The real question is not whether you or I, or the next guy thinks killing Osama will accomplish anything. It is whether the general public will think so.
The US culture has, for the past few decades, evolved to expect the "Good Guys Always Win" ending. It has been hammered into our heads by practically every movie, TV series, and book targeted for the mainstream audience. You and I may know perfectly well that the world is a complex inter-related network of challenging problems, but for the average Joe there is only a bad guy that needs to be defeated, and a world/girl that needs to be saved. Such a view may be depressing for those of us that can see through the illusion, but that does not change the fact that a huge section of the US society thinks this way.
Killing Osama simply plays right into this mentality; Yet again the US is the stereotypical "Good Guy" that killed the "Big Evil Villain." There was then a big party with a ton of booze and women, and now the credits are rolling, and everyone is getting up to leave the theater. This is a huge milestone not in terms of world events, but in the minds of millions of people in the US that wanted nothing more than to go to Afghanistan and kick one guy in the face.
So again, you can analyze the hell out of the problems of the world. You can create model after model and scenario after scenario for what will happen in all the various organizations. You can point out that the terrorists are still terrorists. However, you can not ignore how all of these things will sail straight over the heads of a good 95% of the population. Given that unfortunately these are the people that decide the elections, I will say that damn right this changed something.
I think the question you should be asking is not "what is science" but "what is faith?" You seem to be assigning a slew of negative connotations to the word, just because it is used by religions to justify their belief structure; a structure you clearly do not like. Clearly you would prefer to interpret it in the most negative fashion, instead of stepping back to consider the argument being made from a neutral point of view.
Faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Whether science delivers or not is not the matter being discussed. In fact, it is because science delivers that we are so ready to place our trust in it. Because you have faith in the scientific method, and the results it generates, you go online and argue that science is so much better than religion, and for that very same reason you are voted +5 Insightful.
The argument being made is that many if not most of the people that profess to understand something because of science do not actually understand what they are claiming, they just understand that someone they trust says it is so. Yes, the reason they trust that person is because he or she is a scientist and has likely understood the matter in question. Still, that does not change the fact that most people simply do trust science just because.
Yes, you could open up the books, read everything about anything, conduct countless experiments to verify the current understanding, but there is simply not enough time for anyone to do all this for every subject ever. Because of this, science too comes down to simple trust. You trust that someone that makes a claim has really tested it fully, and that other specialists will verify that claim. You trust that the scope of our understanding of the matter in question is sufficient to answer the questions being asked. You trust that the scientific method is enough to overcome the challenges of human nature, and provide a single concise answer. You trust that science is demonstrable, repeatable, and self-correcting, because it has show itself to be all of those things.
Honestly, if that's not a "complete trust or confidence in someone or something," then I really have no clue what is.
My grandmother uses Skype. She has not yet figured out that an email address will not work if you misspell it. After repeated lessons. That's about as complete a noob as you can find. What more, she is most certainly not a unique example in this respect.
Skype is one of the most popular mainstream online communication systems out there. The fact that they are doing something like this means the problem is probably serious enough that they had no other option.
Some black guys are also presidents of the US, however that seems to not be the norm for that genetic and social group. Sure, you can find examples of really smart people that are able to communicate, but I assure you those are the exception and not the norm.
What more, those people probably have invested a significant amount of time using the full extent of their intellect to figure out how to explain the material in question. I mean if you are a genius, this should not be that much of a challenge. That said, the GP's point still remains, if you are significantly smarter than the average, and do not take the time to carefully consider how to explain a concept you may completely lose your audience simply because you consider amazingly complex concepts to be absolutely trivial.
Oh the other hand, because you find things so trivial if you DO put in the extra time, your explanations will be all that much more concise and clear.
There is a common myth that it is either breadth or depth of knowledge, and that your brain could not hope to do both. I find the opposite is true. As long as you take the time to actually learn a topic in depth the breadth that the Internet gives you only helps you excel in your chosen field by applying knowledge from other fields. The only negative claim I do give weight to is the difficulty focusing; while too much knowledge is not a bad thing, the rate at which it comes needs special efforts to ensure you are not sacrificing your ability to focus when you need to. This is why I suggest meditation if you spend your entire life online.
I feel that I disagree with you. I, and most people I know, stopped downloading everything except the songs we might listen to once and forget the instant you could just buy MP3s in a web store. We stopped downloading all but the most questionable games the instant you could log into Steam and install on as many computers as you need to. Why do you feel movies would be different?
I imagine these new designs will be an entirely different beast from the Concorde. For one, new advances in material sciences are likely to allow such planes to fly much higher than the Concorde could, eliminating many of the common complaints. Second, advances in engine technology will make operating such flights significantly cheaper per person, to the point where the time saving would be worth the gas premium.
Now imagine Russia under the rule of the people that actually won the revolution, had Stalin not weaseled his way into leadership. That would have been a very different affair, especially considering how much experience those people would have had.
