Surely the better solution is to use drugs etc to control Malaria instead of make some superbug that will eventually have some supermalaria? It's not as if controlling Malaria is an expensive or unknown problem.
That's just it. Current malaria drugs are all off patent. If we increase the resistance of mosquitoes, we can hopefully breed more powerful malaria that requires new drugs, which means new patents and a profit windfall, all for the sake of fighting this tragic and debilitating illness.
I offer a service and have for almost a decade now and I've spent about $30k on it.
$30K? ouch. I was spending that kind of money on my web service also, until I managed to negotiate a volume discount with the escort service I use. I even had enough money left over to buy a much better webcam, and a professional-grade fireman costume.
You don't understand what a monopoly is do you? Hint: It doesn't mean you have 100% of a market.
hm.. I guess I don't understand what a monopoly is either. The first definition at dictionary.com says it's "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service." Perhaps you can explain why you object to using the term as it is so defined.
Some items a Democrat will mod up are generally the things a Republican will mod down. If you wanted to run a Slashdot style mod system and invite both Reps and Dems to your site, you should have moderation based on their political styles instead of an additive approach. For example: Dems mod an article up 77 points, while Reps mod it down 20. For Democrats, it will be a prime article to read. For Republicans it won't even show up. I think this may be the future of moderation on websites. It doesn't have to stop with just Democrats and Republicans, there are tons of groups that are at odds, or simply different than mainstream.
That's a great idea. Since we don't have to live in the same country, or even on the same planet, contending on a daily basis with issues that will affect us equally, why should we have to discuss them in the same threads, when this just leads to acrimony and devisiveness?
Grammar nazism is much like judging a person by how they dress
There is a difference between dropping one's monocle into his martini at the sight of a tie that is not tied in a Windsor knot, and politely poking fun at a someone who wears a wife beater to a dinner party. Confusing "lose" and "loose" is the grammatical equivalent of the latter.
Spiders construct webs for hunting and killing. No intelligence required.
In that case, the purpose of the web is imputed by the observer, in the same way that one might say that the purpose of the otter's oily coat is to allow the coat to repel water, but the otter need not be aware of this purpose for the coat to fulfill it. In the case of the monkey, the purpose of the spear appears to be imputed by the animal itself. That is likely what the article finds significant.
Do your figures take into account the increased number of women in the workforce? If the proportion of women in other fields has increased as much or more, simply on the basis of the fact that more women work than did 40 years ago, those numbers are not particularly useful.
I work in academia - computer science - and I'm not oblivious to the fact that there's a fair bit of 'affirmative action' for women and non-asian minorities to try to 'correct' the 'problem' of under-representation.
As may be the case here, affirmative action can worsen the problem it is trying to solve by inclining people to suspect that any accolade awarded to a member of a relevant group is unjustly bestowed, even when this is not true. Thus the blame cannot fall squarely on the shoulders of the person who raises these suspicions, but must be shared by those who promote policies that aggravate them. Whether the benefit of these policies outweigh this cost is worth discussing.
Okay, I'll express the threats to your kids, that should be the most effective arrangement. I hope you have kids of, say, four to ten years of age. I can be real scary because I'm very large and have a very deep voice, and I'm a good actor. I'll be extremely threatening and ominous.
That sounds fine, as long as you don't threaten to kill them unless they enjoy the delicious taste of Cocoa Puffs as part of a complete balanced breakfast.
I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you actually disagree with me.
Asking everyone to own their own road system is more like asking everyone to own their own health care practice that asking them to pay health insurance.
Yes, I agree. That is why the comparison between private roads and private healthcare doesn't make sense.
what could be fairer?
this part makes me suspect you are speaking ironically.
As for people paying for that proportion of the judiciary, legislature etc. that they actually use, that seems fair, but I don't see how it could be practical. After all, when a judge sentences a car thief, a given person will usually have no direct interest in this event, being neither the victim nor the perpetrator of the crime, and yet this person will benefit from the sentencing on account of the fact that it may deter the theft of his own car. It is therefore impractical to allocate the costs based on benefits for the judiciary, and similar arguments can be made for other public services like the legislature (although roads are somewhat different on account of the fact that gas taxes and tolls are possible).
You appear to be arguing that because allocating the costs of some services is impractical, therefore, one should not allocate the costs of health insurance. This does not follow because it is not impractical to allocate the costs of health insurance (although it may not be a good idea).
As for your following argument, it appears to be that poor people need healthcare just like they need the services of the legislature, judiciary and police, and that it is the government's role to ensure that they have it, because not to provide it would be irresponsible. One might respond with the argument that it is not the government's responsibility to ensure the well-being of the people, but to ensure that the people's right to pursue their own well-being is not curtailed, and that the latter requires some public services whose costs must be shared because it is not practical to allocate them, but that healthcare is not among these. You would probably have an easier time convincing someone who argues this of your own point of view if you abandoned your tendency toward sarcasm and condescension ("what could be fairer?" "voting rights? Whiners!" and so on), and instead explained why you believe their understanding of the purpose of government is incorrect.
Right on. Why should I have to pay for a police force, judges, politicians, schools, military, highways, or anything else the public uses?
whatever one thinks of the feasability of public healthcare, this argument is facetious. it is not possible for each individual to have his own road system, nor his own military, judiciary or legislature, on account of the fact that we live on the same piece of land, and, for example, having multiple judiciaries and legislatures that each has hegemony over this land is impossible.
It is however quite possible to make each person responsible for paying the cost his own health insurance, whether or not one thinks this is a good idea. This type of condescending and simplistic rhetoric merely cheapens legitimate arguments for government-sponsored health insurance.
...the super bowl was an incredibly stupid waste of advertising money for a dot.com
nonsense. as a direct result of this advertisement I bought 10 G5's and am presently using them to write "Suck it, Polar Bears!" across the entire western hemisphere.
