Also, we need a focus on nutritional medicine as the majority of our diseases are caused/induced by poor nutrition. Proper nutrition can cure disease rather than just covering up the symptoms with drugs and cause a lower need for surgery.
Uh, no. I stopped reading here. Though I should have stopped when you compared prices in silver/dollar values - it rings my "Ron Paul nut" warning bell.
Note that this is coming from someone who is very anal about his eating habits: fresh veggies/fruit at each meal, high-quality, grass fed, low fat meat, whole grain carbohydrates, organic and locally-sourced whenever I can. But being anal-retentive doesn't mean I completely forget how biology works, or that food is only a small part of the ecosystem in my body. If I get skin-infection, get H1N1 or explosive diarrhea, you bet your ass I'm off to the nearest doctor for a check-up. Carrot juice, Acai fruit mixes and wheat grass won't cure any of that.
Do you know why shopping around for the best deal is a stupid idea? Because if I'm down with Legionnaire's disease, broke my leg on a mountain, got a road rash or came down with a nasty case of MRSA, I'm not calling different doctors. I also don't want my primary doctor calling around for the best deal. I want this stuff taken care off, right there and then. If you're arguing that it should be like shopping around for car insurance - congratulations, that's what we have right now.
You're correct on one sense - a perfect market is a free market, but a free market doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect market. However, what you're missing is that the rationale behind people supporting a free market is that it is supposed to operate like a perfect market - hence all this talk about "the free market will fix any problem on its own."
To take your example, a free market would work if people would have the means to find out about the mercury dumping. If people don't have access to that information, then a free market approach to the problem cannot possibly provide a positive outcome.
because anyone can notice a disproportionate margin (A), and start their own company overnight to take advantage of it (B and C). All of this is of course, impossible.
Which is exactly my point. When people talk about the free market working without government interference, they all assume an impossible situation - exactly like the communists, who assumed that humankind would work in peace together: "to all according to their need, from all according to their ability."
At the basis of Capitalism is a Free Market. There are at least two conditions that must be present for a Free Market to meet its definition: * barriers to entry must be close to zero (exactly zero is impossible) * perfect information about all products/services in the market is available to all customers
Unfortunately, no markets truly satisfy this condition. Instead, what we have are markets that fall in a spectrum: some have low barriers to entry and information is broadly available (carpentry), others have very high barriers to entry and broadly available information (ISPs), and others finally have very high barriers to entry and no available information (financial markets).
So no, Capitalism is not really the problem, nor is the banking problem the result of pure Capitalism. On the contrary. The banking problem arose because the underlying requirement for a free market was not there. Which means that the real, fundamental problem is actually with Free Market evangelists who preach capitalism without understanding its limitations. In that sense, they operate much like the communists of yore, who were waiting for the proletarian revolution that "was just around the corner." It never came, because they had made assumptions about human nature that just didn't hold. Just like the Capitalist evangelists with their "The Free Market will fix itself" assumption.
Ah, the feudal lord is speaking. Of course, your serfs should be grateful for the fact that they have a job that gives them a home and food on the table.
Consider the money you'd pay in taxes for their medical care as insurance. Insurance that one day, they won't just get tired of supporting your lifestyle and decide that they'd rather burn your home and be hung than slowly die each day on your lands.
You know what I find the most amazing aspect of American health care? The complete lack of house calls. If someone's sick in the US, they better have someone available who can drive them to the doctor, wait with them in the emergency room, then drive them back.
In France, a sick person can call up their family doctor, and, depending on the urgency, the doctor will be over within a day or two.
Granted, the fancy and high-quality medical procedures would cost you extra in terms of additional coverage through a private insurer. But at the core, no one was worried about breaking a leg at work, getting the flu or an infected appendix.
Compare that to the US, where I postpone doctors visit until the year rolls over, because otherwise my deductible will damn near bankrupt me.
Don't extrapolate across the world when you've never seen it. Every last country in Europe has far more socialized education than the US ever will, and yet, this kind of behavior would be unthinkable there. This has nothing to do with socialized education, but all with legalistic terror and a scary increase in the authoritarian streak of Americans.
Not really. Europe is fairly unconcerned about women going topless. Going bottomless is a bit less common, but depends more on which country you're in.
Warning though: the most likely person to see naked will be over 50, with a paunch, and male. Hot chicks are generally dressed.
Really? You studied the psychological impact of someone cleaving the face of a thousand people, and compared it to the impact of launching a nuclear missile?
You've apparently missed the last 40 years of psychological studies that demonstrate what the factors are that reduce the psychological barriers to abusing another person. Reducing psychological barriers also reduces the psychological impact. One of those factors is how personal the abuse is.