That looks like a reasonably deep and detailed strategic map? Do people perhaps think that directing an entire national army to affect another nation is a simple matter? I would probably make that hierarchical, so not everything is quite so cluttered, but the breadth of information is what I would expect from something this important. Basically, they need to work on the presentation. Once that is out of the way, the rest is pretty reasonable.
I think slimjim already covered most of your post, but I wanted to add my bit too. No one is discounting a group of people based on the news channel they watch. Instead, people are discounting a group of people based on the beliefs they hold, since those beliefs are rooted in lies, and misinformation. The reason you see people blaming Fox News is because Fox is most often the source of said misinformation.
So the thought process goes: "Person A believes Points X. Points X is based entirely on inaccurate data N, and is therefore itself inaccurate. Data N (And most likely Point X) was first reported by Fox news. Ergo, Person A is wrong because they watch (and believe) Fox news. Further, this statement applies to a significant number of vocal people that share the belief in point X, therefore, people that watch Fox News are generally working off incorrect information."
Instead of explaining the logic step-by-step like I just did, most find it simpler to just say, "Person A watches Fox news, and is therefore wrong." It's an oversimplification, so you just need to follow it backwards to understand what they are really trying to say. After all, plenty of reasonable people watch Fox News too; the question is how many blindly believe it.
For the spending bill; do you believe that these so called pet projects implement themselves? Each one creates some jobs, while also improving the country in some way. Creating jobs is not as simple as waving a magic legislative wand, and wishing really hard for more jobs to appear. Obama has to balance not only the needs of the citizens, but also the corporations, the politicians, the special interest groups, and many other political players. This is a fact of Washington; trying to ignore any of the above will result in your legislation dying in committee, before it even makes it to the House or Senate, much less the President.
About health care, we will not be providing full service for at least 4 more years. The bill that passed is just setting the groundwork for that system. Again, the thing to realize is that you are working to change a gigantic system, and that will take a lot of time. In a better world, the health care bill should have passed congress, with bi-partisan support, within a few months, and left the various branches of government with a course of action for the next four years. Instead, the Republicans decided to draw it out into a long, and ultimately futile battle, decimating their public image in the process.
As for pre-existing conditions. Yes, they do force everyone to pay for it. That's sort of the idea. The fact is that people with pre-existing conditions could not afford to pay for it separately; it would simply not be economically possible. As such, not enforcing a mandate means that you have an entire segment of citizens in your country denied the chance to live a healthy life. So, the mandate, quite simply, promotes general welfare. At this point you do not have to be a constitutional scholar to see the connection.
Paying for it too is not as simple as it sounds. Firstly, the bill already does balance a good chunk of its costs. The remaining holes need to be resolved using standard budget tools. To pay for a project you need to know how much it will cost. To do that you need to get the bill into place, understand how it is affecting the nation, and plan for its long term sustainability. However, trying to work a pending bill into the existing budget will simply not work; the US already has a lot of money committed to a whole lot of projects, and scrapping them based on a bill that might pass is not going to fly with the stakeholders of those projects. Just saying, "Well, the health care overhaul might need this money will not fly." By contrast it is a lot easier to say, "The new health care system is short $x billion dollars. These projects are not critical, and can make up the shortfall." This is called balancing the budget, at it is done knowing the predicted expenditures based on existing items, not based on legislation that
If the imports result in enough money to actually cause Canada any problems, it is highly unlikely that the EU has the capacity to fill that demand. A market like this isn't something you can expand at a day's notice.
Once it's in your browser, it's just a bunch of well formed data. These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data, even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.
If they really feel that strongly about a topic, they could try to obfuscate the data somehow, to make it more difficult to write such an extension. This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.
That sentence does not actually forbid using census data for other purposes. All it does is say that a census must be conducted every 10 years, and that the method for conducting the census shall follow the laws of the land. It goes on to spell out how that data will be used to determine the number of representatives a state is allocated. However, there is no clause in the constitution that says, "The aforementioned cases encompass all of the uses of the US census data." As such, I invite you to point out specifically what part would you like to change to allow such use of data, since I cannot find a part that disallows it.
When it comes to law, if it is not explicitly stated, there is always some wiggle room.
As someone that follows politics very closely I can state with near 100% confidence that 99% of the US population doesn't have the slightest clue what's in the bill, how it affects them, the amount of work it took to get it through all of the hurdles set up by both parties, and how much is left to be done. At best, these people can regurgitate the common, biased talking points from their favorite flavor of media, however, none of these factions are remotely interested in explaining what is in the bill. I especially like the constant calls from right wing politicians, who have been trying every procedural trick in the book to not contribute to the bill for the past year, suddenly want to scrap the bill and start over, as if they don't know that such an act would quite literally stop any medical reform in its tracks for the next decade. Unfortunately, such tactics work well on the uninformed that do not understand how the US political system works, so it gets the right a few extra brownie points which they hope to cash in come November.