What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
apparently the answer hinges upon the web 2.0 definition of community, which appears to be "a group of mouth-breathing schmucks who will patronize your service out of inertia, even though they could get better money elsewhere."
A typical movie downloader is 29 years of age, while 63 percent of all downloaders are male, and 37 percent are female
This is actually a stunning revelation. Apparently transgendered people have a much stronger moral compass than the rest of the population, and never download any copyrighted content. I wonder how the religious right plans to explain away this unpleasant discovery.
It pisses me off to no end that everyone thinks Summers said women weren't as smart on average as men. He explicitly did not say this. What he did say is that there is evidence the standard deviation (not the mean!) for intelligence for men appears to be higher than the standard deviation for women. He proceeded to discuss the implications of this (more male morons, but also more male geniuses).
furthermore, this type of misinterpretation, whether willful or ignorant, ultimately does great damage to the cause of getting women into science and engineering positions. If it is impossible to have a rational discussion of the issue (a discussion which may consider possible differences between the sexes that are inimical to supporters of equality) without being branded a chauvinist or being fired, you may strongarm your way into getting closer to the job distributions you want, but you generate in the meanwhile antagonism that may ultimately do long-term harm that far outweighs any short-term benefits you obtain.
To shout down a legitimate question on the grounds not that it is provably false, but that it is merely distasteful, is thus not merely reprehensible in the full sense of the word, but contrary to the interests of both sides of the debate. The star chamber that fired Summers has therefore likely done far more harm by this action than he did by raising his question.
It sort of sucks for the engineer because you are in the position where you are only recognized if you frack up (and yes I've been in BSG withdrawal). The best type of award you can get for your accomplishments (other than a big fat paycheck) is for nobody to ever think about what you did. Case in point: everyone remembers the dipshit who invented the square wheel, but nobody ever gives recognition to the genius who invented the round wheel.
that's a common issue in many professions. for example, in american football, cornerbacks have the same problem. no one notices them until a receiver burns them for a lot of yards.
ok, that's a good start. Now you just need to convince the king of Sealand to sell it off in tiny chunks, a la the million dollar homepage, and TBP and all the other torrent sites and wannabe despots can purchase their own 1 X 1 centimeter country (5 pounds for enclaves, 10 for ocean adjacent). Then those that want to go the whole nine yards can then get an embassy in Swaziland or Madagascar.
Slashdot Mirror
$30K? ouch. I was spending that kind of money on my web service also, until I managed to negotiate a volume discount with the escort service I use. I even had enough money left over to buy a much better webcam, and a professional-grade fireman costume.
Except for Verizon customers, who are worth $0.40 cents.
Do your figures take into account the increased number of women in the workforce? If the proportion of women in other fields has increased as much or more, simply on the basis of the fact that more women work than did 40 years ago, those numbers are not particularly useful.
As may be the case here, affirmative action can worsen the problem it is trying to solve by inclining people to suspect that any accolade awarded to a member of a relevant group is unjustly bestowed, even when this is not true. Thus the blame cannot fall squarely on the shoulders of the person who raises these suspicions, but must be shared by those who promote policies that aggravate them. Whether the benefit of these policies outweigh this cost is worth discussing.
GM Potatoes: Unsafe at Any Spud.
ASCII pr0n
As for people paying for that proportion of the judiciary, legislature etc. that they actually use, that seems fair, but I don't see how it could be practical. After all, when a judge sentences a car thief, a given person will usually have no direct interest in this event, being neither the victim nor the perpetrator of the crime, and yet this person will benefit from the sentencing on account of the fact that it may deter the theft of his own car. It is therefore impractical to allocate the costs based on benefits for the judiciary, and similar arguments can be made for other public services like the legislature (although roads are somewhat different on account of the fact that gas taxes and tolls are possible).
You appear to be arguing that because allocating the costs of some services is impractical, therefore, one should not allocate the costs of health insurance. This does not follow because it is not impractical to allocate the costs of health insurance (although it may not be a good idea).
As for your following argument, it appears to be that poor people need healthcare just like they need the services of the legislature, judiciary and police, and that it is the government's role to ensure that they have it, because not to provide it would be irresponsible. One might respond with the argument that it is not the government's responsibility to ensure the well-being of the people, but to ensure that the people's right to pursue their own well-being is not curtailed, and that the latter requires some public services whose costs must be shared because it is not practical to allocate them, but that healthcare is not among these. You would probably have an easier time convincing someone who argues this of your own point of view if you abandoned your tendency toward sarcasm and condescension ("what could be fairer?" "voting rights? Whiners!" and so on), and instead explained why you believe their understanding of the purpose of government is incorrect.
It is however quite possible to make each person responsible for paying the cost his own health insurance, whether or not one thinks this is a good idea. This type of condescending and simplistic rhetoric merely cheapens legitimate arguments for government-sponsored health insurance.
Samy is my cellmate!
'Immortal computing' must be a euphemism for the fact that eventually all Windows machines turn into zombies.
I bet they'll find the results much more striking if they investigate recipients of the Darwin award.
To shout down a legitimate question on the grounds not that it is provably false, but that it is merely distasteful, is thus not merely reprehensible in the full sense of the word, but contrary to the interests of both sides of the debate. The star chamber that fired Summers has therefore likely done far more harm by this action than he did by raising his question.
ok, that's a good start. Now you just need to convince the king of Sealand to sell it off in tiny chunks, a la the million dollar homepage, and TBP and all the other torrent sites and wannabe despots can purchase their own 1 X 1 centimeter country (5 pounds for enclaves, 10 for ocean adjacent). Then those that want to go the whole nine yards can then get an embassy in Swaziland or Madagascar.