I'm tired of discussing Global Warming (especially since the question has been settled), but I'm just curious about something: when would you consider the big button issues to be settled? When would you say that we have collected all the necessary data, done all the studies that are possible and done all the analysis that needs to be done? When there's no dissent anymore? If that's the case, you've set the bar impossibly high, and I don't know if you've done so without ulterior motives.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: being informed is hard. It's not an excuse not to be. It is also not an excuse to be spoon-fed all information.
You said earlier: "First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare." Now you say: "I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. "
Make up your mind. I've followed your (unfortunately highly rated) comments, and you've managed to offer no support for any of your claims, made blanket statements that are not rooted in logic or reality and generally have made an ass of yourself. Not to mention that you pretty much took over the conversation.
Here's one item that your free-market approach to health care completely overlooks: free-market forces force (heh) corporations to serve healthy patients rather than sick patients, as profits are maximized (hell, even only possible) when healthy people pay for coverage that they don't need. The entire purpose of the health care system is to spread costs that are too high to bear for a single person to the rest of the population that, as an aggregate, can bear that cost.
In short, it is impossible for the free-market system to provide affordable health-care to individuals. A free market system can only provide individually affordable health-care to a group of people. Only government regulation can prevent corporations from selecting exclusively healthy groups of people.
So what you're essentially advocating with your free-market crap is that healthy people are left alone, but only the wealthiest should be able to take advantage of modern medecine. Everyone else ought to be forced to apply band-aids to a shotgun wound.
Newsflash - you are not important. Slashdot was not designed to serve you. You are not paying for it. Yet you still take time to complain. Weird, uh?
And if you're that keen on only seeing specific articles - there's a billion filters you can apply. Might want to use the full site. Or are you not nerd enough to figure out filter settings?
Ok. So people who studied this topic for years are fairly confident that there is no risk. Understand to boot that they have a professional aversion to saying "impossible". Someone else asks a question that doesn't have an answer, and thinks that all progress should be stopped to answer the question first. Let's also assume that the question is: "Does lighting this match create invisible pink unicorns that will eat my soul?" Do you still think that this is a reasonable course of action?
Thank god. I knew of a few sites that showed the episodes, but most had absolutely atrocious compression. Bad to the point it was difficult to tell what was going on. Now I can get my SP fix anytime without having to buy overpriced episodes.
Hooray for Matt and Trey! Let's hope this convinces a lot of other shows to put their stuff online. Yeah, it'll be the end of TV as we know it. Good riddance, I say.
Yup. I can personally attest to that. At the last company, the CEO was forced out due to backdating shenanigans (i.e., the stock game that all tech companies in Silicon Valley played). The guy who took over promised at every meeting that he was prepared to take it to the next level, that we were going to kick everyone's butt, etc. Within one year, the company had been sold, and he probably took a 10million+ golden parachute into retirement (the company hadn't even gotten to $1billion in yearly sales) - all for having performed exactly one job; selling the company to someone else. Not only that, but the price for the company had been boosted by financial games with revenue recognition that looked great on paper for the next quarter, but which absolutely wrecked long-term sales. 2 years after takeover, we're finally recovering from the idiocy. It's only because we are the unquestioned leaders in a red-hot market that the company didn't just completely tank right after the sale.
Since then, I've had a very dim view of CEOs and the games they play. I've gotten to the point where I think that a number of companies succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because. Not only that, but the only time that CEOs are held accountable is if they've done something criminal. Being merely incompetent and raiding corporate coffers is enough to get awarded an 8 to 9 figure severance package. Personally, I compare it to someone joining a WoW guild, raiding the Guild bank for everything that's worth anything, and then being handed everyone's gold as an incentive to leave the guild. Despicable doesn't even come close to describing what I think of thse CEOs.
Philanthropy has nothing to do with the political leanings of the voting public. Not to mention that I suspect the reply would be that they take care of those in need at home, rather than those in need abroad.
That's because that's what the American public responds to. The shallowness of American politics is a direct result of the shallowness of the American public. Sad, but true.
