When you talk about the views held by the average non-scientist regarding evolution, the most common perception is "survival of the fittest", with the implication that those that survive are somehow better objectively.
There's another reason for this misconception. Human evolution from australopithecus to h. erectus to neanderthal to h. sapiens is precisely one of the few cases in which evolution can actually be called "prgogressive": several species sprouting from a common lineage, in such a way that each one successfully displaces its predecessors, together with an increase in behavioral complexity and success in survival/reproduction (as indicated by their respective geographic spread).
The fact that we are the latest link in such a progressive chain induces us to believe that all of evolution consists of such chains - which is false.
For some reason, you forgot to mention a little detail: this guy carefully identified which plants had been "contaminated" by the patented gene, then deliberately used the seeds from those very plants to replant his field the next year ! Apparently the result was that 95%+ of his seeds possessed the gene in question. Wiki.
The courts have ruled that this guy is a hypocrite and rebutted his sorry ass accordingly.
If you believe that one is entitled to do anything they want which whatever falls onto their property, I have a question for you: Imagine that a money transport van crashes into your garden. Big bags of cash end up into your living room. Is the money yours ?
If the energy generated in that process is significantly greater (1.5X to 2X) than what is required to run the machine, viola. Virtually free energy.
And if it was possile to square the circle, then it wouldn't be impossible ! Voilà, a rational expression for pi.
Seriously, man, what you propose is a literal violation of the first law of thermodynamics - plain old conservation of energy. You can't get more out than you (or something else) put in. 2 + 2 != 5.
Indiana also has a damn fine university, which recently hosted the 10th ALIFE conference (the dominant international conference on Artificial Life). Hell, Douglas "Godel-Escher-Bach" Hofstadter works there ! Judging from what I saw, Indian University is set to become a major player in science, even more so than it is right now.
The collective punishment of the entire populace would simply make the terrorists there more popular, as they'd be the only ones seen doing anything against "American aggression."
Case in point: Hezbollah. Before the current war, they were basically a sectarian militia with massive support among Shias, but only elicited mixed feelings or outright hostility from the rest of the Lebanese. Fast forward through a few weeks of general destruction from Israel, and they've basically become popular heroes for the entire country - with apparently no significant damage to their military base.
I think you'd find that if the US did that, all of the attacks would stop.
Not exactly, because the networks that have already been put in place will still be there; HOWEVER, it will certainly make it much more difficult for the masterminds to recruit and brainwash new troops for their plans, and might eventually lead to their disappearance through evaporation of popular support (their mindless violence in Iraq and Jordan has already alienated a big chunk of the population from them, even in Sunni countries).
Some people say "they kill us because they hate us". Others say "they kill us because we invade them". What people seem not to realise is that both explanations are true: the leaders are murderous lunatics who are only interested in World Domination [tm] (and destroying anything that stands in their way, Western, Muslim, Hindu or whatever). But if it was only about them, they wouldn't be really dangerous because there's just too few of them. What makes them really strong is that they can recruit thousands of foot soldiers to do the dirty work. "Look how all those infidels have been invading us and killing us for centuries ! Do you want to fight for your fellow Muslims all over the world ?" And once the guys are hooked, they thoroughly brainwash them into total submission. Voila, another suicide bomber.
With such tactics, that GWB method ("Bin Laden is attacking us ! Quick, let's invade Iraq !" - uh ?) was probably the best thing that could ever happen... for the fanatics ! Talk about "playing into the enemy's hand" !
If they realized that the actions of the radical Islamists had dire consequences, they might well take it upon themselves to eliminate the radical Islamists.
Similarly, as Americans and Europeans realise that the actions of their governments are having dire consequences (9/11, London and Madrid bombings, etc.) they will undoubtedly take it upon themselves to eliminate their leaders and immediately convert to Wahhabism.
At least that's how it's supposed to work in the deranged minds of the fanatics (and, apparently, of some Westerners as well).
incorporating solid or liquid state matter, but not gasses or plasmas. (...) When the Sun casts off gas in solar flares, that gas ceases to be "part" of the Sun.
Are you aware of the fact that the Sun is one big ball of plasma ? According to your definition, the Sun is not even an object.
