I'm probably working on Hubski. For bugs, feedback, and requests, shoot me a PM, or post with the tag #bugski.
I don't agree with everything that I post.
followed tags: 23
followed domains: 2
badges given: 56 of 60
joined: 894 days ago
I doubt that the result would be the loss of undesirable wage work. I don't think humans are wired that way. Although I find basic income compelling, and perhaps better than social welfare, I don't think the road to communism, or even postwork is so clear. People are traders by nature. They are also hoarders by nature, and they lead and follow by nature. Capitalism is only in part a plan. It is also a reflection of human behavior. IMO what is so interesting about looking at a post-Capitalist world, is that we are forced to try to find what is system, and what is expression.
It was never much of an honest debate. The recession that came at the end of Bush's second term caused a massive deficit, not spending.
However, I think it remains to be seen if the economy heals like expected. Hiring still is anemic, and people are coming back to earn less. Perhaps that will change when things get moving; however, I think it's just as likely we'll end up with a bubble rather than a general recovery.
I often wonder how the Nobel Peace Prize committee feels about the Obama award. Obama seems to view civil liberties very lightly when it comes to security and information gathering. He has really picked up Bush's torch and run with it. It's terribly disturbing to see an episode like this in the US, especially as the Obama administration sees nothing wrong with it. He uses the "the next administration" argument when it comes to the IRS scandal, but that is a political issue, affecting politicians. Civil liberties don't get the same forward-looking consideration.
Lol. You haven't been down voting? You just have to turn the Hubwheel wittershins. :)
Like intelligent design, IMO Smolin's theory not only lacks evidence, there is no reason to suspect that it is the case. There's also the possibility that the physical constants aren't constant, but have evolved with the universe. TBH, I think scientists should stick closer to what they know, and construct theories that are extrapolated from empirical evidence. If we have reason to suspect alternate universes, then that is science. If we have to reason to suspect it, it is science fiction.
Having healthcare provided by the employer is a terrible idea, because healthcare needs have nothing to do with what labor provides. Of course, Obamacare won't fix the problem as it doesn't do anything substantive about costs. Just allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices when purchasing would save ~$50B a year.
My guess is that Obamacare is a poison pill to force a public option, basically buying Medicare coverage out-of-pocket. It won't be what you want if you can afford better, but it will be far better than being uninsured now (which means you pay far more than insurance companies do for the same service).
I have a decent job at a healthcare provider, and my costs have just gone up and up for the last decade at a rate that defies logic. It's not like Obamacare is going to ruin something good. The whole system is fucked and getting worse. I think Obamacare is basically making sure that we are all fucked together, and hoping then we will be forced to actually fix the real problem, which is the insane costs.
I think this will be very big. I can think of several times where I would have probably used this in the last few months. I haven't used Google Wallet at all yet, however. Are there any issues with it? I would probably use it exclusively for this service.
- Interesting idea: introduce a different form of cancer into a patient to weaken the deadlier cancer...
I actually tried something like this. I introduced the same tumor that a rat was bearing, with the introduction of a human major histocompatibility protein complex. The MHC is often something that the immune system recognizes for xenograph rejection. At any rate, the theory was that if we reintroduced the same tumor cells with an easy marker for rejection, the immune system might translate the rejection to the other tumor cells. It didn't work in that experiment, however that doesn't mean it can't.
I am convinced that the approach described is probably a good way to develop strategies. Except for some unique tumors that are the result of some very specific molecular changes, you have to consider the environment, because these are heterogeneous competing organisms that adapt to, and change, their environment.
As an aside, I used to work in stroke research. My mentor once wondered if we could introduce a brain tumor into the focus of the stroke. Brain tumors release a lot of growth factors, and spur new blood vessel growth. The tough part would be getting the tumor to stop when you wanted it too. You could give it a suicide gene, but there's always the chance it could get away from you. Probably a very tough sell for any sort of trial: "You had a stroke. Ok, now we are going to give you a brain tumor."
I'm about 2/3 done. So far it is one of the weirdest books that I have ever read. :)
The whole premise was suspect from the very beginning. Balmer should be fired twice. There had to be warning signs from very early on in development.