As opposed to the Bush/McCain/Romney populism? Sheesh. Obama is the first presidential candidate in a long time to give presidential speeches. From my perspective, that's an improvement over the current and previous lot. Face it - populism has been popular (harhar) in the US since the 1800s. There were a few exceptions here and there, but don't even try to pretend that populism is somehow restricted to the Democratic party.
Thanks for demonstrating what is exactly so messed up about American politics these days. What would constitute hard-right religious and nationalistic bigotry in Europe is merely "true" conservatism here that gets people elected on a regular basis. What constitutes centrist or perhaps even right-wing policy there is considered far left-wing here. No wonder Americans think that Europe is a communist hotbed, and Europeans think that the US is one Reichstag fire away from going Nazi on the rest of the world.
Easy there, tiger. Have you read the actual sermons? The WHOLE kaboodle? I read a few of them. Including the ones from where the quotes were lifted that are supposed to show how racist and hateful and unpatriotic Wright is. While I found them to be sometimes strongly worded, and not something I'd agree with without reservation, they were also quite spot on in their commentary. Not to mention that the quotes, when surrounded by their context, really do not mean what some people tried to make them mean.
In short, the church didn't tell anyone to hate Whitey, and certainly not every week. Which means that there was really nothing to get so offended about you'd have to walk out. Not to mention that the Church is a good chunk of your community. You attend church to participate in your community. Switching church means switching community. It's just not as easy as a lot of people make it sound like.
I would be surprised if the government of China would throw away the last fifty years of economic progress in their country over something like Tibet or Taiwan.
There is a little story that goes somewhat like this: Once upon a time, there was a Chinese emperor who had a powerful neighbor. That neighbor sent a messenger to the emperor, demanding gold and all sorts of valuables in tribute. The emperor sent the messenger away with the requested tribute. A few years later, the neighbor again sent a messenger. This time though, he asked for women in tribute, including the emperors daughter. Again, the emperor sent the messenger on his way, having handed over the tribute, including his daughter. Finally, a few more years later, the neighbor sent another messenger. This time, the neighbor asked for land. In response, the emperor cut off the messengers head, invaded the neighbor and killed everyone at the top.
Watch some home grown Chinese movies. Tibet and Taiwan are the one thing that China will wage war over. Everything else can be negotiated. Land will not be. Not only that, but a large number of Chinese agree with this sentiment.
Absolutely. Personally, I do the same thing: if someone asks me about the likelihood of something happening about which I have no clue, I tell them flat out "50/50. Here, let me flip a coin." I expect the same thing to have happened here as well.
Now, someone please mod me redundant. Executive summaries should be discouraged wherever possible.
I consider propaganda that comes private entities but which mimics the official government propaganda to be identical. Deconvolution might be a private person, but the points raised by him/her are exactly the same that the official mouth pieces of the Chinese government bring forth. As a result, I don't care much about making a distinction.
So while this might be an indication of something new I am not yet convinces that it is anything more than an incorrect assumption in a QCD calculation somewhere. Such calculations are fantastically difficult and while in this case there are things that will make it easier, it is not yet convincing evidence./blockquote. Someone please mode the parent +1, Understated. Quantum Chromodynamics still give me a nightmares, and it's been 10 years since I last dealt with them.
I take high-energy particle physics research (and, by extension, astronomy) with a large chunk of salt these days. The complexity of the calculations that are being performed these days make the original Quantum Mechanics calculations look like basic algebra. It's interesting stuff, but mind-boggingly difficult.
Wikis are controlled by the most OCD group. And Chinese nationalists (they are certainly not communists, just like China really isn't a communist country anymore) can be exceedingly OCD. Not to mention focused on propaganda distribution. I'm not surprised that the edit wars are being won by them.
Here's the thing though: the Chinese place far more emphasis on hosting a smooth Olympics than any other nation before them. A near worldwide boycott of the Olympics over their actions in Tibet and at home is one of the few levers the world has left. The impact is unclear, but it would cause massive loss of face - and that's the closest thing to pressure that the Chinese government will respond to.
