riddler

This article says that the Tamil Tigers are secular. That's different than atheist. Although in these days of fear-mongering governments, it's hard to imagine a terrorist organization that does not espouse a particular brand of religious ideology (typically Islam). I'm sure that most of the suicide bombers probably believed in some sort of afterlife. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Not sure what you're saying - cost is currently higher because of the US government, or it is higher regardless of any government intervention? Fear, it makes the GOP tick. The cost is already through the roof, considering we spend more than anyone else. It's likely that a government run program will drive down individual spending, but increase taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine#Cost_of_care Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Tarantino is such a hack, I have a hard time calling him best anything. Bloody comedy is akin to fart and poop jokes, IMO. Kill Bill was enjoyable because of the wire-fu, and some nice anime cut-scenes, but I didn't see the appeal of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. I have a hard time with Pulp beating out 4 Weddings and Quiz Show for the Oscar that year. I have to give him credit, though, he does draw some pretty good acting talent. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I only went to this doctor to get an annual (required) physical to teach scuba - he's a diver, and seemed to be a good doctor (G.P., with solid western-medicine credentials). A few months later, I got a letter from him stating that he was changing the format of his practice; he was going to charge a flat rate annually for all medical services he performed, but everyone was going to get monthly checkups, and all recommended annual care items (cancer screening, bloodwork, etc). His rationale was that he would be able to find and fix most problems early if everyone was scheduled to come in on a routine basis, and he might catch a few lifethreating diseases while they were in the early-treatable stages. He had a family plan that was affordable as well. I read his letter, thought it was a good price he was charging, decided it wasn't for me and my young family, but a great idea for people that are a bit older and have more medical problems and higher risk for aging diseases (heart, cancer). Two months later, I got a second letter from him. It stated that the insurance companies had found out about his obviously detestable practice idea, and sent him threatening legal letters that stated if he moved forward, not only would they cancel their insurance carrier coverage with him, but they would sue him for ... what? Trying to make people healthier with preventative maintenance? The letter didn't specify the legalese, but there must be certain laws in place that prevent such atrocious foresight on the part of a medical doctor. The insurance companies don't want preventative medicine - at least not the type he was proposing. I'm sure they've had experience with it, and somehow it costs them more money. Or maybe they are hoping that people that are sick, but don't know it yet get off their policy before they find out? I have no idea why they were so afraid of such a concept. Maybe someone wiser than me knows the answer. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

That worked pretty well in the American Revolution, and many right-wing fundamentalists are quick to point it out. But I would argue, with modern warfare technology, it could not happen today. It barely happened then, and only because we had a lot of help from the French. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

If everyone agrees on the limitations, then they must impose sanctions on those that disobey those agreements. That's called government. And of course, it takes money to do that, which implies taxes will be collected. Or you could choose to believe that everyone will stand up and take responsibility every time one person exceeds the boundaries, but I don't have that much faith in people. Running a society according to a vague moral code only gets you to a certain point, then it becomes apparent that those morals don't apply to everyone, and most people deviate from their own morals, anyway, when it's convenient for them. As far as "my definition" of anarchy, here's the very top of the page from Wikipedia: Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Still waiting. I'm all for ad-based sponsorship, but it really shouldn't interfere with an actual post. Can't go back, can't go forward. Rats. Post lost. I'm using Chrome 2.0.172.39, so it's half my fault Windows Vista. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

And this would be the result of an anarchistic state - one in which the powerful abuse the weak. Whether or not it's considered defense or retribution, it amounts to not much more than a tribal community, and results in gang warfare. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

No, I'm saying that individual liberty is at complete and total opposition with government. Replace "murder, rape and pillage" with "jaywalking, prostitution and cheating on your taxes", and the argument is the same. Governments, by their very definition, impose restrictions on our individual liberty. Anyone that says they are for individual liberty and there is no grey area, is, by my definition an anarchist. However, if you say that you are a proponent of individual liberty, but you are willing to sacrifice some of your personal freedoms for the benefit of society, then you can fit into any government model. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to sacrifice. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

If anyone is interested in the movie, you don't have to hunt it down in obscure video shops, or even wait for it in Netflix. You can watch it right now in low-res, using Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142 Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix and original musical score by Moby. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Right - so they restrict your freedoms for the benefit of others (i.e. society). You do not have the freedom to murder, rape or pillage. You may *want* to do those things, and a truly free person would be able to do those things without the repercussion of the government. But you can't, because the government has restricted your freedom, in favor of what's best for society. Some governments do this more than others, and all of them restrict your freedoms in their own (the government's) self-interest. If you do not agree with any amount of imposition on personal freedom from the government, then I would define you as an anarchist. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Saying that governments balance individual freedom with restrictions of freedom for society's benefit is not condoning communism. It is a fact of government. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

To me, the question of whether he is innocent is irrelevant. The UK government is not saying he is innocent. They are saying he is guilty, but they are still letting him out of prison. I think it's insulting for everyone that had family that died on the airplane. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

It's funny how I think you missed the point as well. Obama is promoting a second option for health coverage. In addition to our current private insurance, he is advocating a government-coverage option. His argument is that private insurance companies will have nothing to fear from the government program, any more than FedEx and UPS fear the Post Office (I work with both of them, and trust me, they don't fear the Post Office). At the same time, individuals will have the option of a lower-cost, and almost certainly a lower-quality government healthcare program. The Post Office analogy is a good one because the Post Office is almost always cheaper, and most people feel that the service isn't nearly as good. So, to me, everybody gains something. There will be a lot more Americans with healthcare, because now people that couldn't afford it will get something, which is better than nothing. At the same time, if you have the money, or a good job, you can get better healthcare from a private insurance company, which will likely lower it's rates to compete with the government option. The only downside is more of our tax money will be used for the government option, but that's good too, because we'll need to rethink our priorities. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