Those few that are familiar with the bill understand that it is a good first step on a very long road that will likely span the next few decades. Is it a perfect spring breeze, filled with love and hope and freshly baked apple pie? Certainly not. It is closer to a dirty gutter, with political deals and potentially risky loop-holes and a novel worth of legal speech; but even a dirty gutter is better than the knee deep sewer the US was in before it passed, so it's a step in the right direction.
According to most sources I could find on the topic the average ER cost in the US is in the range from $1000 to $2000 a visit (These numbers are before insurance. Post insurance you would pay $300-$600) for problems that do no require a hospital stay. This is the cost of obtaining the service of a single ER trained doctor for a problem that could probably be addressed by a your family doctor. As soon as your problems require tests, analysis, hospital stays, and god forbid, complex medical procedures the cost can rise to the tune of $5000 a day and more.
By contrast, a normal visit to a family doctor costs in the range from $150 to $300 per visit (Again, before insurance), which covers the actual consultation, and possibly a follow on test. Again, the cost grows if you need more specialized tests, but significantly slower than it would in the ER.
Incidentally, if consistent, bi-annual visits (Once for a physical, and once to address a problem) to the doctor can prevent a single basic ER visit every 3 years, you come out ahead financially. By contrast, if such doctors visits can prevent even one major hospitalization you will be well ahead for the rest of your life. As such, saying that preventative care is more expensive is simply not factually accurate, as the numbers most certainly do not agree with you.
It is statements like this, trolling or not, that have people convinced that health care reform is a huge socialist takeover. If it is trolling, keep it to tech/entertainment, at least it's funny to see people riled up there; Politics already has plenty of trolling from the mainstream. If on the other hand you really believe what you said, then I would seriously suggest you look up the numbers in a bit more detail before making unfounded statements.
The problems in Canada all stem from just one key area. The sprawling bureaucracy second to none in the world. Somewhere, at some point, some sub-committee to a sub-committee in charge of helping the team tasked with creating the process that is used to determine the eligibility criteria for immigration decided that the poor need more help becoming Canadian citizens.
The system in the article seems to require that you know all of your friends first, so it would be about as useful as a newsgroup or forum. It's an interesting concept, but the proposed implementation would be a step back in internet social evolution.
Social networks do exactly what their name suggests; aggregate your social interaction into a single location. This is actually quite a useful service for most people, as it saves them the hassle of keeping track of all of this information themselves. It also keeps all of their friends updated, which is easier than calling everyone up to update them on events they may (or may not) care about. Further, social networks provide useful services based on the information they collect and index; Facebook friend suggestions are a perfect example, while the global search feature is another. These type of features would simply not work (Or at least not nearly as efficiently) on a distributed platform such as the one being proposed. As such, I'm going to go on an even further limb than the GP, and say that not only do most people not care, they would also be against such a service, as it would defeat the usefulness of a social network.
There are of course privacy concerns, but such is the price you pay for using resources (servers, processing time, development time) of a third party. Often they will simply index everything they know about you, and use that data to sell you ads, while some may have more nefarious goals. That is just more reasons to be extra vigilant about the info you give out online. The solution is simple, and has been discussed at length. If you don't want someone to know what you're doing online either don't do it, or learn enough about the internets to cover your tracks.
In summary, this is a push by the older generation, stuck in the traditions of their age, assuming they still understand the values and morals of the modern internet society. Unfortunately for them, the younger privacy conscious individuals have already adapted to the nature of the existing system, and would simply be inconvenienced by having to convince all of their friends to switch. Of course, those that do not care/understand anything about privacy would not only skip the proposed system out of principle, but would also find it burdensome and un-intuitive.
For full disclosure. I am in fact Russian, and as such am quite familiar with what you mean. I do think Russia is at, or at least near the bottom of the slope, but I as I mentioned, there is some light. However, Russia is inherently tied to the stability of the Chinese and the European markets, which are in turn very closely tied to the US. Right now everyone is going through hard times, and if even one of these markets is screwed, than the others would follow like dominoes.
As for the western world, it's well past due for a major paradigm shift, which are wont to happen every few hundred years. As you pointed out, the current system has simply lived its course, though I disagree that the western world thinks itself strong and virile. Most educated people know that it can't hold out much longer. The brainwashed masses are what need to change, and yes, the wolves are closing in. Quite fast I might add.
Very well said, though I stick to my outlandish exaggerations:). A few points I disagree on if we are being serious though. While the Tea Party is a very minor section of US politics, their poll numbers are surprisingly high. Incidentally, when you remove the ultra vocal chapters there are actually some pretty good traditional Conservative ideas buried deep in there. The problem, I think, is that the ultra vocal branches are the ones most likely to field candidates in some of the deep red states, and the majority of that public will just vote blindly without realizing who exactly they are voting for. Then, as we have recently seen, even a single senator can create problems in that house. On the other hand, this could work out well for getting a bit of fresh blood into the system, either by splitting the vote, or by getting Tea Party candidates into office. Anything that breaks a dynasty is to be commended.