Your argument might work for you, and that's great and all. You, however, are not the rest of the world.
To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.
How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.
I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Always has been, always will be. What's more, the only way that that question is settled is by who wins the war. If the revolutionaries win the war, the Freedom Fighters stay Freedom Fighters. If the government wins, the Terrorists stay Terrorists.
While giving the respect to the complexity, I would also withhold my approval (as much as it counts) of trillions of dollars to be spent on prevention of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn't you?
It depends on whether AGW will cause more damage than the prevention will cost. Simple ROI rules apply. Whether the analysis is also simple is a different question.
Forget right of publicity - since when can the IOC claim copyright on a fact? "Lindsey Vonn won Gold at the Vancouver Olympics" - how can this possibly infringe any copyright or even contract? I would assume that the same way you can't get someone to sign up as a slave, you can't get someone to sign over the rights to have facts distributed about them....
Is the IOC lawyer on crack? Wait, don't answer that.
And almost certainly not even enough to deal with the crush of day-1 gaming. Halo: ODST Firefight was nearly unplayable when too many people were playing the game at the same time. The SOCOM:Confrontation servers actually went down a couple of times in the first few days because they couldn't handle the load. The MAG servers went down the first day. World of Warcraft's servers are notoriously unstable during the first days of expansion releases.
To some extent, it's understandable. Not even Blizzard can build an infrastructure that can handle the crush of first day gaming without completely killing its long-term profit margin. If Ubisoft is going ahead with it, they will have a nearly unplayable game during the first few days. And that's going to piss off a lot of people. I'm interested to see how this will play out in terms of sales.
On the 360, they entice you to tie the game to an EA account by giving you an extra character and another mission. Spoiler: the character isn't nearly as fleshed out as the others (though the loyalty mission is very well done), and the extra mission is absolutely, positively, the lamest in the entire game. As far as I can tell though, connecting to the EA account is not required to play the game. Unlike, say, the online mode of FIFA.
So if you don't like the EA tie in, don't get the extra content (not to mention that the extra content is available only to new purchases via a one-time code). ME2 is still a very good game without it.
Don't be stupid. We're talking revenue here, not profit. Furthermore, no one said anything about how much Ubisoft is allowed to make - just that the math results in highly implausible numbers. And by implausible I mean win-the-lottery-10-times-in-a-row-unlikely. Lastly, General Dynamix would have far higher costs - because they actually have to use raw material on top of the intellectual design.
I didn't realize that this was a popularity contest.
You're right, it's not possible to harass people into believing anything. It's also not possible to convince some people of anything other than what they already want to believe. You seem to be part of that group. What makes you think I'm interested in having a rational discussion with you?
Why are you talking to me? Or arguing about my post? There are plenty of calm, rational posts in this thread. Why don't you go read those?
Considering that you're still arguing with me seems to indicate to me that you're more interested in finding arguments that affirm your current tendency. And I'm not even mentioning your blanket statements about "AGW scientists" which are completely wrong, and clearly indicate an inability to rationally gather data on a subject as simple as who says what.
Yup. The years 2010-2015 are going to be a doozy in terms of temperatures. I just hope there's going to be a massive volcano going off somewhere, because it's going to get ugly.
Lets say you're right, and what the guy you replied to is all wrong... why all the hostility?
I've been arguing peacefully, rationally, and with links for about 10 years. I'm tired of it, others are still doing, and at this point I'm blowing off steam caused by other people's ignorance fucking with my future. Nothing more.
There are a number of posts in this article that provide support for their position. Read them for enlightenment. Read my posts for a good old-fashioned rant.
Interesting argument. So we should throw out all analysis and data collection that does not appear in peer-reviewed journals? I'll be happy with that. However, it also does mean that every single blog not run by a climatologist, every newspaper, every youtube video cannot be used to argue about AGW. Do you really want that? Are you sure? Cuz then your source is invalid as well.
There's nothing wrong with outside analysis - as long as the analysis is credible. Unless, of course, you want to argue that only skeptics are allowed to blog, and everyone else has to go through peer-reviewed journals. I hope you see the hypocrisy in that approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, we need a focus on nutritional medicine as the majority of our diseases are caused/induced by poor nutrition. Proper nutrition can cure disease rather than just covering up the symptoms with drugs and cause a lower need for surgery.
Uh, no. I stopped reading here. Though I should have stopped when you compared prices in silver/dollar values - it rings my "Ron Paul nut" warning bell.
