bascule

I guess you've never heard of a transistor radio. No batteries required! There's also RFID, where devices can actually transmit a radio signal while being powered by another radio signal alone.

The floppy drive becomes hard every time you log off

The number of people who can afford catastrophic care out of pocket is extremely limited. We are all at risk of needing catastrophic care at some point in our life, so some sort of system for pooling the risk is definitely in order. Catastrophic care isn't something you can just write a check for in most circumstances. He's suggesting that the profit motive, which is at the heart of free markets, runs counter to the notion of providing effective care, because providing care is a liability to an insurer. This idea becomes painfully clear when you look at Kuchinich's statistic that 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of hospital bills, and 80% of those people are insured. Making the insurance market in some way "more free" isn't going to fix this fundamental problem.

Some of the ones I've seen: Global mean surface temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 (via a SFN member) Warming has "flatlined" since 1998 (via the Wall Street Journal) The surface temperature trend of the contiguous 48 states of the US has shown no warming (via a SFN member) All of these are false. Many times I've seen the argument made that historically CO2 concentrations increase in response to warming temperatures (as less CO2 is able to dissolve into the oceans). They go on to suggest that increasing concentrations of CO2 are an effect of warming temperatures, not one of the causes. Another tidbit of disinformation I see quite often is that natural sources of CO2 greatly outnumber anthropogenic sources, when the opposite is true.

Do you have any supporting reasoning for why it's "not the government's job" to supply healthcare? Do you feel the private insurers do a better job than the government could? Are you unconcerned about being denied coverage by your insurer in the event of a catastrophic health crisis?

This was a pretty interesting Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/ It's short and to the point: for-profit health insurance systems don't work. To turn a profit they need to minimize the number of claims they accept. To do that they need to deny care. However, they're in the business of providing care. Worse, there's administrative costs associated in deciding which claims to accept and looking for loopholes which would allow them to deny care. This means that for-profit insurers actually spend more money to provide less care (because in the end this saves them money). As Krugman puts it: I've noticed an inordinate amount of attention is paid to how people would abuse the health care system if there weren't associated costs, e.g. people visiting a GP when it's unnecessary. But as Krugman notes: Ironically, the type of care which a for-profit insurer is most interested in denying your claim are exactly the types of care when you need your insurance company the most. Does that seem... fundamentally broken to anyone else? So what's the solution? Here's what Krugman had to say:

Does that mean that when people aren't looking at the Mandelbrot Set or the Rule 110 cellular automaton they go away? These guys seem pretty convinced fractals are absolute, real things:

This whole thing seems like a distraction to me. Sometimes I get the feeling the news media have collective ADD, and this is some definite mountain-out-of-molehill making. Can we get back to discussing important issues like health care?

What do you think about Krugman's statement that these sorts of bonuses are one of the things that helped cause the financial crisis in the first place?

Note that "phono" is a tad ambiguous because it can also refer to a TRS connector. It's less ambiguous to refer to it as an RCA connector. Also note that most modern devices worldwide use HDMI.

Zuh? I'm not seeing how your statement is radically different from mine.

So you have zero concerns about the $12.9 billion in government money Goldman Sachs received vicariously through AIG, money that will never be repaid to the government? Meanwhile Goldman Sachs is paying out $11.4 billion in bonuses. Yes, like former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, who in a completely unrelated and coincidental matter coordinated the $80 billion bailout of AIG. *facepalm* Hooray for pocketing billions in government money! Oh really! You don't say.

Nope. Typical turnaround time for me, among many GPs, is typically a week, having booked an appointment in advance. If something is semi-serious and you need care, the typical approach here is to go to a clinic or the emergency room. However, be prepared to wait a few hours before someone is able to see you. Then there are people who do show up to the emergency room with something serious but somehow don't get bumped up in the triage process who pass out and die on the emergency room floor. Yeah, American healthcare rules. You'll get the same care if you're insured or not, it's just you end up paying out of pocket if you're uninsured. No insurance? Cash up front.

For those of you who are wondering about the significance of something being OVER 9000, I invite you to read the Encyclopedia Dramatica article about the OVER 9000 meme. http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI Despite the teabagging and worries about high unemployment the DJIA has slowly slogged uphill, reaching 9000 again for the first time since the beginning of the year. I'm not saying the Dow knows all but in general this is good news.

Actually I feel completely the opposite: with many of these individuals I've reached the point where continued discussion is counterproductive because we're both talking past each other. These are not the kind of people who can be swayed by evidence or scientific arguments. For them the agenda is ideological, and I'd have no easier time convincing an anti-abortion advocate that a blastula isn't a person. If someone is disseminating disinformation about a scientific topic on a science forum and is unwilling or unable to even try to understand the science instead of their disinformation, it's my opinion they should at the very least be in some way admonished, if not completely ostracized/banned. If people are here to learn, great! If people are here solely for the purpose of spreading talking points for their antiscientific agenda, this may not be the best place for them to be.