No joke. And they sure ain't afraid of blue-sky stuff either. IBM's research labs is where Mandelbrot invented fractals, not to mention the utterly abstract works of Landauer and Bennett in the thermodynamics of computation (and the current best known solution to the Maxwell's Demon paradox).
The amount of crap that gets modded +5 insightful on/. is annoying enough in general, but when it comes to IP / P2P topics it really jumps through the roof. Here is a bit of information for those of us who have not yet been assimilated into the "information wants to be free" crowd.
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.
Basically you're allowed to make a few private copies, and in return you pay a bit more for your blank CDs. The money is they redistributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to the royalties they earn from other, more easily quantifiable sources (sales, public performances, etc.). Not perfect, but that's the best way they could find. It certainly sucks for those of us who use CD for non-musical data, but I guess we're regarded as "collateral damage".
If I burn a CD of my own copyrighted works, will I get the tax refunded?
It's not a refund, it's a payment based on sales. The money levied from the tax is distributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to their royalties. Note that anybody can register, including Joe Musician; in fact registering is a prerequisite to receiving any kind of royalties. So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.
If you burn a GNU/Linux cd, do you think the copyright holders are going to get paid by the Spanish government?
As I said, it's only for music, so basically no. However, I understand that the tax is only applicable to individuals, not corporations (a bit like VAT tax I suppose), so if $random_spanish_distro sends you a CD of their distribution, they won't have to pay the tax on the CD they burn.
The fundamental problem is that Europeans cannot fully grasp the difference in scale invoved in America
I understand how you feel. I often find that Americans have a hard time understanding that not all European countries are Luxemburg-sized.
Once per day it travels between SF and SD, and you have to get up at 5AM to catch it. It takes 11 hours. San Francisco and San Diego are 500 miles apart.
Paris and Marseilles (both major cities in France) are 490 miles apart.
BTW, although the "normal" cost is about 70 euros, if you book one month early (and if you're happy with a ticketless reservation) you can get away with a 25 euros price. Of course this includes the mandatory reservation and taxes.
And before you ask: yes, the infrastructure was built with public money (just like the Interstate), but the actual service (including maintenance of the lines) is profitable.
They used to say the same things about Mac OS 9 and Netscape Navigator 4...
And they were right. That's why MacOS X and the new Mozilla were both complete rewrites as far as the core functional components (kernel / rendering engine) are concerned.
It's not that we've forgotten what the French did for us during the Revolutionary War. It's that we've also remembered what they've done for us lately.
You mean, like helping you out pretty much any time you asked us to ? 1st Iraq war, Serbia-Kosovo, Afghanistan (we still have some of our kids in Afghanistan right now, risking their lives and regularly *losing* it to help you kick Taliban butt, even though your administration doesn't seem to mention this little fact very often)
And then trying to warn you when you were making a big glaring mistake (2nd Iraq war), telling you pretty much what would happen (PR boost for Al Qaeda, growing anti-western sentiment, international terrorism strengthened rather than abated) - and being rewarded with the worst campaign of hate ever launched in the US against an allied coutry ?
Man, who's your real friend ? The flatterer who will always tell you that you're right no matter how much you fsck up, or the one who'll stand up to you and tell you squarely that you're wrong when you are ?
How much does it cost you if I steal one of your chairs or desks?
A chair / desk.
How much does it cost you if I (and a few million others) copy one of your CDs?
A livelihood.
Of course if you belong to those who believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make a livelihood out of writing software/music, no matter how much others benefit from it, then you may have a point.
(Yeah, I modified your second sentence a bit - just to keep your weaseling out in check, because you had changed the question in the first place. Individuals making a few copies of legally owned material is no big deal, millions of people leeching of torrents is - that's why private copy is legal and paid for through blank media levy in much of Europe and Canada, but P2P distribution isn't)
I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
In everyday language, we call that a "freeloader".
1. We could have such a wealthy society that healthcare would be so cheap and plentiful as to be essentially free and universal. Take, for example, television.