Regarding for my stance on bank reform, I should clarify that I mean bank reform that would actually include meaningful change to the system. Of course that would require much more government involvement in banks; an issue for much of the older generation in the south, who had it hammered into their heads that government regulation is the very essence of Communism. As such, while people are certainly for regulations, the only things I could see passing the public arena (Especially after the spin doctors are done with it) are a weak slap on the wrists that would in my view almost ensure another major crisis within one or two decades. If we get to that point, I certainly hope that the current generation will have much to say about the matter.
As long as the public supports the legislators that so obviously oppose these reforms, they are effectively against reforms, even if they may approve of them in principle. Perhaps if move younger voters came out in Republican bastions things may be different, but I hold to my statement that a sizable portion would simply not support reforms to the level that needs to happen.
Similarly when it comes to basic health care, I should mention that I consider preventative care to be a basic right in a nation at the forefront of health research. Obviously I am not suggesting that you would need to treat everyone like a millionaire, but everyone should have access to a general doctor when they need one, without any unreasonable delay, or unreasonable out of pocket cost. A public option is really the only reasonable way to accomplish this at a reasonable cost (Along with significant reduction in red tape for medical facilities). The thing they are trying to pass in lieu of that will most likely result in one company, or a small conglomerate of companies monopolizing the national market, netting somewhat reduced premiums, and very high profits for the entities involved. I'm not sure how the tax credits will work, but those tax credits do not change the fact that there would still be a very significant movement of money from the public to corporations. Again, this would not survive more than a few decades, but those decades would not be too pleasant.
I will admit that I added in the high speed rail thing as a literary device more than anything else. It seemed like a good way to tie the conversation to the topic without getting too political (Too late now?). In fact I'm not too familiar with the debate, since it is a bit more local than I care to delve as I don't even live in the country. Based on what you said, I do hope it will be built eventually. The sooner the better, as it would certainly help by getting some people working, but again, for me the jobless rate is just a statistic, and the rail topic is a black box.
Finally, about being screwed. I see it like this: The upcoming election will most likely decide the course of the next decade or two. If the Republican strategy of "No! No! No! No! No! No!" works, and worse, becomes the norm, then we will have a very painful couple of decades waiting for the current generation of politicians to
Why of course Mr. AC. There is more available should you chose to read it, both from me, and countless actual specialists in the area, which is where I get my information. I do so wish that what I said was in fact hyperbole, it would let me sleep a lot better at night. Unfortunately anyone that follows US and World news these days will agree with much of my post, and that is what makes me so uncomfortable.
Some interesting points. Europe is quite certainly in a lot of trouble, due in no small part to Russia, or more specifically the former Soviet Union nations. I am curious whether their system can work in any sort of long term. At least they try to mix things up a bit more than the US, so a few points for that. A few of the EU nations seem to be aware of the troubles brewing, and we shall see if they can respond in time, or if they will fall into the same traps that are strangling the US.
For Russia the issue is that they have already fallen so far that it is hard to imagine them going down much further. Even now they are significantly worse off than the US. The one thing going for them is that they have had a very strong leader in charge for a while. If the leadership can get the country back on track, and then loosen the reigns there may be hope. Otherwise we may just see the past century play itself out again.
So yes, Europe and Russia are pretty damn screwed too, though I will admit that there are still a few glimmers of hope across the pond.
Looking at China, I don't see how that system could survive. The old revolutionary leaders are getting to the age where they might start dying off any day now, and if the power games that will inevitably follow do not rip the country to shreds I will be very amazed.
I really know next to nothing about India, so I'll trust your judgement there.
Most interesting is that the fate of these regions is inevitably linked to the fate of the US. If that system collapses then all hell will break loose. If it survives, then I'm sure they will survive too, and prosper in the end.
And for the US, I'll grant that it's not completely hopeless. That said, changes need to start happening soon, and they need start happening fast. Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated. In that case we will likely see the Democrats lose any semblance of respect in the eyes of the voters, followed by a return to the good, new Republican values that created the crisis in the first place (Oh what I wouldn't do to see traditional Republican values back in place). At that point I'm pretty sure even God would shrug and get the popcorn.
So despite the tone of my original message you are correct, the US is not in as much trouble as some other regions of the world. In fact, they have a very good chance of getting out of the hole created by the antiquated systems. However, that needs swift and decisive action, which is exactly what the US system is designed to prevent. I am holding out in the hope that Obama can get his act and his party together. If not... Well, I'll be with that God fellow reaching for the popcorn, since there's won't be many places in the world with viable alternatives.
Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary. You have a sizable population against bank reform, even more against providing basic health care, insane unemployment, an entity composed of a slew of political parties too busy trying to resolve internal conflicts to notice the huge problems, and another political party so spoiled by a decade of near absolute power and focused on the short term that they do not see the huge wall as the nation hurls towards it like... Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.
So no, the US is not in trouble. Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed
And yes, there are ads, but ads do not result in reduced profits, so it is free financially. Or you might have TiVo, in which case it's not any different from watching torrents in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice find there, thanks.