As for whether the rest of the world can win this fight - no, it can't. Does that mean that it shouldn't fight the good fight?
Lastly, China on average has a set of values that is very different from Western values. It might become less hostile, but make no mistake - there are certain things that will always be flashpoints. Taiwan will become part of China at some point in the future, whether by force or by political action. It will never be a western democracy, and unrest will always be quelled mercilessly. Conflict between the West and China will exist for far longer than any of us will care for.
Just like the West can't accomplish much with a boycott of the Olympics, so the West can't accomplish much by giving Beijing the Olympics.
I am 100% sure, the Chinese army would not do that.
You mean, the same Chinese army that shot and killed unarmed and peaceful demonstrators in 1989? You're either a government shill, or a nationalist of the worst sort. What frightens me the most about China these days isn't the Communist party - it's nationalists of your ilk who put China first, Chinese people second and all others third.
I also like how everything that paints Tibet in a bad light is FACT, while everything that paints China in a bad light is WRONG, without proper historical context, irrelevant or justified to counter nefarious external influences or actions.
Perhaps you should talk to a bona-fide tantric buddhist practitioner before you paint them all with one brush, based on some bizarre cooks collection of papers.
NO! you can read their raw official "scripts" and "guides" directly and examine what I post here one-by-one (highly recommended)!!!
Number 1 sign that someone is trying to disseminate propaganda: only their very limited sources are trustworthy, and all others must be avoided.
I don't foe very many people, but I have no interest in official Chinese propaganda. Bugger off.
Most likely, this is modeled on the British civil service. The people in charge of doling out the money will be civil servants, with no election to worry about for them. Not only that, but they can be fired for handing out more money to someone. Since this is a public office, the budget and budget allocations will be public, and the public can actually trace the handouts.
The idea is to remove the money disparity that people achieve by promising all kinds of things to deep-pocketed corporations and PACs.
Personally, I'd like to be able to contribute to politicians. But I'd like to remove all non-personal contributions. In other words, corporations and PACs cannot contribute, but individuals like me and you can. Yes, there are loop holes, but they can be tracked. Especially if all contributions have to be publicly disclosed.
loodk at he boards guy, you think these argeuments stem from a lack of ambiguity?
Normally, I don't respond to illiterate replies, but I'll make an exception for you.
Arguments that stem from ignorance do not equate with ambiguity. The fact that you do not understand what you're talking about does not imply that there's ambiguity. Unless, of course, you're among the people who think that astronomy is ambiguous because there are some young earthers running around.
I don't assume it, that's how it is.
Merely stating something means nothing. Your authority on this matter is zero, which means that statement has zero value. Kind of like everything you've said so far.
Have a nice life. Maybe Darwin will put you out of your misery.
I'd like to make one request: stop making analogies. Analogies are crutches, and some work, while others don't. The workings of a wireless AP are sufficiently different from a house or a Best Buy that you what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.
In essence, you're making distinctions on what the SSID of the AP is. Not only that, the distinction is completely arbitrary. Linksys is the name of a company, as is Starbucks. Suppose Linksys wants to provide free WiFi. According to you, they can't. You also make an arbitrary use distinction between commercial ownership and private ownership, which is even less possible to know beforehand. Slashdot didn't use to be owned by a commercial entity. Do some of the web comics I read qualify as commercial? Some of the blogs? What if someone hosts some vacation images on his home server? Does that change it? Your distinction that a door provides access to shelter.... that doesn't even make sense. A door can be in two states. In one state, it provides no hurdle, in another it does. By itself, a door does nothing.
Quite frankly, your entire assumption is littered with so many artificial (as in, contrary to common usage) distinctions that it is impossible for anyone to derive them, given a set of initial premises. From what I can tell so far, your reasoning would completely destroy the technical and legal underpinnings of the internet.
Here's a final example (not an analogy): let's say you go to a public park. You find a wired ethernet router there, sitting on a little pedestal. It is marked Linksys. There is no sign on it other than that. You can't see the wires running from it, as they are most likely in the pedestal and underground. You plug in your laptop, and it gives you access to the Internet. Are you doing something illegal? It's an honest question, as I have no idea how you'll respond to this.
