On 08/02/09 14:30, Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where
>> he's doing the same thing as Bush.
>
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed?
> Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to
> begin with...

	So...what policy are you talking about?

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:44 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
>> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite
>> the cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the
>> system itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the
>> average life span being something like 37th in the world.
> 
> 1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.

True, but studies have shown that it's not the best in the world.  And 
yes, it does depend on whose ranking you look at and what the criteria 
are.  If the criteria is "makes the most money for shareholders", damned 
straight, we've got the best system in the world. ;)

> 2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place
> the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts
> it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.

I think I mixed the numbers up, I was afraid I might do that.  The WHO is 
who was cited in the numbers I heard.

> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

Yes, agreed - and I appreciate that you don't agree with that view.  I 
agree that heath care is and should be a human right.  The needs of 
society for a healthy population outweigh the needs for profits or other 
motivating factors.

> 4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near
> the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers,
> etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care
> because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows
> that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other
> common serious ailments.

Sure, one can cherry pick parts of the system and say "that's good" and 
"that's not good", but the point is to evaluate the *system* not 
individual components of the system.

> 	I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's
> particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care
> want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a
> model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system
> of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit
> insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.

I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
do. ;-))

But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
the same time.

> 	I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that 
just
> because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There
> are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed.
> It's a long article, but you should read:

True, and while I support the plan based on what I've heard about it, I 
don't believe it's a magic bullet that'll solve all of our problems.  But 
it's a step in the right direction.

Part of the reason it won't be a magic bullet to solve all of our 
problems is that the legislative process requires compromises be made.  
Some compromises will be good for the plan overall, and some will be bad 
for the plan overall.

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?
currentPage=all
> 
> 	It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases 
it
> can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_
> to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work
> that well.

Sure, but the current insurance-based system also doesn't work that well, 
can be abused, etc, etc, etc.  The same arguments that are used against a 
single-payer system apply to the system we have now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have 
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed? 

No, I mean like the "let's continue to detain these people indefinitely even 
tho they've already had a trial and been found to be innocent and 
non-dangerous."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".

Definition of militia:

2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military 
service

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".
> 
> Definition of militia:
> 
> 2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for
> military service

That definition came around circa 1890, according to the OED.

A more telling definition is one that was in common usage when the bill 
of rights was created in 1789:

3. b. [...] a branch or department of the establishment maintained for 
purposes of war.

Or perhaps an earlier definition:

1. a. A system of military discipline, organization, and tactics; manner 
of conducting warfare; the arts of war.

In 1776, Adam Smith wrote:

"It [the state] may..oblige either all the citizens of the military age, 
or a certain number of them to join in some measure the trade of a 
soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry 
on. Its military force is (then) said to consist in a militia."

While not a definition per se, the connotation here is that a militia is 
a military force made up of citizens who are part-time members of the 
military.

How many actual gun owners are members of, say, the national guard?  Less 
than 100% I'd wager.

Then there's the "well-regulated" part of that phrase in the bill of 
rights.  Someone who goes to the local gun shop and purchases a S&W .38 
handgun to go target shooting on the weekends (or for self defense) isn't 
part of a "well-regulated militia".  They're an individual citizen 
purchasing a handgun for personal reasons.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
>> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
>> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>>
>> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,
> 
>     That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

Not necessarily; I assume that, whatever reasons he had, they were 
colored by his desire to find a reason to invade.

>> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
>> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
> 
>     It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. 

<snip>

>     Less biased information?
> 
>     The intelligence information he received was mostly correct.

I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of 
the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the 
higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush 
himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).

According to them, you just did *not* give a report that contradicted 
what the cabinet wanted to hear.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably 
>> even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
>>
> 
> You sure about that one?
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire

Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
theories ;)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
> it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

The reality side of things is that you don't *need* to supply every 
treatment available to every individual who might possibly need it.  You 
only need to supply sufficient treatment to remedy the problem to those 
that do need it.