You're joking, right? Every government on the planet trades individual liberty and societal benefit to various degrees, and most people are perfectly happy with that. The only alternative is 100% anarchy (with a lot of really well armed people). Are you an anarchist? Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I don't disagree. For one person. The problem is that for nearly 7 billion people, utilizing the resources to eat a meat-heavy diet is not currently sustainable with modern technology. Unless people very quickly find a way to cut the resource utilization of and consumption of our meat products (by at least 90%), then we are going to run out of resources quickly as a planet. Since people can get the equivalent nutrition from a plant-based diet, at a fraction of the cost, resource-wise, it's the only currently viable way that we're going to be able to prevent massive human starvation in the future. I agree there, too. Raw Vegans probably have the least environmental impact with regard to energy consumption. But it's a difficult to eat that way (believe me, I keep trying ) when you've been raised on the standard american diet. Potatoes are an example of a famine-food that can sustain people, albeit uncomfortably and for short periods, when other foods are not available. I don't try to encourage people to become vegetarians, since I believe that eating meat is part of our heritage. But I do try to encourage them to eat less meat, and to consider the environmental impact of what they eat. Humans didn't evolve to eat nearly the quantities meat as we consume in America today - it's bad for our bodies and for the planet. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Here's a chart that shows land use and calorie use for a few different foods: 1st column - Food 2nd column - Land per kg (m2) 3rd column - Calories per kilogram 4th column - Land per person per year (m2) --------------------------------------------------- Beef 20.9 2800 8173 Pork 8.9 3760 2592 Eggs 3.5 1600 2395 Milk 1.2 640 2053 Fruit 0.5 400 1369 Vegetables 0.3 250 1314 Potatoes 0.2 800 274 Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Pardon my "appeal to authority", but in order to add some data to what Wendy already said, I'll refer you to one professor of ecology at Cornell University. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I completely agree with this statement. I've been a vegetarian for four years now, but not as much because of my sympathy toward animals, as my belief that we must stop abusing the environment. We know for a fact that the resources used to feed meat to people far exceed the resources used to feed vegetation to people. We also know that 18 percent of all greenhouse emissions come directly from the production of animals. There are many more environmental reasons to not eat meat, or at least reduce the meat you do eat. This is a logical rationalization, not an emotional decision, since it makes sense for humans to protect their environment in order to promote our species. But many people will still choose to become vegetarian or reduce their intake of meat, pets, and dairy for emotional reasons, and that helps the environmental cause as well. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Trying to watch it in 5-minute increments. Definitely can't watch it for too long at once. I'm OK if my daughters want to eat meat when they are old enough to choose, but I want them to see how the "meat" was raised and killed first. BTW, Snuff Films are considered an urban legend. This film shows the reality of how people treat animals. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/19/stress.sweat.smell.pheromones/index.html Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

I frequently do. Again, I do this for work. But it's easy to show this online. Shipping a 30-pound package from Albany, NY to Zamora, CA. FedEx's lowest rate is $39.46, and the Post Office offers $13.69. That said, Postal employees don't always give you the cheapest options, unless you specifically ask. I find that FedEx and UPS service centers are much more customer oriented, and if you say that you want it as cheap as possible, they will work with you to get that. Also, I have customers that do large volumes, and I've seen FedEx and UPS slash their standard rates for them by over 50%, so if you can get it through work, you can save a bundle. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

And to show how the media is just as polarized as everyone else, Fox News has an article entitled Barney Gets an Earful, which describes Senator Barney Frank's town hall discussion of health care. CNN has an article about the same topic, but their title is Barney Frank goes toe to toe at town hall. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Why would you? Most people don't pay that much attention to the Post Office, or it's affect in the political realm. And the fact that you can mail a letter for less than it costs, so that the USPS actually loses money doing it, but are propped up by the federal government; why, that sounds like a socialist organization It's funny that the GOP are jumping on their side after nothing more than an off-hand comment by Obama http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0505/050505d2.htm Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (Republican) publicly questioned the U.S. Postal Service this week on its policy of giving executives payments for relocating and allowing them to keep unspent funds. http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MinorityNews&ContentRecord_id=667cbc11-7e9c-9af9-7035-bb51d6faddc1&Region_id=&Issue_id= “I am very disappointed that Postmaster Potter would come before the Committee and advocate, as a potential solution to this economic crisis, the elimination of the requirement of six-day-a-week delivery,” said Senator Susan Collins (Republican). http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1024335090.html;jsessionid=F8724562E2A14789631FA7473117046B.ehctc1 Senator Jesse Helms (Republican) criticizes Postal Service for "gay" postmark. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Not to detract from the original thread, but just a few minor points. FedEx and UPS are faster and more reliable way to send letters and packages, there's no doubt. But not the most affordable. My work revolves around shipping with FedEx, and I know quite a bit about USPS and UPS shipping as well, the rates of the Post Office can rarely be beat. But customers know they have less of a chance of fast and reliable delivery. Again, I'm claiming expertise here because I grew up in a Postal family. It's about three or four words. It's the Internet combined with competition from UPS and FedEx combined with economic recession that's hurting the Post Office. In a recession, there are fewer advertisements by mail, which are a seizable chunk of all mail delivered. What you probably don't know is that they spent a FORTUNE upgrading their mail sorting and scanning equipment across the entire country. The Post Office is a big outfit - after the government and Walmart, they are the largest employer in the country (760,000 employees), so it makes sense to do that, but the cost had to be amortized over a very long time, and so they expected to take losses for several years. Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD