bascule

I do have to say most of the options that are popular among Democrats now fail to address the costs of the program, especially if Obama intends to keep his campaign promise of not increasing taxes. I see a single-payer system as the best approach to keep costs down. In theory it should be one of the cheapest options available.

Yes, integrated circuits could be made out of individual transistors if you so desire, as in physical transistors with three wires sticking out of them, hooked to a logic board or any type of breadboard. Integrated circuits implement logic gates in a variety of ways. This might be a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture

You know, this is really funny... yesterday while traveling I watched a bunch of cable news (my plane got delayed and they had free DirecTV) There was pretty disproportionate reporting on the Cash for Clunkers program by Fox News and pretty much every other news agency. Fox's opinion was ostensibly that the program is a failure! They're spending lots of stimulus money! However, Fox omitted an awful lot from its report. Like pretty much anything positive. They reported on the program as a "failure" but said nothing about sales figures, including the first sales gain in 2 years for Ford: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2009/db2009083_083369.htm Ford posted its first sales increase in 2 years. GM and Chrysler still suffered a sales loss, but it was the smallest this year. More than that, the program has been successful at getting people to trade in gas guzzling SUVs for fuel efficient passenger cars. The #1 swap according to BusinessWeek was the Ford Explorer for the Ford Focus. The coverage I've seen on CNN, MSNBC, etc. has been relatively positive, with them suggesting additional stimulus money would be secured due to the program's success. The only network I saw reporting doom and gloom around the program was Fox News, which, well, it goes without saying: if the Democrats want it, Fox News will be opposed.

What one was wrong? Perhaps you didn't like the way I phrased my assertion that the present CO2 anomaly is almost entirely anthropogenic, but later agreed when I phrased it in a manner more acceptable to you. In regard to that argument natural CO2 fluxes are a red herring as they balance each other out. The cause of the increasing trend in CO2 concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic.

I watched quite a bit of cable news for the first time in ages yesterday (in the midst of traveling), and the top story was that two of Obama's top economic advisers (including Geithner) had "left the door open" for a middle class tax hike. This despite Obama's resounding and oft-repeated promise that he would not raise taxes on those households making less than $250,000/year. The general conclusion was that Geithner was simply being realistic: in order to afford a public option in healthcare, taxes will need to be raised. Perhaps this is why Obama is opposed to a single-payer healthcare system. It would undoubtably require a tax hike on middle-class Americans, however this would take the place of money going to private insurers. The net result would be effectively $0 change in take home pay (or even save money, according to Kucinich), but it would technically require a tax hike. I watched the White House press conference, and was absolutely amazed by the reporters being frustrated that Obama's staff weren't all "on point". Perhaps they were used to the Republican approach of disseminating talking points memos and having everyone parroting the administration's lines. It was amazingly effective in controlling the media. The Democrats aren't doing that. Where there is not consensus different people are disseminating their own opinions. Personally I love this, but the media's reaction is quite the opposite. They just want a talking points memo regurgitated to them and having everyone on point. That's terrible, and what lead to mass manipulation of the media by the Bush Administration. Reporters just seem to suck.

I've heard this argument tossed out a lot, with no facts, statistics, or any sort of numbers to back it up. It seems entirely based on the rather vague and often incorrect assumption that competition will force services provided by the private sector to be more efficient than government-provided services. In the case of healthcare, this has resulted in a multi-tiered bureaucracy of private companies to provide for a multi-payer healthcare system. You end up with "middle men" companies that healthcare providers must use to bill multiple insurers. This alone makes the system much less efficient than a single-payer system. I thought this comic articulated the point nicely: The numbers iNow provided on another thread demonstrate quite the opposite in regard to the "government healthcare is inefficient" argument... the United States private insurer-based healthcare system is the costliest and most inefficient in the world: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

So... any word on this?

Addition can be performed using adders, which are made out of logic gates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_%28electronics%29 When numbers are represented using Two's Compliment subtraction is the same thing as addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two%27s_complement Multipliers can be constructed out of multiple adders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_multiplier Multipliers can also be constructed using shifts and adds, which is slower and more complicated. Division can be implemented using shifts and subtraction.

Jon Stewart vs. Bill Kristol is like oil meeting water. Stewart tore into this Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, and the argument between them was pretty strange and interesting: http://www.hulu.com/embed/ZkZpH6uXyKo0OPK8VqQA-Q/1085 Stewart was talking to Kristol about healthcare, and asked: The discussion continues... Kristol was caught between a desire not to insult the military healthcare system (which is a government-run single-payer healthcare system) and claiming it's first-class while trying to argue that the government wouldn't do a good job at running a healthcare system. I think that's one of the best arguments for single-payer healthcare I've ever heard.