Dude. Making a television is cheap. Finding new drugs, building scanners and catering for patients is expensive. That's not related to the state of the economy. It's just the same reason why space travel is more expensive than car travel. Of course if you accept to only use health care that was known and available 50 years ago, which has now been made cheap through technical advancement (and because the initial costs have been repaid many times over), then you may have a point.
2. We could have private, self-organized, voluntary organizations that provide health care to everyone. Churches aren't funded by the government, they rely totally on voluntary participation and funding, and yet churches exist everywhere. There is no reason why any service couldn't be provided equally to all people, based on voluntary contribution.
"One type of (religious) organisation manages to survive on voluntary funding, therefore all organisations can run through voluntary funding !" Similarly Mozart was a genius, Mozart was Austrian, ergo all Austrians are geniuses. Next.
3. There could be some sort of technological advancement that renders conventional medicine irrelevant.
Or an alien invasion which would render health care irrelevant. Or the second coming of Christ. Or I could win the lottery and afford any medicine I like. You name it.
4. Labor could form unions, and demand health care as a standard part of all employment. Employeers would be forced to pay for medical care, or face a highly organized nationwide strike.
Which is pretty much what happened in most of continental Europe. The government makes sure that employers pay up, but the money is directed to separate entities, jointly run by unions and business organisations. It's a mess, but it still looks better than the US mess.
Universal Health care seems to be a failure as it has currently been implemented by governments. One could argue that by relying on the state to give universal health care, that we have given up on health care.
People in the real world happen to live with concepts of which you are apparently unaware, such as the concepts of "trade-offs" and "practical solutions". Problem: We want to provide health care for everyone. Question: How do we do it ? It turns out that mot people in Europe consider either the State, or some large, regulated, non-profit body as the most practical solution for the job. Of course it may be because they are all "indoctrinated". Perhaps it's just because they are dubious about the capacity of private-sector firms to provide adequate health care to the population (the American example playing a large role in this). It may be right, it may be wrong. That's just the way people chose.
The State plays a dominant role in health care in most of Western and Northern Europe, as well as in Japan. Can you name even one place in the world with better health care than these, without State involvement ?
Thought so.
But on a deeper level, the fact that you have to ask me how we could provide universal health care without a state, is a symptom of the bias and indoctrination.
Or perhaps just a different, more realistic opinion than yours. But no, no, it can't be - they must be indoctrinated !
This is possibly the worst piece of crap ever to come out from some Climate "Dissenter" - and that says a lot !
The guy (Prof. Bob Carter: remember this name !) says: "According to the University of East Anglia, temperatures did not increase between 1998 and 2005".
Now ask yourself a question: why did he pick this particular period ? Maybe it s because the UEA only studied climate between 1998 and 2005 ? So I went to the UEA Climate Research Unit website to see what it was all about.
Right there, smack in the middle of their homepage, there is a big graph that traces temprature variations over 130+ years. And guess what ? The curve is a big glaring hockey stick ! Before 1930: cold. 1930-1980: warm. 1980 onward: warmer.
The evil, deceptive, scheming little crook called Bob Carter (let me repeat his name again: Prof. Bob Carter from James Cook University, Queensland) picked up the year 1998 because it was the ONE year in the whole 130+ year record that was measured as hotter than 2005 ! He exploited the year-to-year variance and carefully ignored the fact that, according to his own source, warming had actually occured and that it was still occuring, even after 1998 !
I'm no climate scientist, I'm not making a point for or against man-made climate change. But this guy (PROF. BOB CARTER FROM JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY, QUEENSLAND) commited the ultimate scientific crime: bad faith. We're not talking about an excusable unconscious bias here. He will fully, knowingly selected his data to support his crackpotism. And now well-meaning-but-ignorant bloggers (oh, sorry, "independent journalists") will keep propagating his lies for decades to come. I bet you that from now on this monumental POS will be brought up in every subsequent/. discussion on climate change.
And people wonder why "climate dissenters" are getting a bad name in the scientific commnunity ?
and Japanese is both reasonably learnable IMHO (as opposed to, say, Arabic or Hindi)
WTH ?
Arabic and Hindi are both alphabetic languages. This means that letter represent sounds, which has two advantages: 1) there's only a few of them to learn and 2) if you see a word, you can actually pronounce it.