Note that this is coming from someone who is very anal about his eating habits: fresh veggies/fruit at each meal, high-quality, grass fed, low fat meat, whole grain carbohydrates, organic and locally-sourced whenever I can. But being anal-retentive doesn't mean I completely forget how biology works, or that food is only a small part of the ecosystem in my body. If I get skin-infection, get H1N1 or explosive diarrhea, you bet your ass I'm off to the nearest doctor for a check-up. Carrot juice, Acai fruit mixes and wheat grass won't cure any of that.
Do you know why shopping around for the best deal is a stupid idea? Because if I'm down with Legionnaire's disease, broke my leg on a mountain, got a road rash or came down with a nasty case of MRSA, I'm not calling different doctors. I also don't want my primary doctor calling around for the best deal. I want this stuff taken care off, right there and then. If you're arguing that it should be like shopping around for car insurance - congratulations, that's what we have right now.
You're correct on one sense - a perfect market is a free market, but a free market doesn't necessarily have to be a perfect market. However, what you're missing is that the rationale behind people supporting a free market is that it is supposed to operate like a perfect market - hence all this talk about "the free market will fix any problem on its own."
To take your example, a free market would work if people would have the means to find out about the mercury dumping. If people don't have access to that information, then a free market approach to the problem cannot possibly provide a positive outcome.
because anyone can notice a disproportionate margin (A), and start their own company overnight to take advantage of it (B and C). All of this is of course, impossible.
Which is exactly my point. When people talk about the free market working without government interference, they all assume an impossible situation - exactly like the communists, who assumed that humankind would work in peace together: "to all according to their need, from all according to their ability."
This is why I read the comments first, and then the articles. Thanks Slashdot, for coming through when I needed you. ;)
At the basis of Capitalism is a Free Market. There are at least two conditions that must be present for a Free Market to meet its definition:
* barriers to entry must be close to zero (exactly zero is impossible)
* perfect information about all products/services in the market is available to all customers
Unfortunately, no markets truly satisfy this condition. Instead, what we have are markets that fall in a spectrum: some have low barriers to entry and information is broadly available (carpentry), others have very high barriers to entry and broadly available information (ISPs), and others finally have very high barriers to entry and no available information (financial markets).
So no, Capitalism is not really the problem, nor is the banking problem the result of pure Capitalism. On the contrary. The banking problem arose because the underlying requirement for a free market was not there. Which means that the real, fundamental problem is actually with Free Market evangelists who preach capitalism without understanding its limitations. In that sense, they operate much like the communists of yore, who were waiting for the proletarian revolution that "was just around the corner." It never came, because they had made assumptions about human nature that just didn't hold. Just like the Capitalist evangelists with their "The Free Market will fix itself" assumption.
Ah, the feudal lord is speaking. Of course, your serfs should be grateful for the fact that they have a job that gives them a home and food on the table.
Consider the money you'd pay in taxes for their medical care as insurance. Insurance that one day, they won't just get tired of supporting your lifestyle and decide that they'd rather burn your home and be hung than slowly die each day on your lands.
You know what I find the most amazing aspect of American health care? The complete lack of house calls. If someone's sick in the US, they better have someone available who can drive them to the doctor, wait with them in the emergency room, then drive them back.
In France, a sick person can call up their family doctor, and, depending on the urgency, the doctor will be over within a day or two.
Granted, the fancy and high-quality medical procedures would cost you extra in terms of additional coverage through a private insurer. But at the core, no one was worried about breaking a leg at work, getting the flu or an infected appendix.
Compare that to the US, where I postpone doctors visit until the year rolls over, because otherwise my deductible will damn near bankrupt me.
Don't extrapolate across the world when you've never seen it. Every last country in Europe has far more socialized education than the US ever will, and yet, this kind of behavior would be unthinkable there. This has nothing to do with socialized education, but all with legalistic terror and a scary increase in the authoritarian streak of Americans.
Not really. Europe is fairly unconcerned about women going topless. Going bottomless is a bit less common, but depends more on which country you're in.
Warning though: the most likely person to see naked will be over 50, with a paunch, and male. Hot chicks are generally dressed.
Really? You studied the psychological impact of someone cleaving the face of a thousand people, and compared it to the impact of launching a nuclear missile?
You've apparently missed the last 40 years of psychological studies that demonstrate what the factors are that reduce the psychological barriers to abusing another person. Reducing psychological barriers also reduces the psychological impact. One of those factors is how personal the abuse is.
Your argument might work for you, and that's great and all. You, however, are not the rest of the world.
What about a US citizen flying a plane into a building?
To see this at work, just watch the French. It is the one country in the world where the government is genuinely worried about the population. The French have a habit of instigating work actions that would result here in the National Guard being called in. The French government, not being quite as quick to shoot at its own population (unless they live in the poor suburbs....) is constantly forced to cave to populist demands.