I still contend "I have to wait longer because Little Johnny has the sniffles" is a better scenario than "Little Johnny dies from an undiagnosed sinus infection" Also it's not like it's a breeze to get into a doctor in America. I usually have to schedule appointments at least two weeks in advance. And I'm supposed to have good insurance, or something.

If you know my history on this matter you know I don't make policy recommendations regarding climate change. I just want uninformed laymen to stop baselessly disputing the science. I don't know if there are actually people out there making policy recommendations on these boards who say "don't worry about the reasons why" but those are not the actions of your typical SFN member. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd really, really like to meet Max Tegmark and hope one day I have the opportunity to. Max Tegmark proposes we live in a mathematical universe where all mathematical systems are absolute, physical things, at least in some context: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009 I perhaps have a fuzzy interpretation of what Tegmark is suggesting, but two of the systems which stand out in my mind as having an absolute physical presence are: cellular automata fractals The distinguishing characteristic of both of these systems is that they provide for "unlimited novelty" despite being described by relatively simplistic rules. The underlying concept is that from simple rules we can derive extraordinary complexity. What do you think? Does a "theory of everything" encompass all mathematical descriptions of potential universe? Do similarly simple rules lie at the heart of our "universe"?

So for posterity: There is a similar problem with waitforufo: a predisposition towards a certain opinion, and a massive degree of confirmation bias in analyzing the available information. As I consider myself a scientific thinker, I've created a new thread: the "I Admit I'm Wrong" game! Here is a thread where you can post previous statements/opinions you had which you now feel are wrong. I posted something I stated in the same thread which I now realize was wrong. From there we can all acknowledge I was wrong and move forward: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=504538#post504538 I have invited waitforufo to do the same. We'll see how it goes.

waitforufo: I invite you to join me in the I Admit I'm Wrong game! I'm admitting I'm wrong about my previous statement regarding the mean line. Perhaps you can admit you were wrong as well?

Let's play the "I Admit I'm Wrong" Game! Here are the rules: Link the relevant post, providing a quote of something you said where you believe you were wrong Provide information about what lead you to the conclusion that you're wrong, preferably with a link to another SFN member's post Provide a statement of what you believe now and what lead you to that conclusion As the creator of the "I Admit I'm Wrong" game, I'll go first! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged1) Link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=504509#post504311 I'm not sure why they plotted it like that, however you seem to be using it to argue that the overall trend is 0.1 C of warming (for the contiguous 48 states). This is wrong! The plot does not show the 1901-2000 mean on one side and the 2008 mean surface temperature on the left. 2) What lead me to this conclusion was this post by Mokele. Thanks Mokele! http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=504509#post504509 That makes so much sense! The mean they have plotted is a single value calculated from the entire set! It's the mean of all the data displayed in the plot. 3) The mean displayed in these graphs is just that: a mean for the totality of the data. No wonder it's flat: it's just a single value. I hereby rescind my previous statement and go with what Mokele said: NOAA calculated the mean for all the data in the plot and plotted it as a straight line.

I'm sure it made Buzz Aldrin feel better. Do you think that a rational, evidence-based discussion with the individual he punched would eventually bring him around to the realization that the Apollo landings are in fact real? That individual is clearly quite passionate about the disinformation he's spreading, and the very fact he's spreading it indicates that he lacks some basic skills in reasoning and evidence-based thinking. What's to be done with these sorts of individuals? I'm of the opinion they should be ostracized for spreading disinformation. It seems you and Phi think they can be reasoned with. I have tried awfully hard to reason with these sorts of individuals and present them evidence specifically in regard to climate change. So far I don't think I have managed to convince any of them of anything, but that's difficult when they're unwilling to even entertain information to the contrary. When they do actually read information I present, they are not doing so for the informational value, they're looking for minor details to cherry pick and incorporate into their argument by claiming they're wrong. Any mention of estimates or uncertainties or statistical analysis are just fodder for claiming the mainstream scientific community is wrong. I'm sick of it. So was Buzz Aldrin. There is no convincing these people.

Yes, here's a graph (courtesy of Weather Underground) showing both the trend line and the long-term mean: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=609

Actually, lately I think Obama may have a bit too much empathy for George W. Bush, what with the continuation of domestic spying and suspension of habeas corpus, two things he's routinely criticized the Bush administration for. So no, probably not lying, perhaps a far more sinister alternative. No, because I feel he's presently the best available person for the job, vices and all. This discussion should probably be moved to Politics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn light of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, I'm wondering what you all think about Buzz Aldrin's reaction to a moon landing denier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw

Yeah that's the same thing copay means here in America. For example I recently had to visit the opthamologist. I was required to pay $50 copay for the visit. I'm not sure what the total fee is, but I always pay $50 for any specialist visit. I suppose that isn't a problem with the present system because in many cases Little Johnny isn't insured. Great for preventing too many people from getting unnecessary treatment, bad when Little Johnny needs a kidney or he'll die. I read it a bit at the beginning but it eventually turned into a long drawn out discussion I did not find interesting.