I'd say a good compromise seems to be that all APs should by default have their wireless disabled. This seems to simplify your problem a lot, as you don't have to come up with justifications why a wireless AP needs to have arbitrary - and wholly unknowable - distinctions enforced. I'm ok with that, but that's a whole new ball of wax as to whether wireless AP manufacturers would even want to go that route.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm tired of discussing Global Warming (especially since the question has been settled), but I'm just curious about something: when would you consider the big button issues to be settled? When would you say that we have collected all the necessary data, done all the studies that are possible and done all the analysis that needs to be done? When there's no dissent anymore? If that's the case, you've set the bar impossibly high, and I don't know if you've done so without ulterior motives.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: being informed is hard. It's not an excuse not to be. It is also not an excuse to be spoon-fed all information.
You said earlier:
"First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare."
Now you say:
"I said negotiating prices CAN result in HIGHER prices. "
Make up your mind.
I've followed your (unfortunately highly rated) comments, and you've managed to offer no support for any of your claims, made blanket statements that are not rooted in logic or reality and generally have made an ass of yourself. Not to mention that you pretty much took over the conversation.
Here's one item that your free-market approach to health care completely overlooks: free-market forces force (heh) corporations to serve healthy patients rather than sick patients, as profits are maximized (hell, even only possible) when healthy people pay for coverage that they don't need. The entire purpose of the health care system is to spread costs that are too high to bear for a single person to the rest of the population that, as an aggregate, can bear that cost.
In short, it is impossible for the free-market system to provide affordable health-care to individuals. A free market system can only provide individually affordable health-care to a group of people. Only government regulation can prevent corporations from selecting exclusively healthy groups of people.
So what you're essentially advocating with your free-market crap is that healthy people are left alone, but only the wealthiest should be able to take advantage of modern medecine. Everyone else ought to be forced to apply band-aids to a shotgun wound.
Newsflash - you are not important. Slashdot was not designed to serve you. You are not paying for it. Yet you still take time to complain. Weird, uh?
And if you're that keen on only seeing specific articles - there's a billion filters you can apply. Might want to use the full site. Or are you not nerd enough to figure out filter settings?
Ok. So people who studied this topic for years are fairly confident that there is no risk. Understand to boot that they have a professional aversion to saying "impossible". Someone else asks a question that doesn't have an answer, and thinks that all progress should be stopped to answer the question first. Let's also assume that the question is: "Does lighting this match create invisible pink unicorns that will eat my soul?" Do you still think that this is a reasonable course of action?
Because that's essentially what you're doing.
Thank god. I knew of a few sites that showed the episodes, but most had absolutely atrocious compression. Bad to the point it was difficult to tell what was going on. Now I can get my SP fix anytime without having to buy overpriced episodes.
Hooray for Matt and Trey! Let's hope this convinces a lot of other shows to put their stuff online. Yeah, it'll be the end of TV as we know it. Good riddance, I say.
Yup. I can personally attest to that. At the last company, the CEO was forced out due to backdating shenanigans (i.e., the stock game that all tech companies in Silicon Valley played). The guy who took over promised at every meeting that he was prepared to take it to the next level, that we were going to kick everyone's butt, etc. Within one year, the company had been sold, and he probably took a 10million+ golden parachute into retirement (the company hadn't even gotten to $1billion in yearly sales) - all for having performed exactly one job; selling the company to someone else. Not only that, but the price for the company had been boosted by financial games with revenue recognition that looked great on paper for the next quarter, but which absolutely wrecked long-term sales. 2 years after takeover, we're finally recovering from the idiocy. It's only because we are the unquestioned leaders in a red-hot market that the company didn't just completely tank right after the sale.
Since then, I've had a very dim view of CEOs and the games they play. I've gotten to the point where I think that a number of companies succeed in spite of their CEOs, not because. Not only that, but the only time that CEOs are held accountable is if they've done something criminal. Being merely incompetent and raiding corporate coffers is enough to get awarded an 8 to 9 figure severance package. Personally, I compare it to someone joining a WoW guild, raiding the Guild bank for everything that's worth anything, and then being handed everyone's gold as an incentive to leave the guild. Despicable doesn't even come close to describing what I think of thse CEOs.