How is it working out for them? I don't know about you, but Time Magazine recently rated France the best place to live. On the other hand, be ready to plan your vacations around predictable strikes that cripple the nation's transportation system.
I wouldn't go so far to say that such a government would be weak and ineffectual, but it certainly comes with its own set of challenges.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Always has been, always will be. What's more, the only way that that question is settled is by who wins the war. If the revolutionaries win the war, the Freedom Fighters stay Freedom Fighters. If the government wins, the Terrorists stay Terrorists.
Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I just lost a bit more faith in humanity.
While giving the respect to the complexity, I would also withhold my approval (as much as it counts) of trillions of dollars to be spent on prevention of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn't you?
It depends on whether AGW will cause more damage than the prevention will cost. Simple ROI rules apply. Whether the analysis is also simple is a different question.
Forget right of publicity - since when can the IOC claim copyright on a fact? "Lindsey Vonn won Gold at the Vancouver Olympics" - how can this possibly infringe any copyright or even contract? I would assume that the same way you can't get someone to sign up as a slave, you can't get someone to sign over the rights to have facts distributed about them....
Is the IOC lawyer on crack? Wait, don't answer that.
And almost certainly not even enough to deal with the crush of day-1 gaming. Halo: ODST Firefight was nearly unplayable when too many people were playing the game at the same time. The SOCOM:Confrontation servers actually went down a couple of times in the first few days because they couldn't handle the load. The MAG servers went down the first day. World of Warcraft's servers are notoriously unstable during the first days of expansion releases.
To some extent, it's understandable. Not even Blizzard can build an infrastructure that can handle the crush of first day gaming without completely killing its long-term profit margin. If Ubisoft is going ahead with it, they will have a nearly unplayable game during the first few days. And that's going to piss off a lot of people. I'm interested to see how this will play out in terms of sales.
On the 360, they entice you to tie the game to an EA account by giving you an extra character and another mission. Spoiler: the character isn't nearly as fleshed out as the others (though the loyalty mission is very well done), and the extra mission is absolutely, positively, the lamest in the entire game. As far as I can tell though, connecting to the EA account is not required to play the game. Unlike, say, the online mode of FIFA.
So if you don't like the EA tie in, don't get the extra content (not to mention that the extra content is available only to new purchases via a one-time code). ME2 is still a very good game without it.
Don't be stupid. We're talking revenue here, not profit. Furthermore, no one said anything about how much Ubisoft is allowed to make - just that the math results in highly implausible numbers. And by implausible I mean win-the-lottery-10-times-in-a-row-unlikely. Lastly, General Dynamix would have far higher costs - because they actually have to use raw material on top of the intellectual design.
2 sentences, three mistakes. Impressive.
I didn't realize that this was a popularity contest.
You're right, it's not possible to harass people into believing anything. It's also not possible to convince some people of anything other than what they already want to believe. You seem to be part of that group. What makes you think I'm interested in having a rational discussion with you?
Why are you talking to me? Or arguing about my post? There are plenty of calm, rational posts in this thread. Why don't you go read those?
Considering that you're still arguing with me seems to indicate to me that you're more interested in finding arguments that affirm your current tendency. And I'm not even mentioning your blanket statements about "AGW scientists" which are completely wrong, and clearly indicate an inability to rationally gather data on a subject as simple as who says what.
Now go educate yourself, or go fuck off.
Yup. The years 2010-2015 are going to be a doozy in terms of temperatures. I just hope there's going to be a massive volcano going off somewhere, because it's going to get ugly.
Lets say you're right, and what the guy you replied to is all wrong... why all the hostility?
I've been arguing peacefully, rationally, and with links for about 10 years. I'm tired of it, others are still doing, and at this point I'm blowing off steam caused by other people's ignorance fucking with my future. Nothing more.
There are a number of posts in this article that provide support for their position. Read them for enlightenment. Read my posts for a good old-fashioned rant.
Big nasty hurricane season? Blame it on AGW. Long, harsher winter when our AGW priesthood were predicting snow would be a "rarity"?
Climate, meet weather. Congrats, you just proved you have no business analyzing climate claims.
Interesting argument. So we should throw out all analysis and data collection that does not appear in peer-reviewed journals? I'll be happy with that. However, it also does mean that every single blog not run by a climatologist, every newspaper, every youtube video cannot be used to argue about AGW. Do you really want that? Are you sure? Cuz then your source is invalid as well.
There's nothing wrong with outside analysis - as long as the analysis is credible. Unless, of course, you want to argue that only skeptics are allowed to blog, and everyone else has to go through peer-reviewed journals. I hope you see the hypocrisy in that approach.