Compare with Japanese, where the gist of a text is usually composed of Kanjis, i.e. Chinese characters which represent things and ideas - so for each different idea you must learn a new character. You'll be thrilled to learn that there according to the Japanese government, "only" 1900 characters are necessary for everyday usage.
Arabic also has friendly features, such as the use of three-letters radicals to build almost every word, so if you find a word you don't know, the radical gives you a rough idea of its meaning. Also the actual words are often derived through precise, remarkably consistent rules (through the adjunction of pre-defined vowels, prefixes and suffixes), so even if you don't know the radical you may have a guess at the function of the word.
In fact, because much of the language is actually algorithmic (apply specific rules to radicals to create words and sentences), I've often thought that Arabic is the ideal language for geeks. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
As for Hindi, in addition to being written in an alphabetic script, it's indo-european.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that Japanese would be "simpler" than Arabic or Hindi ?
Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me
The guy was selling his guide through ebay. Without copyrights or IP laws, people would be able to just p2p it and he wouldn't get any money. Given that, what makes you think that he would have put the same amount of effort into making this guide as good as it (presumably) is ? In fact, what makes you think that he could have, without the expectation of some payback ?
The open source model is good for some things, but at some point it's useful to let people obtain some reward/compensation (based on the perceived usefulness of their work) for the time and resources they invest into making something.
Slashdot Mirror
When you talk about the views held by the average non-scientist regarding evolution, the most common perception is "survival of the fittest", with the implication that those that survive are somehow better objectively.
There's another reason for this misconception. Human evolution from australopithecus to h. erectus to neanderthal to h. sapiens is precisely one of the few cases in which evolution can actually be called "prgogressive": several species sprouting from a common lineage, in such a way that each one successfully displaces its predecessors, together with an increase in behavioral complexity and success in survival/reproduction (as indicated by their respective geographic spread).
The fact that we are the latest link in such a progressive chain induces us to believe that all of evolution consists of such chains - which is false.
For some reason, you forgot to mention a little detail: this guy carefully identified which plants had been "contaminated" by the patented gene, then deliberately used the seeds from those very plants to replant his field the next year ! Apparently the result was that 95%+ of his seeds possessed the gene in question. Wiki.
The courts have ruled that this guy is a hypocrite and rebutted his sorry ass accordingly.
If you believe that one is entitled to do anything they want which whatever falls onto their property, I have a question for you: Imagine that a money transport van crashes into your garden. Big bags of cash end up into your living room. Is the money yours ?
If the energy generated in that process is significantly greater (1.5X to 2X) than what is required to run the machine, viola. Virtually free energy.
And if it was possile to square the circle, then it wouldn't be impossible ! Voilà, a rational expression for pi.
Seriously, man, what you propose is a literal violation of the first law of thermodynamics - plain old conservation of energy. You can't get more out than you (or something else) put in. 2 + 2 != 5.
Indiana also has a damn fine university, which recently hosted the 10th ALIFE conference (the dominant international conference on Artificial Life). Hell, Douglas "Godel-Escher-Bach" Hofstadter works there ! Judging from what I saw, Indian University is set to become a major player in science, even more so than it is right now.
The collective punishment of the entire populace would simply make the terrorists there more popular, as they'd be the only ones seen doing anything against "American aggression."
Case in point: Hezbollah. Before the current war, they were basically a sectarian militia with massive support among Shias, but only elicited mixed feelings or outright hostility from the rest of the Lebanese. Fast forward through a few weeks of general destruction from Israel, and they've basically become popular heroes for the entire country - with apparently no significant damage to their military base.
I think you'd find that if the US did that, all of the attacks would stop.
Not exactly, because the networks that have already been put in place will still be there; HOWEVER, it will certainly make it much more difficult for the masterminds to recruit and brainwash new troops for their plans, and might eventually lead to their disappearance through evaporation of popular support (their mindless violence in Iraq and Jordan has already alienated a big chunk of the population from them, even in Sunni countries).