My opinion of the present bill is that I don't think the changes it makes are radical enough to address the problem. It is unfortunate that the Blue Dogs and various other groups will prevent a single payer solution from ever reaching mainstream consideration. I personally believe that is the best solution to the problem.

Isn't the answer to the question "what exists outside of the visible universe" unknowable? If something exists outside the visible universe, isn't it impossible for it to be causally linked to us?

I think it's important to look at the CO2 anomaly. CO2 levels are in constant flux. Anthropogenic sources are almost completely responsible for 20th century increases in the CO2 anomaly... almost all of the rest can be chalked up to feedbacks caused by a warming climate.

I'm surprised some state hasn't tried to start a single payer program on their own. It's my understanding that's how universal healthcare got its start in Canada: one province offered it as a pilot program, and from there they expanded it nationwide. Also, I'm not seeing a states rights violation here. You're saying it's unconstitutional for the government to provide universal healthcare?

This was weird to see... an artifact from my hometown, "Republican Moms for Marijuana": http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/jul/26/legalize-marijuana-pot-colorado-republican-moms/

Well, it's not always that bad. I had an optometrist squeeze me in for an instant appointment the other week, and did a follow up appointment where he dilated my eyes a few days later. Once when I cut my hand, a plastic surgeon was able to squeeze me in for an instant appointment. What I'm describing has been my typical experience though. Wait and wait and wait. Then get to the doctor's office and wait some more. Did I mention we sit in the examination room from anywhere to 10-30 minutes before the doctor will show up? That's after waiting 10-20 minutes in the lobby. I think the problem is a lot of people don't realize or don't care it's broken.

JohnB, When I talk about a week turnaround, that's just for scheduling the initial consult. If you intend to have a procedure done, it's typically a few days to a week after the initial consult. If you have insurance you'll pay copay on both. Depending on your deductible you might end up paying for a portion of the procedure. Just as an estimate of what you're describing in America, you can expect a few weeks turnaround and at least $100 of out-of-pocket costs.

Atoms are alive when they are part of living system. Being alive is not the same thing as being conscious. The "you" or "I" of consciousness refers to a self-referential information construct resulting from the information processing activity performed by our brains. Just because computers are not conscious now does not mean they can't be in the future. No, living systems are entirely physical. Consciousness is metaphysical, but not supernatural. We are self-referential information constructs which live inside a model of the outside world constructed by our brains. If a human brain were properly simulated inside a computer it would produce the same sort of self-referential information construct that our brains produce. In that regard such a computer would be capable of consciousness.

JohnB, I'm confused. Do you dispute that the present CO2 anomaly (since the industrial revolution) is overwhelmingly if not almost completely anthropogenic in origin?

PDAs? People still used those? I thought SmartPhones killed them.

You seem to be arguing that there's the possibility that it would.

I'm sorry if I'm looking at this completely from a computer science perspective, but the amount of data needed to describe the utterly random is significantly higher than what it takes to describe the boringly predictable, because the boringly predictable can be described via simple rules which can be used to compute a boringly predictable structure, whereas the utterly random cannot be described in any other way besides precisely cataloging the particular configuration a system happens to be in. In that regard, utterly random systems exhibit a higher degree of complexity.

Photos from spy satellites requested by scientists which were previously kept classified under the Bush Administration were released by the Obama administration following a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences: http://trueslant.com/jeffmcmahon/2009/07/26/declassified-arctic-ice-photos/

The program I watched on Boltzmann showed the following equation for entropy, which is carved into Boltzmann's tombstone: [math] S = k \, \log_{e} W[/math] Please do not ask me to describe what this equation means. I will fail. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedInteresting tidbits on the "disorder" issue on Wikipedia. It seems the entire idea of entropy-as-disorder comes from Boltzmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann#The_Second_Law_as_a_law_of_disorder

How would complete freedom solve the problem?

I recently watched a documentary on Boltzmann, which was very interesting but continually likened entropy to disorder (and "decay"). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to liken entropy to the information content of the universe, and to state that the information content of the universe is increasing? In other words, the universe is complexifying. I've heard it argued that some types of complexity, such as the arrangement of molecules in a gas cloud, are not particularly important/useful/meaningful. Also I suppose as the universe reaches a state of extreme old age and approaches absolute zero it is no longer meaningful to liken entropy to complexity. Thoughts?