For what it's worth, I totally agree. The question becomes, "whose irrationality is best." I chose not to raise that point in my post because it could distract from the philosophical dilemma, which I think remains intact even if you concede that no one is truly wise.
This is a dilemma that is really goes to the heart of the philosophy of government. If the majority is irrational, is it better to give them self-determination and accept they will make frequent bad decision, or have the enlightened few rule them and impose better-informed decisions upon them?
Hint: there is no correct answer. I am not an historian but as far as I know this debate between a pure democracy and some form of republic goes back to Rome and Greece.
What is kind of weird is that the two major parties in America have developed into philosophies that are kind of opposite their names: the Democrats favor the paternalistic nanny state governed by the enlightened few (what I would call a "republic"), and the Republicans favor the ignorant mob ("democracy").
As an aside, when America was a young nation many of her leaders advocated public education as a way to narrow the gap between the elite and the general population. That does not seem to be working out real well, though.
OK, so if you follow a link in TFA and manage not to balk at an even more inflammatory headline, you get to Mr. Worstall's claim that http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/18/apples-9-8-tax-rate-entirely-mind-gargling-nonsense/">Apple paid approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively -- which doesn't really answer the question of what they paid in 2012 but does explain why a figure of 9.8% sounds unreasonable.
Indeed. I tried to RTFA but there's no help there -- it is basically just a flame against NYT by a rival journalist. Based on TFA's headline we can't really trust said journalist to analyze the alleged error with calm and rational professionalism.
My point was that the principle of searching travelers without probable cause is far more offensive than being viewed naked.
That said, there is no reason to believe it's just one pervert viewing your naked picture (or the naked picture of your kids). The scanners capture digital images which can be easily stored or transmitted in several ways, the most obvious of which is pointing a smart phone's camera at the monitor.
You know, it never hit me what a big deal this idea of "forgiving" loans is, maybe because I paid mine off and assumed others would do the same. Only a stooge would pay more than the absolute minimum toward a debt that will magically disappear in 20 years. Are we really OK with all those defaults (excuse me, "forgiveness") getting dumped on the taxpayers?
For corporations to lose business over invasive treatment would require airline passengers to give a damn, in a financially significant sense. Although I have greatly curtailed my air travel since the naked scanners were rolled out (I've only flown once in the past 3 years and that was a family emergency) the flying public, as far as I can tell, is more upset about baggage fees than they are about the government exposing them to ionizing radiation.
I thought the passenger has a right to opt out of the scanners. They let me take the pat-down, the only time I've flown since they were installed. Can't say I liked it but it is better than having them expose me to radiation whose effects on the human body have not been independently studied.
First we had mice with enhanced brain development. Now, immortality! If those two research teams ever cross-breed their lab animals it will be like Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy!
I remember reading an insightful remark, years ago, on CNN.com from some high-ranking DoD official. He said the Cold War was World War 3. He went on to say the fight against Islamic extremism is World War 4, which is more questionable (the scope and scale of the conflict is much less than any other World War).
So the U.S. has already stumbled into World Wars III and IV, and is now going for WWV! I guess WWII turned out so well for us, our leaders are eager to repeat the experience.
But hate is not a bad thing, it can be a powerful force for reform and a drive to fight that which should be fought.
When I pick up the New Testament the message I get is that hate is indeed a bad thing, and love is the superior force for reform. There is nothing that hate can do for you, for the world, for anyone, that love cannot do better.
Right wing: tending toward fascism. Left wing: tending toward socialism. Since both ideologies are dedicated to crushing personal freedom it is easy to confuse the two. It's *how* they want to crush your freedom that distinguishes them.
I believe the point of organic farming is to minimize the negative externalities of "conventional" (I would say "industrial") farming, such as water pollution. If you have to plant 34% more acres to avoid poisoning a major river, I and many others would call that a win.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. It's probably just posturing. Wikipedia saith that Schmuer is a publicity hound.
So what you're saying is that any study whose result disagrees with your preconceptions must be garbage.
The risk of death must be lower than the risk of taxes, though, because I pay taxes every year and I haven't died even once.
For what it's worth, I totally agree. The question becomes, "whose irrationality is best." I chose not to raise that point in my post because it could distract from the philosophical dilemma, which I think remains intact even if you concede that no one is truly wise.