Some people say "they kill us because they hate us". Others say "they kill us because we invade them". What people seem not to realise is that both explanations are true: the leaders are murderous lunatics who are only interested in World Domination [tm] (and destroying anything that stands in their way, Western, Muslim, Hindu or whatever). But if it was only about them, they wouldn't be really dangerous because there's just too few of them. What makes them really strong is that they can recruit thousands of foot soldiers to do the dirty work. "Look how all those infidels have been invading us and killing us for centuries ! Do you want to fight for your fellow Muslims all over the world ?" And once the guys are hooked, they thoroughly brainwash them into total submission. Voila, another suicide bomber.
With such tactics, that GWB method ("Bin Laden is attacking us ! Quick, let's invade Iraq !" - uh ?) was probably the best thing that could ever happen... for the fanatics ! Talk about "playing into the enemy's hand" !
If they realized that the actions of the radical Islamists had dire consequences, they might well take it upon themselves to eliminate the radical Islamists.
Similarly, as Americans and Europeans realise that the actions of their governments are having dire consequences (9/11, London and Madrid bombings, etc.) they will undoubtedly take it upon themselves to eliminate their leaders and immediately convert to Wahhabism.
At least that's how it's supposed to work in the deranged minds of the fanatics (and, apparently, of some Westerners as well).
How do these Germans know so much about the atomic nucleus? Did Neils Bohr leave them a working model or something?
Niels Bohr was a Dane. He never worked in Germany. There's a reason why the Copenhagen interpretation is called that way.
incorporating solid or liquid state matter, but not gasses or plasmas. (...) When the Sun casts off gas in solar flares, that gas ceases to be "part" of the Sun.
Are you aware of the fact that the Sun is one big ball of plasma ? According to your definition, the Sun is not even an object.
Question: Why Have Movies Been So Bad Lately?
Answer: Because you've grown up.
Duh!
No joke. And they sure ain't afraid of blue-sky stuff either. IBM's research labs is where Mandelbrot invented fractals, not to mention the utterly abstract works of Landauer and Bennett in the thermodynamics of computation (and the current best known solution to the Maxwell's Demon paradox).
A bug trap uses no energy
Yes it does. It uses the energy of the bugs that throw themselves into the trap.
The amount of crap that gets modded +5 insightful on /. is annoying enough in general, but when it comes to IP / P2P topics it really jumps through the roof. Here is a bit of information for those of us who have not yet been assimilated into the "information wants to be free" crowd.
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.
Basically you're allowed to make a few private copies, and in return you pay a bit more for your blank CDs. The money is they redistributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to the royalties they earn from other, more easily quantifiable sources (sales, public performances, etc.). Not perfect, but that's the best way they could find. It certainly sucks for those of us who use CD for non-musical data, but I guess we're regarded as "collateral damage".
If I burn a CD of my own copyrighted works, will I get the tax refunded?
It's not a refund, it's a payment based on sales. The money levied from the tax is distributed to registered copyright owners, proportionally to their royalties. Note that anybody can register, including Joe Musician; in fact registering is a prerequisite to receiving any kind of royalties. So if you produce your own copyrighted works (and register to the appropriate body), AND some people buy your stuff or play it in public or use it for any other activity which involves payment of royalties, you'll definitely see some money from this tax.
If you burn a GNU/Linux cd, do you think the copyright holders are going to get paid by the Spanish government?
As I said, it's only for music, so basically no. However, I understand that the tax is only applicable to individuals, not corporations (a bit like VAT tax I suppose), so if $random_spanish_distro sends you a CD of their distribution, they won't have to pay the tax on the CD they burn.
The fundamental problem is that Europeans cannot fully grasp the difference in scale invoved in America
I understand how you feel. I often find that Americans have a hard time understanding that not all European countries are Luxemburg-sized.
Once per day it travels between SF and SD, and you have to get up at 5AM to catch it. It takes 11 hours. San Francisco and San Diego are 500 miles apart.
Paris and Marseilles (both major cities in France) are 490 miles apart.
Total train trip time, from city center to city center: 3 (THREE) fscking hours with the TGV train. No, that's not a typo.
BTW, although the "normal" cost is about 70 euros, if you book one month early (and if you're happy with a ticketless reservation) you can get away with a 25 euros price. Of course this includes the mandatory reservation and taxes.
