Jump to content

Dak

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dak

  1. Basket ball players are information workers, as they produce TV shows. Just like other information workers (actors, authors, computer-game designers, strategic planners, etc), as their product can be sold again and again and again, even a fraction of a penny/view will add up to a ridiculous wage. So, that $200000/a represents about 0.01c/view, so it's not really that bad. Not gonna defend politicians. Are doctors reasonably unique in that the fruit of their labour isn't information, yet they still get payed that high?
  2. Well, at the start of this thread you said: If there's a shortage of doctors and staff, it makes sense to raise their wages to try to encourage more people to become doctors and health-care-staff. You can't have it both ways: you can't drop their wages and expect more people to become doctors etc. Unless you're arguing that there's not enough money to hire enough because they are too individually expensive?
  3. Just our ability to cure more: in ye olde days, cancer would've been treated pallitatively with a bromton cocktail; nowadays it involves actually curing the patient. Actually curing the patient is both better and more expensive. Iow, the more we can fix, the more money we need to fix things; and we keep figuring out how to fix more things. This is inconsistant with the OP's claim that there's a staff shortage. If that's true, then increased wages could incentivize more people to staff the NHS. Probably a drop in the ocean. Hopefully, they're being payed as a percentag
  4. Dak

    abortion insurance

    Seems pretty clear-cut to me: Swansont's saying: 'it is already the case that public funding of abortion is disallowed; plus, is it not already the case that private insurance for abortions exists?'. If so, then there's no need to speculate, as what you're proposing would already be the case. Instead, if anyone happens to know how private abortion-insurance works? Just like other medical insurance? Guess: it probably costs more if you're not on the pill to represent the increased risk of needing an abortion, and I dunno how it'd work for men? presumably, if public
  5. apart from possibly discouraging people from getting screened, there's also the problem that, by obliging patients to hand over both their real id and a blood sample, that a DNA database could be formed. No doubt there'd be a lot of non-compliance. Also, i'm not sure the risk of a fine will put off people who've managed to get STD's, who i'm assuming are predominantly risk-takers.
  6. ^^ I agree with the general gist of your point, but there's a few ways in which our consent isn't neccesary. Take tax, for example: to simply refuse to pay it would require that you don't use the banking system (otherwize they'll just have the banks take tax directly from your account). For the majority, it'd be quite difficult to get a job without a bank account for your wages to be payed into. Oh, and my understanding is that if we all refused to use the banks then there'd automatically be some kind of banking crisis that'd collapse the economy.
  7. looking at the ze rules, the only one that could be contrary to your FoS would be rule 3: If it is a legal requirement of us (and all other webforums) to censor these things, then there's no public forum where you can discuss them, and your FoS has been curtailed. iow, if it's illegal to say on a website 'I smoke crack', then you can't say that anywhere online (which seems counter to the right to free speech); if it's merely a local rule, then you just can't say it here, which is fine (just go somewhere else to say it). btw, me and cap'n broke S2:3a(iii) a while back, and it's
  8. There's more than two choices here: a user's ability to delete their posts could time out, for example. So: what, exactly, do you want to be able to delete your own posts for? If it's just the occasional double-post, then don't worry about it. If it's something else, tell us and maybe we'll be able to figure out a compromize.
  9. How's the law worded? If it's "you can't read another's email without their permission" then I guess presumption of innocence would be on your side: she'd have to prove both readage and a lack of permission(?); no idea how burden of proof to prove a negative works... otoh, if it's "you can't read another's email", and it's been established that you did, and you're trying to use permission as a defence, then I think the burden of proof would be on the defendant, in which case they're shafted(?) IANAL, so I really don't know. --- for a minor crime like this, i'd be inclined t
  10. The second (psychological tinkering). It makes it clear that what we think is only relevant because if we don't think what they think, then that's a problem that has to be fixed by altering what we think by any means possible.
  11. So, from his stated reasons it looks like he could argue his work had 'serious political value' IMO, there's no reason free speech should protect pervyness, tho 'free speech (except obscenity)' is too close to 'free speech (unless it really offends us)' for my liking. (your (B) and © were doing that btw, if you wonder why I edited your post)
  12. what's obscenity? sex-stuff? And, why isn't it protected?
