As an American, I agree. My personal belief is that the election was rigged and that the newsmedia are Bush's personal lapdogs now, despite all the bullshit about a 'liberal news media' that conservatives like to float. There's hardly such a thing as a liberal news media in America anymore when it comes to economics, unless you include the comics. Maybe on social issues there's still more than one voice, but economically the conservative voice is the only real political voice in America now, and they've successfully undermined all opposition.
In light of the 'winner takes all' system in American politics, just remember that despite all of this at least half of America really dislikes the guys who are 'representing' us right now.
I'm all for folks getting in on the cloning business. At the worst, it can't be more unethical than what many pet farms already are.
This provides a financial incentive to refine the technology and make the whole thing more acceptable and familiar to people. Animal breeding has fewer ethical restrictions than medical cloning, so there are fewer ethical roadblocks.
Maybe a better phrasing is that quantum particles exist in all locations that they can exist in, to the degree that they can exist in those places, like a cloud. Things like observations (bouncing things off them or restricting them) force them to 'be or not be' in a certain location, thus partially or completly 'condensing' the wave function.
The twinkie portion I don't believe. I think it's more a matter of "the defense portrayed him as such a nice all american guy that they jury bought the B.S." As you said, intense homophobia.
Which was kindof my point, thought I didn't make it as explicitly as I should have. Occasionally, even good systems fail. Trial by anecdote can be used to attack such good systems, when a complete analysis would demonstrate that they're effective.
To put it another way, imagine if someone were told about everything that you ever did wrong in your life, and only what you've done wrong. How would they react to you?
You should see what it answered when I asked "Who is president of the United States". I couldn't get it to stop. I had to hit the power button and reboot.
It was probably trying to recount the votes. Either that, or it had received some threatening e-mails from the diebold voting machines down the block.
I can sue you for writing this post. It caused me 'mental anguish.' Doesn't mean I'd win... People can sue for ANYTHING.
Trial by anecdote can be dangerous. It's like when a guy got off scott free from murdering Harvey Milk ( A gay polititian ) and several other people by claiming that he'd eaten too many twinkies. Obviously our justice system is flawed and we should get rid of it completly...
a. Not known to the relevant portion of the public
E-mail addresses are a form of contact information that are given out by their very design.
Yeah, but not to spammers, who are the relevant portion of the public.
AOL doesn't have to sell the list to spammers. If they 'spam' their own customers to sell any sort of product, including more AOL, they derive economic value from the list. Having more spam decreases the value of AOL's letters to their members.
Who suffers the consequences if your doctor screws up. I've known plenty of people who've gotten hurt and haven't filed malpractice suits. One friend got drastically more insulin injected than was good for them while in the hospital and went into a coma. You don't have to double check, but you're the one who suffers if somthing goes wrong. That's what I meant by 'it's your responsibility.'
Besides a computer expert, now a doctor, do I need to be a mechanic, a home builder, a certified lawyer, a gardener, ad nausium?
To some degree, yes. You need to be able to critically evaluate information from those sources and go against their reccomendations if they don't match your needs. Just because a gardener tells you that you need a garden doesn't mean that you do. If you fail to do make good decisions, you're the one who gets hurt.
If you're going in for a procedure where your life is on the line, you should make the time to be informed, get a second opinion, etc.
Look at it from a legal sense. It's not good for any profession to have too much power. Most decisions should be in the hands of the individual, so long as they can take responsibility for their actions, and unless they choose to give up that responsibility. It's the job of professionals to diagnose the situation, to lay out the options, analyze the costs and the benefits of a decision, and give this information to the client. It's not their job to say 'here, do this because I said so.'
Right, but I bet you don't get any of that information from television commercials with people jumping and dancing and singing the name of a pill.
Actually, I don't even watch TV any more, but still...
My response was to the notion that people shouldn't be telling doctors what their treatment should be, and that control should rest entirely in the hands of the medical profession. That kind of passive attitude is not good.
There's a reason they say that doctors make the worst patients. The medical profession doesn't know how to deal with informed patients.
I have a biotech background from school. With a few weeks of research, I can pretty consistently find out more about my condition and the most up-to-date treatments than my doctor knows.
Often, I'm aware of side effects that they don't inform me of, or the drug companies don't inform me of.
The problem is that doctors get far too much advertising from drug companies already, and they aren't always the most critical consumers of information. Moreover, they're frequently in a hurry, trying to minimize costs because of their relationship with insurers, etc.