And before you ask: yes, the infrastructure was built with public money (just like the Interstate), but the actual service (including maintenance of the lines) is profitable.
What was your point again ?
while it would suck having to give up my girlfriends, at least I would still have my wife
I'm confused. Which one is the rat ?
They used to say the same things about Mac OS 9 and Netscape Navigator 4...
And they were right. That's why MacOS X and the new Mozilla were both complete rewrites as far as the core functional components (kernel / rendering engine) are concerned.
It's not that we've forgotten what the French did for us during the Revolutionary War. It's that we've also remembered what they've done for us lately.
You mean, like helping you out pretty much any time you asked us to ? 1st Iraq war, Serbia-Kosovo, Afghanistan (we still have some of our kids in Afghanistan right now, risking their lives and regularly *losing* it to help you kick Taliban butt, even though your administration doesn't seem to mention this little fact very often)
And then trying to warn you when you were making a big glaring mistake (2nd Iraq war), telling you pretty much what would happen (PR boost for Al Qaeda, growing anti-western sentiment, international terrorism strengthened rather than abated) - and being rewarded with the worst campaign of hate ever launched in the US against an allied coutry ?
Man, who's your real friend ? The flatterer who will always tell you that you're right no matter how much you fsck up, or the one who'll stand up to you and tell you squarely that you're wrong when you are ?
Do they ALREADY count our money as theirs ?
Why not ? Apparently you have no problem considering their software as yours.
I aint giving me money to you sir. Not at THESE prices at least.
Fine. Don't use their stuff then.
How much does it cost you if I steal one of your chairs or desks?
A chair / desk.
How much does it cost you if I (and a few million others) copy one of your CDs?
A livelihood.
Of course if you belong to those who believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make a livelihood out of writing software/music, no matter how much others benefit from it, then you may have a point.
(Yeah, I modified your second sentence a bit - just to keep your weaseling out in check, because you had changed the question in the first place. Individuals making a few copies of legally owned material is no big deal, millions of people leeching of torrents is - that's why private copy is legal and paid for through blank media levy in much of Europe and Canada, but P2P distribution isn't)
I want to browse, listen, follow my stream of musical interest whereever it leads, and not have to worry about racking up ten bucks' worth of charges in the process.
In everyday language, we call that a "freeloader".
1. We could have such a wealthy society that healthcare would be so cheap and plentiful as to be essentially free and universal. Take, for example, television.
Dude. Making a television is cheap. Finding new drugs, building scanners and catering for patients is expensive. That's not related to the state of the economy. It's just the same reason why space travel is more expensive than car travel. Of course if you accept to only use health care that was known and available 50 years ago, which has now been made cheap through technical advancement (and because the initial costs have been repaid many times over), then you may have a point.
2. We could have private, self-organized, voluntary organizations that provide health care to everyone. Churches aren't funded by the government, they rely totally on voluntary participation and funding, and yet churches exist everywhere. There is no reason why any service couldn't be provided equally to all people, based on voluntary contribution.
"One type of (religious) organisation manages to survive on voluntary funding, therefore all organisations can run through voluntary funding !" Similarly Mozart was a genius, Mozart was Austrian, ergo all Austrians are geniuses. Next.
3. There could be some sort of technological advancement that renders conventional medicine irrelevant.
Or an alien invasion which would render health care irrelevant. Or the second coming of Christ. Or I could win the lottery and afford any medicine I like. You name it.
4. Labor could form unions, and demand health care as a standard part of all employment. Employeers would be forced to pay for medical care, or face a highly organized nationwide strike.
Which is pretty much what happened in most of continental Europe. The government makes sure that employers pay up, but the money is directed to separate entities, jointly run by unions and business organisations. It's a mess, but it still looks better than the US mess.
Universal Health care seems to be a failure as it has currently been implemented by governments. One could argue that by relying on the state to give universal health care, that we have given up on health care.
