Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Even supporters should want to kill this thing (Score 1) 398

Be careful what you wish for, the Canadian system has a lot of failings. Reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States, Canada might be moderately better than the US, but only very very moderately in some areas, and for a population that is 1/10 the size (ie, the size of California) - I'd find a better model if I were you ...

Comment Re:What a clusterf**k. (Score 1) 398

Interestingly, most Democrats mock Republicans for being too corporatist while being disappointed that the (Democrat) ACA is a handout to private insurance companies ... Choose your friends carefully, they may not be who they say they are. Truth is, both parties are responsible for the mess, and both parties are in love with money. As for why far right Republicans slam the ACA, you might want to read what they actually say - when discussing that to do about health care, they slammed socialized medicine, but most of the commentary nowadays is about how inefficient and stupid the ACA is, and that actual socialized medicine would be non-ideal but better than the system the Democrats have saddled us with ...

Comment Re:What a clusterf**k. (Score 2) 398

Denmark's population is also ~5 million. There is no guarantee that the system there could scale to the entire United States. Most countries with actual efficient public medicine are more akin to a single state (eg. Canada is well down the efficiency curve at only 30 million) than to all the states combined. While the system may be more efficient for a combination of more than one person (eg. 1 million), scalability matters.

Also, your claim about government = bureaucracy ... much of the paperwork in the states is likely government mandated. Finally, the discussion here is about Obamacare, which is nothing like the model you're touting in Denmark. It does in fact seem to be worse than what it replaces, which is a funny way to move forward ...

Comment Re:Remember (Score 1) 893

Prepare for your mind to be blown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax
The top 1% get 20% of the income and pay 38% of the tax
The next 4% get 15% of the income and pay 21% of the tax
The next 5% get 11% of the income pay 11 % of the tax
Yet most people here are angry that the one percenters aren't paying their fare share ... ?

Comment Re:Already ceded the relevant argument (Score 1) 1121

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what they're admitting. Saying there is scientific evidence for Biblical truth is far different than saying they need scientific evidence for Biblical truth. If I see a sign pointing to New York and tell someone "see, New York exists, look at the sign!", I'm not actually basing my belief that it exists on the sign because that's what I used as evidence to get you to consider travelling there. Not saying I agree with said random church that using science as an evangelistic tool is wise, but neither do I agree with you that this is surrendering an epistemological war.

Comment Re:Sigh, this is not what a Christian should be do (Score 1) 1121

Funny thing - he didn't actually spend his money, 'cause no one took him up on his bet. Even if it's sitting in an escrow account, he's free to spend it on the poor later, I'm sure he has no intention of paying out on his bet. Don't judge his entire character based on one foolish bet ...

Comment Re:science versus religion (Score 1) 388

As I said elsewhere, eldavojohn appears to be looking for a philosophical argument that proves there is no conflict between science and religion, not a scientific one. While Dr. Bakker has made a good scientific argument (based on solid evidence), a philosophical one is a bit harder to maintain (in general, not just in this case, good philosophical arguments can be made both ways for all complex issues). Of course, that's the point of science - evidence trumps hypothesis ...

Comment Re:Well That Was a Depressing Read (Score 2) 388

I actually find Dr. Bakker's take much more scientific than yours. He looks at the data from the past ~2000 years and uses it to answer the question of "is there a conflict between religion and science?" and comes to the conclusion that while there has been some tension, it's not necessarily between those two. As evidence, he gives some examples with which he is familiar, and comes to a reasonable conclusion.

You, on the other hand, take his argument and make up unfalsifiable claims that we would be "far better off" today if the church had been less powerful centuries ago. You may be right, but you're really taking this on faith, there is no way to prove your claims. You're also speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say Augustine was a successful scientist because of his mindset, on the other you insinuate that if he had a questioning mindset he would have been burned at the stake (wrong time period, but hey).

Likewise, because a Reverend could use evidence to come to the correct conclusion that dinosaurs were more like birds doesn't present one shred of evidence to me that Christianity is right, let alone reconcilable with science.

It actually proves that someone very "into" Christianity can come up with good scientific conclusions, so I'm not sure what evidence would convince you that it is reconcilable with science. I think what you're saying is that the conclusion is in spite of the philosophical leanings of the person in question. In that case, you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for a philosophical argument, and you should be asking your questions to a philosopher, not a scientist.

Comment Re:silver is honest (Score 1) 136

The liberal rage machine ain't pretty either (see the first part of my reply), but the problem isn't the bias of the machine, it's the tone. The problem is that from the inside it's easy to get worked up about the other side and not realize how ugly the tone is on your own side.

There's a legitimate argument to be had over the role of government, the problem is that people get so wrapped up in their own view (and on both sides it's usually actually that "my" government can do no wrong, "their" gov can do no right - whether Bush or Obama is president - which is fantasy either way) that they can't see the good in others.

Should we allow dumping toxic chemicals into river water? No! Should there be 50 different federal agencies to prevent it? Also no! In general, today, we've swung towards many, ineffective and bloated agencies instead of few, effective and streamlined. If you've dealt with a government agency or worked for one, you know this. Should torture be used routinely? No! However, both Bush and Obama have used intel gained by what I would call torture, to a fairly similar degree as far as I can tell (and not an extensive nor a routine one), but the reaction from any individual depends heavily on what side of the spectrum they identify themself with. Either "Obama/Bush is a hypocrite" or "Obama/Bush is just doing what he needs to", depending which four year stretch you're in.

Comment Re:silver is honest (Score 1) 136

If politicians in general don't overspend, how come out of the last 40 years only 5 have produced a surplus, and the US debt is sitting at nearly 17 trillion dollars and going nowhere fast? Clinton did well economically (maybe because he was pursuing other interests??), but that's irrelevant to my argument. In fact, by saying Clinton didn't overspend and had a surplus, you're supporting my point that Obama (and many other presidents before him) did overspend in order to get a deficit.

Comment Re:silver is honest (Score 1) 136

The problem with your premise is that it is powerful people using government to protect their interests. That is the essence of many of the problems with government today, I agree, but it's not pretty. Experts backed by the power of government can be a very scary thing when they have an agenda that differs from yours (which will inevitably happen when they multiply!), which is why the most successful countries today are those that actually limit the power of government over individuals to some degree.

Comment Re:silver is honest (Score 2) 136

Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.

So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"

It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.

A few very big assumptions in there - very lazy of you. Shouldn't you have at least researched greenbird's personal record on researching the actual topics at hand? Maybe he deals with them explicitly instead of implicitly like you do ... Saying that both parties are equally wrong is just a blanket level statement, what you do with it is up to you. I'd say judging a politician by his party is the lazy approach.You're basically throwing your hands up and saying "I don't have time to judge the individual, so I'll go by party".

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry