yet we do have healthcare problems- and not just overpricing. Therefore these imaginary good samaritans have not taken care of the problems. Regarding overpricing of what we do have, I have to disagree. How many people are *now given insurance by charities? There is currently no disincentive to do so and the number is small enough that I can't even find a statistic on it. I'm pretty sure if it was in anyway significant the charity providers (churches?) would be telling everybody who listen about it. So why should we think that the "generosity of Americans" will contribute more and fill gaps in the future that they obviously don't fill now ? Regarding socialism... get over it. Our society is rife with "socialism" that people like to ignore. Fire departments? socialism parks and roads? socialism weather broadcasts? socialism clean water programs? socialism To be more than a despotism any modern government needs to have some blend of socialist leaning programs.
violent bitch thug ?
Did you actually expect anybody to take you seriously?
-1 already
lol
This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil. They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now.
As long as we have had our current system people have had the chance to be "warm and loving to those less fortunate".
That obviously isn't working.
Universal access to healthcare is a benefit to society, not just to those who didn't have that access prior to some sort of universal plan.
As such, if it's not being provided (ie: by those looking to have the warm fuzzies about helping their fellow man ) then government should ensure that it is somehow provided.
Just like they build roads, maintain a military, or provide any of a number of things for the benefit of their people.
As someone who is relatively healthy, I'd really rather not call paying for people with genetic conditions 'insurance', as it isn't.
The important bit, to me anyways, isn't discrimination against somebody who *has a inherited illnesss... it's discrimination based on a genetic predisposition.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the Total Loss Lubrication System pioneered by the british motorcycle industry.
OneLink uses the phone line running into your house and connects to your existing phone jack--no phone service is necessary (Speakeasy pays the phone company for this).
http://www.speakeasy.net/home/onelink/
How is this "no phone service" ?
You still have to have a line to your abode with a live connection to the telco...
and the telco is still collecting money for allowing that line to carry traffic.
"Phone service" is still required, it's just not voice and you're paying the ISP for it rather than the telco.
I had the same sort of deal with Covad years ago.
Trying to wrest residential customers from cable rivals, SBC will launch TV over fiber by late next year, the regional telecom said today. http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3434 931
SBC is pushing hard for fiber.
If they can finish what PacHell was trying to do, they'll be able to stream IPTV, internet, and voice.
Trucks and other gas powered will always be needed, expecially for rural and long distance driving.
A Prius will do 600+ miles on a tank.
How far will your car go?
You have the choice of watching Farenheit 9/11 or this anti-kerry documentary
..oh... you're NOT going to pay for me to see it?
I have the choice?
goody goody goody
now send me $9 so I can go see F9/11
I guess I don't really have the same choice then do I?
Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't? Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical?
Not hypocritcal at all.
F 9/11 was shown in movie theatres.
This is going to be blasted out to %25 of US TVs during prime time.
If you can't see the difference you aren't looking at the issue honestly.
Would it be OK if Sinclair was a liberal group and was going to air F 9/11?
And this is worse than anti-Bush / pro-Kerry documentaries being put on TV by PBS, CBS, Sundance, etc. how?
mmmm... maybe it's different in that Sinclair is billing this as "news" and pushing it out just before the election commercial free in prime-time to stations that reach 25% of American households?
Would you be OK with this if they were planning on doing the same thing with F9/11 instead?
When someone wants to bash Bush, the Democrats hail it as free speech, but when someone wants to bash Kerry, like this documentary or the swift boat book, they immediately call for censorship.
There is a difference between something that is created solely to be a hit peice on somebody, and a news story that is less than flattering to somebody.
I realize that can be sujective as you get towards the middle, but Stolen Honor and F9/11 are both clearly hit peices.