People in the real world happen to live with concepts of which you are apparently unaware, such as the concepts of "trade-offs" and "practical solutions". Problem: We want to provide health care for everyone. Question: How do we do it ? It turns out that mot people in Europe consider either the State, or some large, regulated, non-profit body as the most practical solution for the job. Of course it may be because they are all "indoctrinated". Perhaps it's just because they are dubious about the capacity of private-sector firms to provide adequate health care to the population (the American example playing a large role in this). It may be right, it may be wrong. That's just the way people chose.
The State plays a dominant role in health care in most of Western and Northern Europe, as well as in Japan. Can you name even one place in the world with better health care than these, without State involvement ?
Thought so.
But on a deeper level, the fact that you have to ask me how we could provide universal health care without a state, is a symptom of the bias and indoctrination.
Or perhaps just a different, more realistic opinion than yours. But no, no, it can't be - they must be indoctrinated !
We really need a "-1 TimeCube" option.
This is possibly the worst piece of crap ever to come out from some Climate "Dissenter" - and that says a lot !
/. discussion on climate change.
The guy (Prof. Bob Carter: remember this name !) says: "According to the University of East Anglia, temperatures did not increase between 1998 and 2005".
Now ask yourself a question: why did he pick this particular period ? Maybe it s because the UEA only studied climate between 1998 and 2005 ? So I went to the UEA Climate Research Unit website to see what it was all about.
Right there, smack in the middle of their homepage, there is a big graph that traces temprature variations over 130+ years. And guess what ? The curve is a big glaring hockey stick ! Before 1930: cold. 1930-1980: warm. 1980 onward: warmer.
The evil, deceptive, scheming little crook called Bob Carter (let me repeat his name again: Prof. Bob Carter from James Cook University, Queensland) picked up the year 1998 because it was the ONE year in the whole 130+ year record that was measured as hotter than 2005 ! He exploited the year-to-year variance and carefully ignored the fact that, according to his own source, warming had actually occured and that it was still occuring, even after 1998 !
I'm no climate scientist, I'm not making a point for or against man-made climate change. But this guy (PROF. BOB CARTER FROM JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY, QUEENSLAND) commited the ultimate scientific crime: bad faith. We're not talking about an excusable unconscious bias here. He will fully, knowingly selected his data to support his crackpotism. And now well-meaning-but-ignorant bloggers (oh, sorry, "independent journalists") will keep propagating his lies for decades to come. I bet you that from now on this monumental POS will be brought up in every subsequent
And people wonder why "climate dissenters" are getting a bad name in the scientific commnunity ?
and Japanese is both reasonably learnable IMHO (as opposed to, say, Arabic or Hindi)
WTH ?
Arabic and Hindi are both alphabetic languages. This means that letter represent sounds, which has two advantages: 1) there's only a few of them to learn and 2) if you see a word, you can actually pronounce it.
Compare with Japanese, where the gist of a text is usually composed of Kanjis, i.e. Chinese characters which represent things and ideas - so for each different idea you must learn a new character. You'll be thrilled to learn that there according to the Japanese government, "only" 1900 characters are necessary for everyday usage.
Arabic also has friendly features, such as the use of three-letters radicals to build almost every word, so if you find a word you don't know, the radical gives you a rough idea of its meaning. Also the actual words are often derived through precise, remarkably consistent rules (through the adjunction of pre-defined vowels, prefixes and suffixes), so even if you don't know the radical you may have a guess at the function of the word.
In fact, because much of the language is actually algorithmic (apply specific rules to radicals to create words and sentences), I've often thought that Arabic is the ideal language for geeks. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
As for Hindi, in addition to being written in an alphabetic script, it's indo-european.
Where on Earth did you get the idea that Japanese would be "simpler" than Arabic or Hindi ?
Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me
The guy was selling his guide through ebay. Without copyrights or IP laws, people would be able to just p2p it and he wouldn't get any money. Given that, what makes you think that he would have put the same amount of effort into making this guide as good as it (presumably) is ? In fact, what makes you think that he could have, without the expectation of some payback ?
The open source model is good for some things, but at some point it's useful to let people obtain some reward/compensation (based on the perceived usefulness of their work) for the time and resources they invest into making something.
The chances of it existing? -12.4% Center of this planet must solidify first.
t hcore.html
Don't know which planet you're living on, but the centre of planet Earth is actually solid.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050418/ear
Thomas-