Ultimatly, people are responsible for their own health. If they're dumb about it, that's their own fault. But I'd like to see Pfizer (to give one example) fined for failing to disclose its sponsorship of research that it published in JAMA. (on female sexual dysfunction, when Pfizer makes Viagra)
I was agreeing with you till that last part. Bush was warned that Al Queada was planning to attack the US using airplanes. He did nothing. Woulda been nice if Clinton had gotten OBL in Sudan, but that wasn't the only reason we got hit.
But the money we're spending on "missle defense" isn't buying us anything, and could be circumvented if it did.
The other stuff, you just made up. Nobody's made SUVs illegal. The folks I know who are against SUVs don't buy SUVs. The folks who have them, aren't against them.
Clinton tried to strike Bin Ladin, but the attack got there late and he got such a backlash from it he didn't try again.
As far as 'massive corruption' goes, Bush sets the records for all-time most bribes taken (i.e. campaign contributions) and the Republican party has often written laws using text from corporate lobbyists, unadulterated. Money doesn't come free. There's no way you can vote for any major party without 'supporting corruption.'
That's why polititians talk of 'paying down the debt' not 'paying off the debt.'
The debt doesn't need to be nearly as large as it is to provide for economic stability. It could be a tenth the size, and noone would be the worse for it.
We're already deep in debt. Running up the debt is the same thing as raising taxes. Bush wants to take the credit for tax cuts but unless you cut spending, you're just signing people up for a huge loan that they have to pay back later.
This debt was run up under Republican presidents and it is now skyrocketing under a Republican president and congress (while it decreased under a Democratic president and congress). There's no longer a Democratic red herring in the mix to throw people off the scent.
The big problem is that corporations are a lot more moblie than people are. Manufacturing is relocating overseas, but our workforce just can't do that. Guess who's going to be stuck at home to pay off the tremendous bill?
Slashdot Mirror
No, waitaminute...
As an American, I agree. My personal belief is that the election was rigged and that the newsmedia are Bush's personal lapdogs now, despite all the bullshit about a 'liberal news media' that conservatives like to float. There's hardly such a thing as a liberal news media in America anymore when it comes to economics, unless you include the comics. Maybe on social issues there's still more than one voice, but economically the conservative voice is the only real political voice in America now, and they've successfully undermined all opposition.
In light of the 'winner takes all' system in American politics, just remember that despite all of this at least half of America really dislikes the guys who are 'representing' us right now.
Well, someone had to say it. But seriously...
I'm all for folks getting in on the cloning business. At the worst, it can't be more unethical than what many pet farms already are.
This provides a financial incentive to refine the technology and make the whole thing more acceptable and familiar to people. Animal breeding has fewer ethical restrictions than medical cloning, so there are fewer ethical roadblocks.
Sounds right to me.
Maybe a better phrasing is that quantum particles exist in all locations that they can exist in, to the degree that they can exist in those places, like a cloud. Things like observations (bouncing things off them or restricting them) force them to 'be or not be' in a certain location, thus partially or completly 'condensing' the wave function.
Anyone know how to hack into this guys electricity and turn it on and off randomly? I'm sure he'd see the humor. :)
Yes, but being a danger to himself and others, maybe we should ask his legal guardian. That'd be Elrond, right?
When 900 years old he reaches, be so healthy he will not. Hmmph!
Please excuse me while I go and gauge out my eyes. *shudder*
You're going to measure your eyes?
The twinkie portion I don't believe. I think it's more a matter of "the defense portrayed him as such a nice all american guy that they jury bought the B.S." As you said, intense homophobia.
Which was kindof my point, thought I didn't make it as explicitly as I should have. Occasionally, even good systems fail. Trial by anecdote can be used to attack such good systems, when a complete analysis would demonstrate that they're effective.
To put it another way, imagine if someone were told about everything that you ever did wrong in your life, and only what you've done wrong. How would they react to you?
Well, if they were any good, you could buy them.
Here's somthing I'd add;
Bacteriophages. Try getting a hold of some. yup.
You should see what it answered when I asked "Who is president of the United States". I couldn't get it to stop. I had to hit the power button and reboot.
It was probably trying to recount the votes. Either that, or it had received some threatening e-mails from the diebold voting machines down the block.
Just don't give it Nietzche.
I can sue you for writing this post. It caused me 'mental anguish.' Doesn't mean I'd win...
People can sue for ANYTHING.
Trial by anecdote can be dangerous.
It's like when a guy got off scott free from murdering Harvey Milk ( A gay polititian ) and several other people by claiming that he'd eaten too many twinkies. Obviously our justice system is flawed and we should get rid of it completly...
Long lost relative of Duke?