This is a dilemma that is really goes to the heart of the philosophy of government. If the majority is irrational, is it better to give them self-determination and accept they will make frequent bad decision, or have the enlightened few rule them and impose better-informed decisions upon them?
Hint: there is no correct answer. I am not an historian but as far as I know this debate between a pure democracy and some form of republic goes back to Rome and Greece.
What is kind of weird is that the two major parties in America have developed into philosophies that are kind of opposite their names: the Democrats favor the paternalistic nanny state governed by the enlightened few (what I would call a "republic"), and the Republicans favor the ignorant mob ("democracy").
As an aside, when America was a young nation many of her leaders advocated public education as a way to narrow the gap between the elite and the general population. That does not seem to be working out real well, though.
If you live in the U.S., industry *is* your government in a very practical sense. They write the laws, and they choose who signs them.
OK, so if you follow a link in TFA and manage not to balk at an even more inflammatory headline, you get to Mr. Worstall's claim that http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/18/apples-9-8-tax-rate-entirely-mind-gargling-nonsense/">Apple paid approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively -- which doesn't really answer the question of what they paid in 2012 but does explain why a figure of 9.8% sounds unreasonable.
Indeed. I tried to RTFA but there's no help there -- it is basically just a flame against NYT by a rival journalist. Based on TFA's headline we can't really trust said journalist to analyze the alleged error with calm and rational professionalism.
I think what makes people feel uncomfortable is that they prefer to wear clothes in public rather than have strangers see them naked.
Even members of the nudist subculture could justifiably object to being ordered to disrobe by a government official.
Really? Perhaps you are unaware of Big Telecom's cooperation in NSA's domestic surveillance programs.
Putting a former Verizon executive in charge of customer privacy is like putting Bernie Madoff in charge of SEC compliance.
My point was that the principle of searching travelers without probable cause is far more offensive than being viewed naked.
That said, there is no reason to believe it's just one pervert viewing your naked picture (or the naked picture of your kids). The scanners capture digital images which can be easily stored or transmitted in several ways, the most obvious of which is pointing a smart phone's camera at the monitor.
I certainly hope replacing the passenger's naked photo with a paper doll isn't enough to "quiet" the privacy concerns.
You know, it never hit me what a big deal this idea of "forgiving" loans is, maybe because I paid mine off and assumed others would do the same. Only a stooge would pay more than the absolute minimum toward a debt that will magically disappear in 20 years. Are we really OK with all those defaults (excuse me, "forgiveness") getting dumped on the taxpayers?
For corporations to lose business over invasive treatment would require airline passengers to give a damn, in a financially significant sense. Although I have greatly curtailed my air travel since the naked scanners were rolled out (I've only flown once in the past 3 years and that was a family emergency) the flying public, as far as I can tell, is more upset about baggage fees than they are about the government exposing them to ionizing radiation.
It's more like, the fears of the elected outweigh the rights of the electorate.
I thought the passenger has a right to opt out of the scanners. They let me take the pat-down, the only time I've flown since they were installed. Can't say I liked it but it is better than having them expose me to radiation whose effects on the human body have not been independently studied.
Yeah, I thought of that too. :-) Slightly off-topic, but you should check out the book; I think it is considerably better than the movie.
First we had mice with enhanced brain development. Now, immortality! If those two research teams ever cross-breed their lab animals it will be like Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy!
I remember reading an insightful remark, years ago, on CNN.com from some high-ranking DoD official. He said the Cold War was World War 3. He went on to say the fight against Islamic extremism is World War 4, which is more questionable (the scope and scale of the conflict is much less than any other World War).
So the U.S. has already stumbled into World Wars III and IV, and is now going for WWV! I guess WWII turned out so well for us, our leaders are eager to repeat the experience.
I was about to ask "what is OCW?" but then I remembered let me google that for you. :-)
OCW is "open CourseWare." Here's the link: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Adding features is not necessarily a good thing.
When I pick up the New Testament the message I get is that hate is indeed a bad thing, and love is the superior force for reform. There is nothing that hate can do for you, for the world, for anyone, that love cannot do better.
Right wing: tending toward fascism. Left wing: tending toward socialism. Since both ideologies are dedicated to crushing personal freedom it is easy to confuse the two. It's *how* they want to crush your freedom that distinguishes them.
I believe the point of organic farming is to minimize the negative externalities of "conventional" (I would say "industrial") farming, such as water pollution. If you have to plant 34% more acres to avoid poisoning a major river, I and many others would call that a win.