Philanthropy has nothing to do with the political leanings of the voting public. Not to mention that I suspect the reply would be that they take care of those in need at home, rather than those in need abroad.
That's because that's what the American public responds to. The shallowness of American politics is a direct result of the shallowness of the American public. Sad, but true.
As opposed to the Bush/McCain/Romney populism? Sheesh. Obama is the first presidential candidate in a long time to give presidential speeches. From my perspective, that's an improvement over the current and previous lot. Face it - populism has been popular (harhar) in the US since the 1800s. There were a few exceptions here and there, but don't even try to pretend that populism is somehow restricted to the Democratic party.
Thanks for demonstrating what is exactly so messed up about American politics these days. What would constitute hard-right religious and nationalistic bigotry in Europe is merely "true" conservatism here that gets people elected on a regular basis. What constitutes centrist or perhaps even right-wing policy there is considered far left-wing here. No wonder Americans think that Europe is a communist hotbed, and Europeans think that the US is one Reichstag fire away from going Nazi on the rest of the world.
Easy there, tiger. Have you read the actual sermons? The WHOLE kaboodle? I read a few of them. Including the ones from where the quotes were lifted that are supposed to show how racist and hateful and unpatriotic Wright is. While I found them to be sometimes strongly worded, and not something I'd agree with without reservation, they were also quite spot on in their commentary. Not to mention that the quotes, when surrounded by their context, really do not mean what some people tried to make them mean.
In short, the church didn't tell anyone to hate Whitey, and certainly not every week. Which means that there was really nothing to get so offended about you'd have to walk out. Not to mention that the Church is a good chunk of your community. You attend church to participate in your community. Switching church means switching community. It's just not as easy as a lot of people make it sound like.
ACs cannot see signatures that are attached to a post. Mine goes "Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue."
There is a little story that goes somewhat like this:
Once upon a time, there was a Chinese emperor who had a powerful neighbor. That neighbor sent a messenger to the emperor, demanding gold and all sorts of valuables in tribute. The emperor sent the messenger away with the requested tribute.
A few years later, the neighbor again sent a messenger. This time though, he asked for women in tribute, including the emperors daughter. Again, the emperor sent the messenger on his way, having handed over the tribute, including his daughter.
Finally, a few more years later, the neighbor sent another messenger. This time, the neighbor asked for land. In response, the emperor cut off the messengers head, invaded the neighbor and killed everyone at the top.
Watch some home grown Chinese movies. Tibet and Taiwan are the one thing that China will wage war over. Everything else can be negotiated. Land will not be. Not only that, but a large number of Chinese agree with this sentiment.
Absolutely. Personally, I do the same thing: if someone asks me about the likelihood of something happening about which I have no clue, I tell them flat out "50/50. Here, let me flip a coin." I expect the same thing to have happened here as well.
Now, someone please mod me redundant. Executive summaries should be discouraged wherever possible.
Yup. Hence my sig. I'll make sure to steer clear of any Seagate drives when the time comes up to expand my NAS.
Well, if we're talking Hiroshima, more people died from radiation poisoning than from the explosion. The goal with a dirty bomb is the same.
I consider propaganda that comes private entities but which mimics the official government propaganda to be identical. Deconvolution might be a private person, but the points raised by him/her are exactly the same that the official mouth pieces of the Chinese government bring forth. As a result, I don't care much about making a distinction.
Wikis are controlled by the most OCD group. And Chinese nationalists (they are certainly not communists, just like China really isn't a communist country anymore) can be exceedingly OCD. Not to mention focused on propaganda distribution. I'm not surprised that the edit wars are being won by them.
Here's the thing though: the Chinese place far more emphasis on hosting a smooth Olympics than any other nation before them. A near worldwide boycott of the Olympics over their actions in Tibet and at home is one of the few levers the world has left. The impact is unclear, but it would cause massive loss of face - and that's the closest thing to pressure that the Chinese government will respond to.