  13. Well, my point is that if you do heroin once you won't exactly be clucking the next day. Do heroin every day, even for a week, and you start to get withdraw signs after stopping. And, some people will do heroin once and feel REAL incentives to do it again, and again, and again. But no one starts clucking after their first time. Similar with every addictive drug. Anyway, this thread's about ganj, and i'm pretty sure we'd all agree that ganj isn't adictive, so I guess it's moot.
  14. What's the justification for criminalizing homosexual incest?
  15. I don't think you can actually get addicted first time (possibly barring if you have some underlying psychiatric condition that the drug 'fixes'...).
  16. I thought the constitution applied to the federal and state governments? So each state was bound by their own and the constitution? iow, I wouldn't have thought that the federal government couldn't mandate auto-insurance, but every single state could. Is it the case that states can outlaw guns? Or do some parts of the constitution apply to state, and some to federal, government?
  17. ! Moderator Note kumarevo: Please keep all these posts on... lines and stuff... in one thread please. Also, your last post made little-to-no sense.
  18. How would you see that tho, if it's censored? here's the real catch-22: lets assume nothing WL has released shows anything significantly bad. so, you can say WL was unjustified in leaking, right? Now lets assume they'd never leaked in the first place. You'd not know. And, you'd not know whether you weren't seeing any leaks 'cos there aren't any majour ones, or because the censorship is really effective. What could you say there? To be sure it's not being misused it has to be breached; if it's not breached, you won't know. And if you don't know, you're left maybe thinking it'd be nice i
  19. No, that's it's cost in pounds (say). It's value is it's worth. If a pint cost £3, and 20 fags costs £6, then the value of 20 fags is two pints, or £6, or half a pint and £4.50. it's cost in pounds is £6 Nooo... money can be, and is, created Yes. Although people do get payed more. you put £3 in the bank, you've given them a pint (or 10 fags) worth of value. they buy a pint. they create more money, lowering it's value. now a pint is worth 10 fags is worth £6. You withdraw your money. they sell the pint for £6, and give you your £3 back. in money: you give t
  20. Well, sorry if i missed the answers. I just want to understand where you're coming from is all. Not me Yes you did. you said the overall organization enforces objectivity. I think this is what our argument boils down to: I think that we'd both agree that, ideally, the government would: 1/ withold some information, e.g. to protect them whilst they're doing what we want them to do. 2/ actually prevent this information from leaking (to wikileaks, the Russians, whatever) 3/ withold only what's necessary, thus giving us enough information to make an informed decision as to whether to
  21. without transparency, we don't know what they're doing, and therefore can't make an informed decision, thus spoiling the point of democracy. So... yes, we need a lot more. Not 100%, but a lot more than we have now.
  22. They're not going to leak pro-war dox, because pro-war dox aren't censored. This'll force them to focus on anti-war stuff (which is censored), which'll naturally make them appear anti-war but it's a false impression imo. It's intended to be viewed parrellel to the pro-war arguments/evidence we're already exposed to. Oh, slight exception for the Iraq war logs: the majority of that stuff is as benign as war can be. But, obviously, the worst aspects are specifically focused on because they're the more interesting. Don't tell me you'd listen if they focused on entirely legitimate no-contac
  23. Well... that, and to highlight when the government isn't being responsible. Ya, agree with you there. for all their focus on animal-abuse PETA also want to force us all to be vegitarians, for example. as you say, we can use their arguments, but probably not just their arguments, and it'd help if we knew their biases. So: what do you consider to be WL's 'vested interest', or hidden agenda? What power? are we talking about espoinage and/or uncensored media presence? Uncircumventable censorship is too much power for the government to have. Who then? Not the gov
  24. My apologies: censorship's kinda a 'button' for me, i have a tenancy to rant let me try again; it's pyramid-written, so just stop reading when you get bored. you've got propaganda, and you've got censorship. the idea behind propaganda is to increase the number of people accepting belief X; one point of censorship can be to decrease the number of people accepting belief Y by decreasing exposure to it (like anti-advertizing). taken together, the idea would be to move people as a whole away from belief Y towards belief X, irreguardless of how justified those beliefs are. A pre-requi
  25. Usually, I guess i'd be saying 'how do you know censorship isn't arbitrarily applied?'. Due to the wikileaks breach in security, i can instead say 'you can see that it is being arbitrarily used to censor non-security stuff'... at least for now. That's what i meant by needing wikileaks to 'win' if you want a meaningful national discussion about this. I'm happy differentiating between 'censorship' and 'redaction', where i'd define supressing 'we used informants' as censorship, and 'his name was john smith' as redaction -- ways and means are ok to suppress. Also, 'not censoring e
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.