The real question is not whether you or I, or the next guy thinks killing Osama will accomplish anything. It is whether the general public will think so.
The US culture has, for the past few decades, evolved to expect the "Good Guys Always Win" ending. It has been hammered into our heads by practically every movie, TV series, and book targeted for the mainstream audience. You and I may know perfectly well that the world is a complex inter-related network of challenging problems, but for the average Joe there is only a bad guy that needs to be defeated, and a world/girl that needs to be saved. Such a view may be depressing for those of us that can see through the illusion, but that does not change the fact that a huge section of the US society thinks this way.
Killing Osama simply plays right into this mentality; Yet again the US is the stereotypical "Good Guy" that killed the "Big Evil Villain." There was then a big party with a ton of booze and women, and now the credits are rolling, and everyone is getting up to leave the theater. This is a huge milestone not in terms of world events, but in the minds of millions of people in the US that wanted nothing more than to go to Afghanistan and kick one guy in the face.
So again, you can analyze the hell out of the problems of the world. You can create model after model and scenario after scenario for what will happen in all the various organizations. You can point out that the terrorists are still terrorists. However, you can not ignore how all of these things will sail straight over the heads of a good 95% of the population. Given that unfortunately these are the people that decide the elections, I will say that damn right this changed something.
You mean you don't always put your name and SIN as your wireless SSID? Man, I've been doing it wrong all this time.
I think the question you should be asking is not "what is science" but "what is faith?" You seem to be assigning a slew of negative connotations to the word, just because it is used by religions to justify their belief structure; a structure you clearly do not like. Clearly you would prefer to interpret it in the most negative fashion, instead of stepping back to consider the argument being made from a neutral point of view.
Faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Whether science delivers or not is not the matter being discussed. In fact, it is because science delivers that we are so ready to place our trust in it. Because you have faith in the scientific method, and the results it generates, you go online and argue that science is so much better than religion, and for that very same reason you are voted +5 Insightful.
The argument being made is that many if not most of the people that profess to understand something because of science do not actually understand what they are claiming, they just understand that someone they trust says it is so. Yes, the reason they trust that person is because he or she is a scientist and has likely understood the matter in question. Still, that does not change the fact that most people simply do trust science just because.
Yes, you could open up the books, read everything about anything, conduct countless experiments to verify the current understanding, but there is simply not enough time for anyone to do all this for every subject ever. Because of this, science too comes down to simple trust. You trust that someone that makes a claim has really tested it fully, and that other specialists will verify that claim. You trust that the scope of our understanding of the matter in question is sufficient to answer the questions being asked. You trust that the scientific method is enough to overcome the challenges of human nature, and provide a single concise answer. You trust that science is demonstrable, repeatable, and self-correcting, because it has show itself to be all of those things.
Honestly, if that's not a "complete trust or confidence in someone or something," then I really have no clue what is.
My grandmother uses Skype. She has not yet figured out that an email address will not work if you misspell it. After repeated lessons. That's about as complete a noob as you can find. What more, she is most certainly not a unique example in this respect.
Skype is one of the most popular mainstream online communication systems out there. The fact that they are doing something like this means the problem is probably serious enough that they had no other option.
Some black guys are also presidents of the US, however that seems to not be the norm for that genetic and social group. Sure, you can find examples of really smart people that are able to communicate, but I assure you those are the exception and not the norm.
What more, those people probably have invested a significant amount of time using the full extent of their intellect to figure out how to explain the material in question. I mean if you are a genius, this should not be that much of a challenge. That said, the GP's point still remains, if you are significantly smarter than the average, and do not take the time to carefully consider how to explain a concept you may completely lose your audience simply because you consider amazingly complex concepts to be absolutely trivial.
Oh the other hand, because you find things so trivial if you DO put in the extra time, your explanations will be all that much more concise and clear.
There is a common myth that it is either breadth or depth of knowledge, and that your brain could not hope to do both. I find the opposite is true. As long as you take the time to actually learn a topic in depth the breadth that the Internet gives you only helps you excel in your chosen field by applying knowledge from other fields. The only negative claim I do give weight to is the difficulty focusing; while too much knowledge is not a bad thing, the rate at which it comes needs special efforts to ensure you are not sacrificing your ability to focus when you need to. This is why I suggest meditation if you spend your entire life online.
I feel that I disagree with you. I, and most people I know, stopped downloading everything except the songs we might listen to once and forget the instant you could just buy MP3s in a web store. We stopped downloading all but the most questionable games the instant you could log into Steam and install on as many computers as you need to. Why do you feel movies would be different?
I imagine these new designs will be an entirely different beast from the Concorde. For one, new advances in material sciences are likely to allow such planes to fly much higher than the Concorde could, eliminating many of the common complaints. Second, advances in engine technology will make operating such flights significantly cheaper per person, to the point where the time saving would be worth the gas premium.
Now imagine Russia under the rule of the people that actually won the revolution, had Stalin not weaseled his way into leadership. That would have been a very different affair, especially considering how much experience those people would have had.