...the trick is correctly diagnosing the latter.  The current medical 
industry is portrayed as (no reference as to accuracy) intentionally 
foisting as much medication on as many people as it can (misdiagnosing, 
fostering paranoia, et cetera) to maximise profits, which artificially 
inflates demand, and therefore prices.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
> what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
> system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
> because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
> military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
> do. ;-))
> 
> But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
> because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
> competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
> government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
> it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
> effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
> current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
> effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
> which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
> the same time.
> 
Hmm. Need a new deck for this one. It doesn't quite fit the 6 of 
hearts/diamonds:

"The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. 
Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're 
banning technology."

Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still 
widely-used argument—that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, 
any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but 
this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever 
intervention the denialist opposes."

or the 6 of clubs and 7 of spades:

"One can always employ the "we can't handle new regulations" argument.

Alternatively, the denialist will argue that they are already highly 
regulated, and thus no new interventions are needed.[10]"

maybe the 10 of diamonds and 10 of clubs:

"Not only do you not understand the delicate denialist, you are 
proposing that the denialist be subject to bureaucrats! ("Bureaucrats" 
is always said with a sneer.) Buzz phrases here focus on denigrating 
Washington.

At this point, the denialist must propose "self regulation" to deal with 
the problem that doesn't exist.  The cool thing about self regulation is 
that it cannot be enforced, and once the non-existent problem blows 
over, the denialist can simply scrap it![19]"

Could be 9H - Muddy the Waters, vs. 9D - Poison the Well... Need to 
think about this a bit. lol

http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:34:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

Cool, I like that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:16:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

Only if health care is about money rather than being about health, and 
only if the approach taken is to apply all available treatments 
indiscriminately without considering the most effective treatment that 
gives the best chance for survival/cure/remission.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
>> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
>> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
>> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
>> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
> 
>     The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly 
> to put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.
> 
>     And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.
> 
Not putting it in their laps, just pointing out that, if your suddenly 
dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists, continuing to deal, as though a 
trusted ally, with someone who has their own 'in house' training camps 
for at least one group of terrorists, is... not terribly bright, no 
matter how much oil they have.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd 
>>> probably even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another 
>>> election.)
>>>
>>
>> You sure about that one?
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire
> 
> Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
> theories ;)
> 
Yes, well.. This is hardly a theory. The guy that wrote the book got 
laughed at, a few years back when he did. Now.. three senators have 
gotten nailed for thinking that they could do things that others can't, 
it turns out that the C-Street boarding house actually exists, and *is* 
listed as a church by the IRS, despite the fact that its clear there is 
no church there, etc. Sometimes conspiracies are real. The problem is.. 
Well, look at who has been spreading most of the conspiracy theories 
about the left, liberal Christians, scientists, etc... Yep, the people 
who just "happen" to get caught doing this stuff recently.

And, to be clear, conspiracy theories from the other side lack any sort 
of internal consistency, because they are all based on random gibberish. 
The stuff coming from the right.. is *very* consistent. "We have the one 
true version of the faith, everyone else is a false believer, or worse, 
and they are all conspiring to undermine religions and our countries 
non-existent 'Christian' foundations." Still get a laugh at that last 
bit. Show me where, in the constitution, or anything written from the 
period, where it says, "You can only have one god, you can't make graven 
images, and you must observe the Sabbath, which ever day is happens to 
be).", or how rules against theft, murder and adultery are 
"non-existent" outside of Christianity, never mind how you can possibly 
have a capitalist economy, if you are forbidden to covet anything anyone 
else has... So.. Why keep trying to post those on every government 
building, if they are **not** what the country is founded on? lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>> 
>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.


>Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
>;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
>'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
>make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
>the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
>listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
>saves time.

I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
functional spec and being too sloppy. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:48:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."

Jawohl!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 03/08/2009 06:16, Chambers nous fit lire :
> The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

If there is a cost, there is a possible benefit for whoever would make
it, charging the relevant states. And if there is a benefit, it does not
cripple the economy.

