ParanoiA

You say "were", so I'm assuming the waiting times aren't as bad now? If you wake up sick with the flu tomorrow, how long would it take for you to get an appt and see the doctor? It's an interesting direction, really. Another big problem though is R&D and attracting talent. Again, I don't know much about these things, so I have no idea how socialism helps or hinders these things, but it's been a point of contention for conservatives.

Newt is a religious dude? I thought he came across more agnostic. I've always liked his sterile, logical thinking and lecture style. That's why I have such a hard time dealing with politicians; they're more emotionally driven than anything else.

See, my dad's a registered respiratory therapist and has worked for several hospitals - some of them owned by Columbia,and some of them non-profit. He's seen the decline in quality in medical equipment and supplies, management, cross-training, patient-doctor time and etc over the years. He's also visited and studied several hospitals out of the country and he continually tells me we have it better - not just better - much better. But that doesn't mean we have it good. And that doesn't mean it isn't imploding either. Socialized medicine as it has been applied in other countries is not acceptable to me. It just shifts the problems around. This problem is fixed, but now we have this problem. This other problem is corrected, but now we have a new problem over here...

Well a tier system bothers me though too, because I get this image in my mind of dirty, overcrowded waiting rooms and nasty ole doctors that barely passed med school on one tier, while the upper class tier drinks martini's and stretches out in the waiting room while waiting for their doctor to come to them. We have enough class division in america as it is. But, it would certainly be better than what we have now.

I'm personally more interested in McCain. At a time of war I trust a former POW more than anyone else. But that's just one issue. I really don't know where he stands on things. I didn't know that about Giuliani and his impact on crime reduction. I'm curious about these "bullish tactics". I wonder if these would work across the nation. Hillary needs to stay far away from the white house. A liberal columnist blasted her yesterday about her grip or lack of grip on economics and brought up several more good reasons not to consider her seriously. I would like to find that column myself. I wonder if we'll see any increase in libertarian popularity after a troop withdrawl from Iraq - if we're out of there by then anyway. That's a major part of the libertarian platform that I don't like, but if we're already out of there, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue I wouldn't think.

Yeah, that's a discussion in itself really. I remember being let down a little after realizing that when using a meter in an electrical circuit introduces error or deviation at least, since you're adding your meter circuit into the circuit being tested. So, then you have to account for the changes in that arrangement - which sure takes the fun out of it.

Well I mean if you take the current European model or canadian model...what needs to happen to these models to maintain the talent pool and efficiency? That is what they lack. So, if the US was to adopt a socialized health care system, what would be the best way to do it to avoid these same pitfalls that other countries have suffered from? If that means some kind of hybrid government / private system... I don't know much about the subject, so I'm wondering if there's a way to roll out socialized medicine and still maintain the quality of care we have today. Quality that is diminishing, but still somewhat present.

And you're assuming crime would be just as appealing then as it is today. With a world full of armed citizens, the appeal and attraction to crime would be much smaller. Crime would likely be more vicious, as you've stated, since you basically have two armed opponents, rather than one armed versus one unarmed opponent. You would still have crime, but far more reports of botched efforts leading to dead criminals. Of course you'd also have the citizens accidentally shooting other innocent people and yadda yadda, but that would pale in comparison to the piles of dead yoyo's. Admittedly, there is far more hope in that paragraph than logic...but violent crime and society's acceptance of it is a big peeve of mine.

I think it would be much the same. Only the proportion would be different. Criminals would be more scarce and not so idolized and glorified like now. The news would have to report on the latest idiots that tried to steal, rape, or assault someone else who shot them dead. It would be sweet.

Socialized medicine is one of the few things I tend to be quite liberal about. It seems natural for the government to handle medicine. Police, fire, medical - all fall under the same basic category in my opinion. There is a place for private industry within all of these things, however. Which leads me to this thread. There are a number of negatives associated with socialized health care that are unacceptable. Government efficiency, or lack thereof is a biggie. Lack of appeal for doctors and researchers is another biggie, as I've heard the capitalist approach to medicine does seem to attract leading talent from all over the world. I've heard nothing but horror stories about the lack of quality care and talent in countries that have socialized health care. So, what kind of tweaking needs to happen to maintain the talent pool of doctors and researchers and still have socialized medicine? And what about efficiency? How do we adjust the system so we're not waiting 2 months to see the doctor for 5 minutes after sitting in the waiting room for 5 hours?

Ok, so what if the process of decomposition is our soul being absorbed into the earth, and released in the core to eventually join with light millions of years from now when the sun eats the earth and this light travels to other galaxies and planets, one of which converts energy to mass based on the soul's attributes. If you have given up your heart or kidneys then you won't have these attributes when you are converted back to mass since they didn't decompose with you and then you die immediately. Now look who's stupid... Yes. Life isn't fair. No prosthetics. Afterlife isn't fair either. Organ destroying pathologies have their own soul and won't be transferred with your soul so it's totally cool. Don't sweat it...

Right, man's inability to pinpoint it. Every technique we use to detect it, interferes with it. Seems obvious to me that's our problem. Not a law of physics, rather a law of interpretation of physics in this case. We have to use the uncertainty principle because we are not certain. Just a thought. I'm no physicist, but I did stay at a holiday inn last night...