That looks like a reasonably deep and detailed strategic map? Do people perhaps think that directing an entire national army to affect another nation is a simple matter? I would probably make that hierarchical, so not everything is quite so cluttered, but the breadth of information is what I would expect from something this important. Basically, they need to work on the presentation. Once that is out of the way, the rest is pretty reasonable.
I think slimjim already covered most of your post, but I wanted to add my bit too. No one is discounting a group of people based on the news channel they watch. Instead, people are discounting a group of people based on the beliefs they hold, since those beliefs are rooted in lies, and misinformation. The reason you see people blaming Fox News is because Fox is most often the source of said misinformation.
So the thought process goes: "Person A believes Points X. Points X is based entirely on inaccurate data N, and is therefore itself inaccurate. Data N (And most likely Point X) was first reported by Fox news. Ergo, Person A is wrong because they watch (and believe) Fox news. Further, this statement applies to a significant number of vocal people that share the belief in point X, therefore, people that watch Fox News are generally working off incorrect information."
Instead of explaining the logic step-by-step like I just did, most find it simpler to just say, "Person A watches Fox news, and is therefore wrong." It's an oversimplification, so you just need to follow it backwards to understand what they are really trying to say. After all, plenty of reasonable people watch Fox News too; the question is how many blindly believe it.
For the spending bill; do you believe that these so called pet projects implement themselves? Each one creates some jobs, while also improving the country in some way. Creating jobs is not as simple as waving a magic legislative wand, and wishing really hard for more jobs to appear. Obama has to balance not only the needs of the citizens, but also the corporations, the politicians, the special interest groups, and many other political players. This is a fact of Washington; trying to ignore any of the above will result in your legislation dying in committee, before it even makes it to the House or Senate, much less the President.
About health care, we will not be providing full service for at least 4 more years. The bill that passed is just setting the groundwork for that system. Again, the thing to realize is that you are working to change a gigantic system, and that will take a lot of time. In a better world, the health care bill should have passed congress, with bi-partisan support, within a few months, and left the various branches of government with a course of action for the next four years. Instead, the Republicans decided to draw it out into a long, and ultimately futile battle, decimating their public image in the process.
As for pre-existing conditions. Yes, they do force everyone to pay for it. That's sort of the idea. The fact is that people with pre-existing conditions could not afford to pay for it separately; it would simply not be economically possible. As such, not enforcing a mandate means that you have an entire segment of citizens in your country denied the chance to live a healthy life. So, the mandate, quite simply, promotes general welfare. At this point you do not have to be a constitutional scholar to see the connection.
Paying for it too is not as simple as it sounds. Firstly, the bill already does balance a good chunk of its costs. The remaining holes need to be resolved using standard budget tools. To pay for a project you need to know how much it will cost. To do that you need to get the bill into place, understand how it is affecting the nation, and plan for its long term sustainability. However, trying to work a pending bill into the existing budget will simply not work; the US already has a lot of money committed to a whole lot of projects, and scrapping them based on a bill that might pass is not going to fly with the stakeholders of those projects. Just saying, "Well, the health care overhaul might need this money will not fly." By contrast it is a lot easier to say, "The new health care system is short $x billion dollars. These projects are not critical, and can make up the shortfall." This is called balancing the budget, at it is done knowing the predicted expenditures based on existing items, not based on legislation that
If the imports result in enough money to actually cause Canada any problems, it is highly unlikely that the EU has the capacity to fill that demand. A market like this isn't something you can expand at a day's notice.
Once it's in your browser, it's just a bunch of well formed data. These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data, even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.
If they really feel that strongly about a topic, they could try to obfuscate the data somehow, to make it more difficult to write such an extension. This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.
That sentence does not actually forbid using census data for other purposes. All it does is say that a census must be conducted every 10 years, and that the method for conducting the census shall follow the laws of the land. It goes on to spell out how that data will be used to determine the number of representatives a state is allocated. However, there is no clause in the constitution that says, "The aforementioned cases encompass all of the uses of the US census data." As such, I invite you to point out specifically what part would you like to change to allow such use of data, since I cannot find a part that disallows it.
When it comes to law, if it is not explicitly stated, there is always some wiggle room.
As someone that follows politics very closely I can state with near 100% confidence that 99% of the US population doesn't have the slightest clue what's in the bill, how it affects them, the amount of work it took to get it through all of the hurdles set up by both parties, and how much is left to be done. At best, these people can regurgitate the common, biased talking points from their favorite flavor of media, however, none of these factions are remotely interested in explaining what is in the bill. I especially like the constant calls from right wing politicians, who have been trying every procedural trick in the book to not contribute to the bill for the past year, suddenly want to scrap the bill and start over, as if they don't know that such an act would quite literally stop any medical reform in its tracks for the next decade. Unfortunately, such tactics work well on the uninformed that do not understand how the US political system works, so it gets the right a few extra brownie points which they hope to cash in come November.