Or are you stating that the benefit of some individual is a bad thing
that cripple the economy ?

The facts are rather that it's a harder thing to do than other to make
benefit, so most lazy capitalists are just not lobbying to make an
industry of it.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

	Yes. And the relevance of that is...?

-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).

	Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".

-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh,
> well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the
> it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b)
> someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place
> isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure
> it out.

Reminds me of this:

Q: How does this sequence continue?

    M D M D _ _ _

A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".

Why? But isn't that plain obvois? It's the first letters of the German days of
week ("Montag Dienstag Mittwoch Donnerstag Freitag Samstag Sonntag") :P


Or, to put it in software developers' terms: Hey, the next characters in the
sequence could be *anything* until you show me the specs; after all, it migt
just as well be the output of a random number generator, right?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> > I do, however, see a boatload of
> > Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
> challenged people?

From the context I'd guess it's what "couch coaches" typically do on a Monday
morning, after having participated in Sunday's football game in the couch
potato position: They'll team up with their colleagues at work for a round of
"Knowing Better".

Post a reply to this message

On 3-8-2009 11:53, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
> 
> 
>> Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
>> ;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
>> 'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
>> make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
>> the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
>> listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
>> saves time.
> 
> I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
> tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
> with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
> sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
> I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
> functional spec and being too sloppy. 

Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote 
verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and 
the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and 
by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that 
other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has 
ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning 
only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns 
you both know is meant.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote 
>verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and 
>the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and 
>by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that 
>other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has 
>ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.

Ah! A mere male. :) Thus is a common condition for us ;)

>Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning 
>only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns 
>you both know is meant.

But you know that Jan Wit would never do that and Jan Zwart is doing it all the
time so it must have been Jan who said it. Yes or no? :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
>> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
>> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
>> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.
> 
>     Yes. And the relevance of that is...?
> 

That, at some point, you have to make a decision about who gets which 
treatments, taking into consideration all the relevant factors (age, 
other conditions, likelihood of success, and cost).  Excluding any one 
of those factors - even cost - would be irresponsible.

Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer 
becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied 
treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.

Too often, the debate is framed as the "we'll provide treatment for 
everyone, no matter what" crowd versus the "we'll provide treatment for 
those who can pay for it themselves" crowd.  Like most real issues, the 
practical solution is one which lies somewhere in the middle.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Q: How does this sequence continue?
> 
>     M D M D _ _ _
> 
> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".

I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get 
seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my* 
pattern.  After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the 
demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
>> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
>> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
>> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
>> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
> 
>     Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".

OK, then, maybe "deluded" is a bit strong.  "Misinformed," perhaps?  Or 
even just "biased?"

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer 
> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied 
> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.

Just like organ transplants.

I think I read somewhere a while ago that Canada just ranks all the 
treatments in terms of value per dollar, then adds up the dollars until they 
run out of budget, and then says "anyone with these problems below this line 
isn't going to get cured", basically.  Seems like a reasonable way to go.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:23:55 -0700, Chambers
<Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:

>clipka wrote:
>> Q: How does this sequence continue?
>> 
>>     M D M D _ _ _
>> 
>> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
>
>I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get 
>seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my* 
>pattern.  After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the 
>demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?

It is a correct answer but one that the point giver gives zero points for. Thus
showing the meaninglessness of IQ tests.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:23:55 -0700, Chambers
> <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> 
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Q: How does this sequence continue?
>>>
>>>     M D M D _ _ _
>>>
>>> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
>> I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get 
>> seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my* 
>> pattern.  After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the 
>> demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?
> 
> It is a correct answer but one that the point giver gives zero points for. Thus
> showing the meaninglessness of IQ tests.

The question is about the particular sequence MDMDFSS.  Not 'any 
sequence that begins with MDMD'.  So anything other than 'FSS' is not 
*the* correct answer.  It is, however, their fault that the sequence 
does have other obvious continuations.  A bit like saying "1, 2, 3, ..., 
what comes next?", it could be 4, it could be 5, it could be 10...