But isn't the uncertainty principle rooted in the logistical problem of being able to pin point the time without effecting velocity? And vice versa so to speak? I point that out, because isn't it plausible that at some point we may be able to pinpoint the time without effecting the velocity? Therefore isn't the uncertainty principle essentially a recognition of man's inability rather than a law of nature? In other words, maybe massive amounts of energy could occur because we don't know, not because the uncertainty principle says so. I'm not explaining myself very well here, but it does seem different to me.

I think it ultimately is. We certainly behave that way - a superiority stigma. What's always bothered me is why smart people act so snooty about their intelligence. Intelligence is just as "given" to you as stupidity is. You're born with that potential just as surely as some are born without it. So why do intelligent people carry themselves and scoff at those around them as if they've done something to earn it? Knowledge and wisdom is earned - not intelligence. So, the next time you're feeling all smart and cocky, don't show it, you just look like an asshole abusing organics that your mom and dad made... Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread.

I'm 35 with a little 2 yr electronics degree and I've actually considered going back to school for several more years to achieve a master's - but not in electronics. I've found that no matter how accredited a college is, doesn't mean that all of your hours will transfer. After looking into it, I realized I would be basically taking electronics all over again. So, now I'm considering something like physics, or engineering of some kind. Something that will compliment the direction of the tech industry. I see robotics taking off in the future as well. I guess I'm just saying nothing is permanent. You can change your mind in the future and that's ok. And nothing is gauranteed either. I went to college with all ages of people. It's not out of the ordinary to share classes with 40 and 50 year old students.

I don't. Just trying to apply some critical thinking to the thread since everyone seems to be agreeing with each other. I don't know really how thought out it is, but I like to challenge things at their core. If what you believe is really true, then it should prevail. If you haven't questioned everything you believe every few years, then you're long overdue. To me, it starts with absurdity like this... But isn't there a moral distinction between giving consent when all of the consequences are known or not known? If I don't know about the spaghetti monster being the supreme god over all gods and that he requires everyone in the next level of existence to have both kidneys or else I burn for eternity in molten hot spaghetti sauce, then I'm not making an educated decision. Finally! the tree, why do you agree with me? Just kidding. I'm not even sure I can really play devil's advocate on this one. My heart just isn't in it...

Well this isn't much fun, so let me throw a wrench in the gears... I can see an ethical issue because those parts make me. If I'm dead, I still want my parts, because no one knows what happens when we die. What if we need them for the next level of existence? You could be killing people in their next life cycle before they even get started because you're robbing parts they need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking I had to check it out on wikipedia. He's a fascinating character. I would be interested in his account of his struggles in coping with this disease. The article reads as if he just adjusted to its debilitating effects as they appeared, staying on course with his interests in physics. I find that more impressive than his intelligence. Intelligence is given, you're born with what you have to work with, but strength and resolution to live and live seemingly humbly against the odds takes more than that. Honestly, I think I would have given up a long time ago and died bitter and cursing at god.

I wouldn't consider it corrupt at all. But that's where I think the government would actually do a decent job of competing by funding R&D. Instead of casting judgment on business and medicine, I'd rather utilize the free market and help to create that competition that fuels invention and innovation. I don't think the pharmaceutical industry has led us to believe anything. They go where the money is, just like all business. Which is why, in this case, government involvment is a good thing, if not downright necessary.

There will be effectively no change in Iraq. There will only be a change in the tone of speeches and the verbiage used to justify this and that - we will leave Iraq exactly as Bush said. I also don't believe there will be any changes in the field. Iraq was a red herring by the democrats because while everyone is not happy with the law and order compliance there, there is little to really do to change it that we're not already doing or trying to put into place - which is Iraqis policing Iraqis. That's not even going well, so I have no idea what the democrats plan on doing that's going to be soooooo much better than anything we've seen yet. That's because it won't. I see minimum wage and FSLP passing easily and righteously. I'm not so sure about immigration reform. I only say that, because so far the democrat's firm stance has been to keep the illegal aliens illegal so we can pay them pennies of what they're worth and not have to provide them any benefits. And the illegals want to be illegal - their own demonstrations have shown they stand with the democrats in their own economically oppressive status. Or maybe I'm mixing this up with border security. The only people who want immigration reform appear to be the repubs and libertarians. Neither of which are in power. The repubs blew it when they had a chance and came up with a fence....a freaking fence....

Has he been this way since birth or did it develop over time? I'm reading a book on string theory and I'm starting to see his name pop up more as I get further along. Is he revered in the science world or is he just another player who happened to get the ball?

I guess I need to read about the EPR paradox then. I didn't think this was a concept that had been proven one way or the other.

Thanks 5614. That makes sense. That is so strange how that works. Are you of the mind that Einstein was wrong, in that the behavior we observe as probability or we predict using probability, is the result of some basic incompleteness in our understanding? Just curious...

So when we use the term "wave function" we're not really talking about an actual wave, but rather a result of motion that "appears" as if they were traveling as a wave? Edit: Ok that was silly, for some reason I read the word "wave" in your reply as "particle" - as if you said you don't need a medium for these particles to travel through. Now that I've read your reply correctly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it.

I guess I need to put down the books or something because I haven't even seen these movies. Well King Kong and Cuckoo's nest, but none of the others.