Those few that are familiar with the bill understand that it is a good first step on a very long road that will likely span the next few decades. Is it a perfect spring breeze, filled with love and hope and freshly baked apple pie? Certainly not. It is closer to a dirty gutter, with political deals and potentially risky loop-holes and a novel worth of legal speech; but even a dirty gutter is better than the knee deep sewer the US was in before it passed, so it's a step in the right direction.
According to most sources I could find on the topic the average ER cost in the US is in the range from $1000 to $2000 a visit (These numbers are before insurance. Post insurance you would pay $300-$600) for problems that do no require a hospital stay. This is the cost of obtaining the service of a single ER trained doctor for a problem that could probably be addressed by a your family doctor. As soon as your problems require tests, analysis, hospital stays, and god forbid, complex medical procedures the cost can rise to the tune of $5000 a day and more.
By contrast, a normal visit to a family doctor costs in the range from $150 to $300 per visit (Again, before insurance), which covers the actual consultation, and possibly a follow on test. Again, the cost grows if you need more specialized tests, but significantly slower than it would in the ER.
Incidentally, if consistent, bi-annual visits (Once for a physical, and once to address a problem) to the doctor can prevent a single basic ER visit every 3 years, you come out ahead financially. By contrast, if such doctors visits can prevent even one major hospitalization you will be well ahead for the rest of your life. As such, saying that preventative care is more expensive is simply not factually accurate, as the numbers most certainly do not agree with you.
It is statements like this, trolling or not, that have people convinced that health care reform is a huge socialist takeover. If it is trolling, keep it to tech/entertainment, at least it's funny to see people riled up there; Politics already has plenty of trolling from the mainstream. If on the other hand you really believe what you said, then I would seriously suggest you look up the numbers in a bit more detail before making unfounded statements.
The problems in Canada all stem from just one key area. The sprawling bureaucracy second to none in the world. Somewhere, at some point, some sub-committee to a sub-committee in charge of helping the team tasked with creating the process that is used to determine the eligibility criteria for immigration decided that the poor need more help becoming Canadian citizens.
The system in the article seems to require that you know all of your friends first, so it would be about as useful as a newsgroup or forum. It's an interesting concept, but the proposed implementation would be a step back in internet social evolution.
Social networks do exactly what their name suggests; aggregate your social interaction into a single location. This is actually quite a useful service for most people, as it saves them the hassle of keeping track of all of this information themselves. It also keeps all of their friends updated, which is easier than calling everyone up to update them on events they may (or may not) care about. Further, social networks provide useful services based on the information they collect and index; Facebook friend suggestions are a perfect example, while the global search feature is another. These type of features would simply not work (Or at least not nearly as efficiently) on a distributed platform such as the one being proposed. As such, I'm going to go on an even further limb than the GP, and say that not only do most people not care, they would also be against such a service, as it would defeat the usefulness of a social network.
There are of course privacy concerns, but such is the price you pay for using resources (servers, processing time, development time) of a third party. Often they will simply index everything they know about you, and use that data to sell you ads, while some may have more nefarious goals. That is just more reasons to be extra vigilant about the info you give out online. The solution is simple, and has been discussed at length. If you don't want someone to know what you're doing online either don't do it, or learn enough about the internets to cover your tracks.
In summary, this is a push by the older generation, stuck in the traditions of their age, assuming they still understand the values and morals of the modern internet society. Unfortunately for them, the younger privacy conscious individuals have already adapted to the nature of the existing system, and would simply be inconvenienced by having to convince all of their friends to switch. Of course, those that do not care/understand anything about privacy would not only skip the proposed system out of principle, but would also find it burdensome and un-intuitive.
For full disclosure. I am in fact Russian, and as such am quite familiar with what you mean. I do think Russia is at, or at least near the bottom of the slope, but I as I mentioned, there is some light. However, Russia is inherently tied to the stability of the Chinese and the European markets, which are in turn very closely tied to the US. Right now everyone is going through hard times, and if even one of these markets is screwed, than the others would follow like dominoes.
As for the western world, it's well past due for a major paradigm shift, which are wont to happen every few hundred years. As you pointed out, the current system has simply lived its course, though I disagree that the western world thinks itself strong and virile. Most educated people know that it can't hold out much longer. The brainwashed masses are what need to change, and yes, the wolves are closing in. Quite fast I might add.
Very well said, though I stick to my outlandish exaggerations :). A few points I disagree on if we are being serious though. While the Tea Party is a very minor section of US politics, their poll numbers are surprisingly high. Incidentally, when you remove the ultra vocal chapters there are actually some pretty good traditional Conservative ideas buried deep in there. The problem, I think, is that the ultra vocal branches are the ones most likely to field candidates in some of the deep red states, and the majority of that public will just vote blindly without realizing who exactly they are voting for. Then, as we have recently seen, even a single senator can create problems in that house. On the other hand, this could work out well for getting a bit of fresh blood into the system, either by splitting the vote, or by getting Tea Party candidates into office. Anything that breaks a dynasty is to be commended.