Saying that that shows the meaninglessness of IQ tests implies that IQ 
tests are composed entirely of questions where there are multiple valid 
(and more obvious) answers.  They're not.  They *are* generally geared 
towards the culture of the person taking them, however.  Perhaps they 
just need greater specialisation for particular sub-sections of 
cultures?  ^_^

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:12:46 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
>The question is about the particular sequence MDMDFSS.  Not 'any 
>sequence that begins with MDMD'.  So anything other than 'FSS' is not 
>*the* correct answer.  It is, however, their fault that the sequence 
>does have other obvious continuations.  A bit like saying "1, 2, 3, ..., 
>what comes next?", it could be 4, it could be 5, it could be 10...
>

I beg to differ; the question is about tricking people and showing the absurdity
of improperly defined tests. You might say that the "_ _ _" indicates that there
are only three more letters in the sequence. But the similarity between "_ _ _"
and an ellipsis ("…" or "***" or "-" or multiple m-dashes) is too close to
really diferentiate IMO. As you point out. 
"FSS" is the "correct answer" for one set of circumstancies.


>Saying that that shows the meaninglessness of IQ tests implies that IQ 
>tests are composed entirely of questions where there are multiple valid 
>(and more obvious) answers.  They're not.  They *are* generally geared 
>towards the culture of the person taking them, however.  Perhaps they 
>just need greater specialisation for particular sub-sections of 
>cultures?  ^_^

Again I dissagree with what you wrote. When you say that "They *are* generally
geared towards the culture of the person taking them" that is the reply to the
critisim that IQ tests are culturely dependant. It does not take into account
education and different types of brain development. I believe that IQ tests are
a flawed concept. If it were not then you would not be able to better your score
by any significant amout, again IMO.

I suspect that you don't really disagree (-_o)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4-8-2009 0:40, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote 
>> verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and 
>> the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and 
>> by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that 
>> other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has 
>> ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
> 
> Ah! A mere male. :) Thus is a common condition for us ;)

Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't 
handle insufficient or conflicting information.

>> Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning 
>> only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns 
>> you both know is meant.
> 
> But you know that Jan Wit would never do that and Jan Zwart is doing it all the
> time so it must have been Jan who said it. Yes or no? :-)

Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who 
might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our 
neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it 
is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some 
point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was 
no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there 
is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told 
a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific 
enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a 
clue who she is talking about.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/03/09 21:21, Chambers wrote:
> That, at some point, you have to make a decision about who gets which
> treatments, taking into consideration all the relevant factors (age,
> other conditions, likelihood of success, and cost). Excluding any one of
> those factors - even cost - would be irresponsible.
>
> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.

	So, what's the cutoff point in Canada, the UK, and France? Citations 
should be included.

	And, BTW, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't emulate 
cutoff points?


-- 
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/03/09 21:24, Chambers wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
>>> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
>>> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
>>> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
>>> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
>>
>> Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".
>
> OK, then, maybe "deluded" is a bit strong. "Misinformed," perhaps? Or
> even just "biased?"

	I have to disagree. He/they weren't insisting that intelligence reports 
say what they wanted them to say so that they could 
misinform/bias/delude themselves, but so that they could 
misinform/delude the public.

-- 
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
>> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
>> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
> 
>     So, what's the cutoff point in Canada, the UK, and France? Citations 
> should be included.

Why?  I'm simply saying that you should consider all factors, not that 
any particular cutoff point should be used.

>     And, BTW, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't emulate 
> cutoff points?

Not at all - I think insurance companies do a great job of figuring out 
when it's feasible to pay for something and when it isn't.

I was responding to what you wrote:
"3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
not a human right"

I was basically saying that health care is NOT a universal right, but 
rather is a privilege which is awarded when money is available.  I'm not 
saying anything about how often it should be awarded, or how much money 
we should make available.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.