As for whether the rest of the world can win this fight - no, it can't. Does that mean that it shouldn't fight the good fight?
Lastly, China on average has a set of values that is very different from Western values. It might become less hostile, but make no mistake - there are certain things that will always be flashpoints. Taiwan will become part of China at some point in the future, whether by force or by political action. It will never be a western democracy, and unrest will always be quelled mercilessly. Conflict between the West and China will exist for far longer than any of us will care for.
Just like the West can't accomplish much with a boycott of the Olympics, so the West can't accomplish much by giving Beijing the Olympics.
You mean, the same Chinese army that shot and killed unarmed and peaceful demonstrators in 1989? You're either a government shill, or a nationalist of the worst sort. What frightens me the most about China these days isn't the Communist party - it's nationalists of your ilk who put China first, Chinese people second and all others third.
I also like how everything that paints Tibet in a bad light is FACT, while everything that paints China in a bad light is WRONG, without proper historical context, irrelevant or justified to counter nefarious external influences or actions.
Number 1 sign that someone is trying to disseminate propaganda: only their very limited sources are trustworthy, and all others must be avoided.
I don't foe very many people, but I have no interest in official Chinese propaganda. Bugger off.
Most likely, this is modeled on the British civil service. The people in charge of doling out the money will be civil servants, with no election to worry about for them. Not only that, but they can be fired for handing out more money to someone. Since this is a public office, the budget and budget allocations will be public, and the public can actually trace the handouts.
The idea is to remove the money disparity that people achieve by promising all kinds of things to deep-pocketed corporations and PACs.
Personally, I'd like to be able to contribute to politicians. But I'd like to remove all non-personal contributions. In other words, corporations and PACs cannot contribute, but individuals like me and you can. Yes, there are loop holes, but they can be tracked. Especially if all contributions have to be publicly disclosed.
Arguments that stem from ignorance do not equate with ambiguity. The fact that you do not understand what you're talking about does not imply that there's ambiguity. Unless, of course, you're among the people who think that astronomy is ambiguous because there are some young earthers running around. Merely stating something means nothing. Your authority on this matter is zero, which means that statement has zero value. Kind of like everything you've said so far.
Have a nice life. Maybe Darwin will put you out of your misery.
I'd like to make one request: stop making analogies. Analogies are crutches, and some work, while others don't. The workings of a wireless AP are sufficiently different from a house or a Best Buy that you what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.
In essence, you're making distinctions on what the SSID of the AP is. Not only that, the distinction is completely arbitrary. Linksys is the name of a company, as is Starbucks. Suppose Linksys wants to provide free WiFi. According to you, they can't. You also make an arbitrary use distinction between commercial ownership and private ownership, which is even less possible to know beforehand. Slashdot didn't use to be owned by a commercial entity. Do some of the web comics I read qualify as commercial? Some of the blogs? What if someone hosts some vacation images on his home server? Does that change it? Your distinction that a door provides access to shelter.... that doesn't even make sense. A door can be in two states. In one state, it provides no hurdle, in another it does. By itself, a door does nothing.
Quite frankly, your entire assumption is littered with so many artificial (as in, contrary to common usage) distinctions that it is impossible for anyone to derive them, given a set of initial premises. From what I can tell so far, your reasoning would completely destroy the technical and legal underpinnings of the internet.
Here's a final example (not an analogy): let's say you go to a public park. You find a wired ethernet router there, sitting on a little pedestal. It is marked Linksys. There is no sign on it other than that. You can't see the wires running from it, as they are most likely in the pedestal and underground. You plug in your laptop, and it gives you access to the Internet. Are you doing something illegal? It's an honest question, as I have no idea how you'll respond to this.
I'd say a good compromise seems to be that all APs should by default have their wireless disabled. This seems to simplify your problem a lot, as you don't have to come up with justifications why a wireless AP needs to have arbitrary - and wholly unknowable - distinctions enforced. I'm ok with that, but that's a whole new ball of wax as to whether wireless AP manufacturers would even want to go that route.