Regarding for my stance on bank reform, I should clarify that I mean bank reform that would actually include meaningful change to the system. Of course that would require much more government involvement in banks; an issue for much of the older generation in the south, who had it hammered into their heads that government regulation is the very essence of Communism. As such, while people are certainly for regulations, the only things I could see passing the public arena (Especially after the spin doctors are done with it) are a weak slap on the wrists that would in my view almost ensure another major crisis within one or two decades. If we get to that point, I certainly hope that the current generation will have much to say about the matter.
As long as the public supports the legislators that so obviously oppose these reforms, they are effectively against reforms, even if they may approve of them in principle. Perhaps if move younger voters came out in Republican bastions things may be different, but I hold to my statement that a sizable portion would simply not support reforms to the level that needs to happen.
Similarly when it comes to basic health care, I should mention that I consider preventative care to be a basic right in a nation at the forefront of health research. Obviously I am not suggesting that you would need to treat everyone like a millionaire, but everyone should have access to a general doctor when they need one, without any unreasonable delay, or unreasonable out of pocket cost. A public option is really the only reasonable way to accomplish this at a reasonable cost (Along with significant reduction in red tape for medical facilities). The thing they are trying to pass in lieu of that will most likely result in one company, or a small conglomerate of companies monopolizing the national market, netting somewhat reduced premiums, and very high profits for the entities involved. I'm not sure how the tax credits will work, but those tax credits do not change the fact that there would still be a very significant movement of money from the public to corporations. Again, this would not survive more than a few decades, but those decades would not be too pleasant.
I will admit that I added in the high speed rail thing as a literary device more than anything else. It seemed like a good way to tie the conversation to the topic without getting too political (Too late now?). In fact I'm not too familiar with the debate, since it is a bit more local than I care to delve as I don't even live in the country. Based on what you said, I do hope it will be built eventually. The sooner the better, as it would certainly help by getting some people working, but again, for me the jobless rate is just a statistic, and the rail topic is a black box.
Finally, about being screwed. I see it like this: The upcoming election will most likely decide the course of the next decade or two. If the Republican strategy of "No! No! No! No! No! No!" works, and worse, becomes the norm, then we will have a very painful couple of decades waiting for the current generation of politicians to
Why of course Mr. AC. There is more available should you chose to read it, both from me, and countless actual specialists in the area, which is where I get my information. I do so wish that what I said was in fact hyperbole, it would let me sleep a lot better at night. Unfortunately anyone that follows US and World news these days will agree with much of my post, and that is what makes me so uncomfortable.
Some interesting points. Europe is quite certainly in a lot of trouble, due in no small part to Russia, or more specifically the former Soviet Union nations. I am curious whether their system can work in any sort of long term. At least they try to mix things up a bit more than the US, so a few points for that. A few of the EU nations seem to be aware of the troubles brewing, and we shall see if they can respond in time, or if they will fall into the same traps that are strangling the US.
For Russia the issue is that they have already fallen so far that it is hard to imagine them going down much further. Even now they are significantly worse off than the US. The one thing going for them is that they have had a very strong leader in charge for a while. If the leadership can get the country back on track, and then loosen the reigns there may be hope. Otherwise we may just see the past century play itself out again.
So yes, Europe and Russia are pretty damn screwed too, though I will admit that there are still a few glimmers of hope across the pond.
Looking at China, I don't see how that system could survive. The old revolutionary leaders are getting to the age where they might start dying off any day now, and if the power games that will inevitably follow do not rip the country to shreds I will be very amazed.
I really know next to nothing about India, so I'll trust your judgement there.
Most interesting is that the fate of these regions is inevitably linked to the fate of the US. If that system collapses then all hell will break loose. If it survives, then I'm sure they will survive too, and prosper in the end.
And for the US, I'll grant that it's not completely hopeless. That said, changes need to start happening soon, and they need start happening fast. Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated. In that case we will likely see the Democrats lose any semblance of respect in the eyes of the voters, followed by a return to the good, new Republican values that created the crisis in the first place (Oh what I wouldn't do to see traditional Republican values back in place). At that point I'm pretty sure even God would shrug and get the popcorn.
So despite the tone of my original message you are correct, the US is not in as much trouble as some other regions of the world. In fact, they have a very good chance of getting out of the hole created by the antiquated systems. However, that needs swift and decisive action, which is exactly what the US system is designed to prevent. I am holding out in the hope that Obama can get his act and his party together. If not... Well, I'll be with that God fellow reaching for the popcorn, since there's won't be many places in the world with viable alternatives.
Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary. You have a sizable population against bank reform, even more against providing basic health care, insane unemployment, an entity composed of a slew of political parties too busy trying to resolve internal conflicts to notice the huge problems, and another political party so spoiled by a decade of near absolute power and focused on the short term that they do not see the huge wall as the nation hurls towards it like... Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.
So no, the US is not in trouble. Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed
Watching it on the TV?
And yes, there are ads, but ads do not result in reduced profits, so it is free financially. Or you might have TiVo, in which case it's not any different from watching torrents in the first place.