I agree.  Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
> 
> I agree.  Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.

I, for one, don't agree.  What's wrong with the concept of a generalised 
test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?

Of course, I also vehemently disagree with my ex-landlord's position 
that anything said by someone who is mentally impaired is invalid 
explicitly because they're mentally impaired.  That would mean if they 
were able to say "one plus one equals two", regardless of understanding, 
that must then be treated as false.  Which is absurd.  (That whole can 
of worms had been opened by my incidental use of the phrase "can't we 
all just get along," which I still think was in use from the 1960s at 
least, not coined by Rodney King, even if he popularised it.)

*cough*  Sorry.  Ex-landlord had a lot of notions which were of dubious 
veracity.  Like thinking it'd be better to launch satellites from the 
polar regions due to lesser gravity (Earth being an oblate sphereoid) 
and thinner atmosphere, instead of as they are, from as close to the 
equator as possible to get the momentum boost from the rotating Earth. 
And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely 
remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was 
in some movie).  And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes) 
that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days, 
instead of a century or so.  And file permissions and user accounts in 
UNIX being an add-on module that you had to specifically compile, 
separate from the filesystem, with (modern) UNIX systems having 
programmer-embedded backdoors at the OS level to permit complete access 
to everything in case the admin forgot their password...and claiming 
that a friend decompiled Windows and, by removing commented code, 
decreased the recompiled executable and library size significantly.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> with (modern) UNIX systems having 
> programmer-embedded backdoors at the OS level to permit complete access 
> to everything in case the admin forgot their password

Well, that one's true. It's called "single-user mode." ;-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree.  Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
> 
> I, for one, don't agree.  What's wrong with the concept of a generalised 
> test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?

Absolutely nothing.  However, there's nothing "approximate" about saying 
"Your IQ is 174, and his is 168, ergo you are smarter."

An approximation would be fine.

> And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely 
> remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was 
> in some movie).

The only movie I know of that showed that was Star Trek II ;)

>  And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes) 
> that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days, 
> instead of a century or so.

Neutron bombs.  They kill off the population, and leave the real estate 
intact.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate 
> intact.

Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about, 
after all. :-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate intact.
> 
> Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about, 
> after all. :-)

"Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the 
infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the 
kiloton range,[11] the detonation of which would cause heavy destruction 
through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not high for a 
nuclear weapon, but is still nearly two orders of magnitude bigger than 
the most powerful conventional bombs."

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:20:04 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't 
>handle insufficient or conflicting information.
>

Oh! Come on, I bet you can do better than that. I use colour and smell as extra
dimensions when I want to go higher than 4. Just think of  something rotting
over time. ;)

>
>Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who 
>might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our 
>neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it 
>is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some 
>point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was 
>no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there 
>is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told 
>a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific 
>enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a 
>clue who she is talking about.

"The way of the world" I'm afraid :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:57:02 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>> 
>> I agree.  Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
>I, for one, don't agree.  What's wrong with the concept of a generalised 
>test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?

There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
development and IQ tests. 
Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
favour of the concept of IQ.
 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
> favour of the concept of IQ.

Why is that funny?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
> development and IQ tests. 

...there shouldn't be.  :P  (The def. listed in the wiki article said 
ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age 
group...or something like that)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>
>Why is that funny?

Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:01:27 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
>> development and IQ tests. 
>
>...there shouldn't be.  :P  (The def. listed in the wiki article said 
>ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age 
>group...or something like that)

Well, for people who like that sort of thing that's the sort of thing they like.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>> Why is that funny?
> 
> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha

I don't find it peculiar at all.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>> Why is that funny?
>> 
>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>
>I don't find it peculiar at all.

You must have a high IQ, then.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>> Why is that funny?
>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>
> You must have a high IQ, then.

	Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.

-- 
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:16:17 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>>> Why is that funny?
>>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>>
>> You must have a high IQ, then.
>
>	Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.

I wouldn't say that.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message