Who knew it was a real name.
a. Not known to the relevant portion of the public
E-mail addresses are a form of contact information that are given out by their very design.
Yeah, but not to spammers, who are the relevant portion of the public.
AOL doesn't have to sell the list to spammers. If they 'spam' their own customers to sell any sort of product, including more AOL, they derive economic value from the list. Having more spam decreases the value of AOL's letters to their members.
Who suffers the consequences if your doctor screws up. I've known plenty of people who've gotten hurt and haven't filed malpractice suits. One friend got drastically more insulin injected than was good for them while in the hospital and went into a coma. You don't have to double check, but you're the one who suffers if somthing goes wrong. That's what I meant by 'it's your responsibility.'
Besides a computer expert, now a doctor, do I need to be a mechanic, a home builder, a certified lawyer, a gardener, ad nausium?
To some degree, yes. You need to be able to critically evaluate information from those sources and go against their reccomendations if they don't match your needs. Just because a gardener tells you that you need a garden doesn't mean that you do. If you fail to do make good decisions, you're the one who gets hurt.
If you're going in for a procedure where your life is on the line, you should make the time to be informed, get a second opinion, etc.
Look at it from a legal sense. It's not good for any profession to have too much power. Most decisions should be in the hands of the individual, so long as they can take responsibility for their actions, and unless they choose to give up that responsibility. It's the job of professionals to diagnose the situation, to lay out the options, analyze the costs and the benefits of a decision, and give this information to the client. It's not their job to say 'here, do this because I said so.'
Right, but I bet you don't get any of that information from television commercials with people jumping and dancing and singing the name of a pill.
Actually, I don't even watch TV any more, but still...
My response was to the notion that people shouldn't be telling doctors what their treatment should be, and that control should rest entirely in the hands of the medical profession. That kind of passive attitude is not good.
There's a reason they say that doctors make the worst patients. The medical profession doesn't know how to deal with informed patients.
I have a biotech background from school. With a few weeks of research, I can pretty consistently find out more about my condition and the most up-to-date treatments than my doctor knows.
Often, I'm aware of side effects that they don't inform me of, or the drug companies don't inform me of.
The problem is that doctors get far too much advertising from drug companies already, and they aren't always the most critical consumers of information. Moreover, they're frequently in a hurry, trying to minimize costs because of their relationship with insurers, etc.
Ultimatly, people are responsible for their own health. If they're dumb about it, that's their own fault. But I'd like to see Pfizer (to give one example) fined for failing to disclose its sponsorship of research that it published in JAMA. (on female sexual dysfunction, when Pfizer makes Viagra)
I took both and ran out of blood.
Why? Because he doesn't let the US kill him and install whoever they want in a puppet government?
Because he managed to get an agreement from a nation intent on invading Cuba and posessing it that they would never invade?
There are a lot of Banana republics in S. America that went along with the U.S.'s desires and aren't that much better for it.
I was agreeing with you till that last part. Bush was warned that Al Queada was planning to attack the US using airplanes. He did nothing. Woulda been nice if Clinton had gotten OBL in Sudan, but that wasn't the only reason we got hit.
But the money we're spending on "missle defense" isn't buying us anything, and could be circumvented if it did.
The other stuff, you just made up. Nobody's made SUVs illegal. The folks I know who are against SUVs don't buy SUVs. The folks who have them, aren't against them.
Clinton tried to strike Bin Ladin, but the attack got there late and he got such a backlash from it he didn't try again.
As far as 'massive corruption' goes, Bush sets the records for all-time most bribes taken (i.e. campaign contributions) and the Republican party has often written laws using text from corporate lobbyists, unadulterated. Money doesn't come free. There's no way you can vote for any major party without 'supporting corruption.'
That's why polititians talk of 'paying down the debt' not 'paying off the debt.'
The debt doesn't need to be nearly as large as it is to provide for economic stability. It could be a tenth the size, and noone would be the worse for it.
We're already deep in debt. Running up the debt is the same thing as raising taxes. Bush wants to take the credit for tax cuts but unless you cut spending, you're just signing people up for a huge loan that they have to pay back later.
This debt was run up under Republican presidents and it is now skyrocketing under a Republican president and congress (while it decreased under a Democratic president and congress). There's no longer a Democratic red herring in the mix to throw people off the scent.
The big problem is that corporations are a lot more moblie than people are. Manufacturing is relocating overseas, but our workforce just can't do that. Guess who's going to be stuck at home to pay off the tremendous bill?
How bugfuck nuts is Castro?
Guy seems pretty sane to me.