What I recall was him saying single payer was what he preferred, but he totally caved in and we got the ACA (like most programs, misnamed) which is an insurance industry hand out IMO.
Since it's not 'evolving', there is no 'end game' as I understand the term. It is what it is, flawed but better than the nothing we had, but far worse than single payer... like most of the rest of the first world has.
I wish we had, or were moving towards single payer, it's FAR cheaper, simpler, and eliminates the needless health insurance industry. The rich can always buy better care if they like, but everyone will have basic minimum care and not use the most expensive ways to get it (like emergency rooms they don't pay for). Seems proper and intelligent to me, but what does a newt know?

I'm only analyzing your statement(s), not you.

did you just advocate indoctrination and brainwashing of children?
trading religious doctrine for secular doctrine?
while one may be more attractive to you than the other..it is STILL:brainwashing and indoctrination!

how about we step away from those practices and instead actually teach children how to utilize information in a positive fashion.give them the techniques to analyze,criticize and formulate their own conclusions?

you know...
the ability to be a free thinker.
how about that?
can we do that?
i think thats a much better idea.

/drops mic
*christ on a stick..brainwashing kids..........cant be serious.....

Another rant from the harbinger of doom. I believe his followers gain succour from his dystopian views because it gives them an excuse for the shortcomings in their own lives. OK, that's a bit strong, but the fact is, no matter what figures you want to analyze, never in history have humans been so fortunate both in health and general well being. Generally, each generation lives longer, is better cared for and enjoys a better quality of life than the last. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. Do we care enough about our third world cousins? Again, probably not.
I never quite "get" what Chomsky's real problem is. Is it Multinationals? Media? Government? Corporations? It seems to be all of these, and a whole lot more. North Korea would be a good place for him to rail against evidential control, injustice and a true dystopian existence. Here we are allowed to take advantage of education, free thought and certain rights. In short, to make the best of things. I suggest he, and his followers, do the same. Moaning on, and on, and on about this awful, oppressive existence we suffer in the west, really gains no sympathy from people who live in places where they would love the chances Chomsky seems to take for granted.

My problem with the cosmological argument is that it takes something we know nothing about, specifically how things may have worked before the universe came into exists, and massively leverages them. We know about as much about what happened before (if the concept of time or before could mean anything without space and mass) as we do about what happens after death.

Anyone making absolutely claims from such shaky ground should have their motivations analyzed, because it seems suspect to me.

The narrator proposes three hypotheses that would explain the "finely tuned" appearance of the universe. He analyzes the first hypothesis and decides it's impossible. He then analyzes the second hypothesis and decides it's impossible. Then he DOES NOT ANALYZE the third hypothesis, but just shows some beautiful photos of the universe and gives some quotes agreeing with the "design" hypothesis. He then decides it is true, even though the exact same analysis that he did for the "chance" hypothesis would eliminate the "design" hypothesis as well.

The narrator himself established one definition of implausibility: "There's no scientific evidence for X: it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and it requires fine tuning." That same test can be applied to the "design" hypothesis to determine by the same logic that it too is false. Any other argument is special pleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

No.
I was raised in Houston, surrounded by hyper religious family, friends, and public. I went to a really good private school and learned how much they ignore, don't know, or pretend is magic to continue believing their beliefs. I had to make my own way, mostly, and learn to distinguish between fact and propaganda (religious, political, etc). Many people don't have that ability, since often it means analyzing data by one's self, and many don't even know what is data and what is propaganda.

People have an adverse reaction when evolution and other scientific 'fact' are called into question by religious people for religious reasons because we've already had the trouble of wading through the confusion and BS to find 'fact', and having more BS nonsensical rhetoric poured into the mix to attempt to confuse those who have not learned yet makes us angry with the spreaders and sad for the future generations.

If someone doesn't understand my lack of a need for god or Jebus, it's a hard thing to consider accepting.
(or to say it another way... Who are you to question god's wanting me to not believe in him?)

Enough over-analyzing! If you think it looks cool, watch it and enjoy it.

If you don't think it looks cool, I probably won't listen to you anyway!

I don't care about the politics of the studios. I don't care about the feasibility of certain weapons. I don't care about how or why certain vehicles are used in certain situations. I just think it looks cool and have faith that it will be told by a good story teller. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. I, for one, think that it's gonna rock.

And it makes me happy!

Not to me...Seinfeld was about NOT understanding social interaction, but being able to analyze it logically to see the foibles, where normal people never notice them. These are foibles in front of your face daily that you never saw until he points them out....because he thought about it completely differently.

Her videos don't make the argument that games cause violence against women or anyone else. She analyzed the roles of women in games and found trends in how they were portrayed. These were not flattering portrayals (for example the "Damsel in Distress" portrayal) and male characters were not often treated in the same way in games. She's pointing out how off-putting that can be to potential and actual female gamers and recommending women be portrayed in a more realistic manner. She's also pointing out how games are reinforcing the sexist and misogynistic messages that already exist in society. I don't think she is claiming media is the root cause of either sexism or misogyny.

Games ARE changing and including less "Trope-y" content and more well-rounded characters. And that's partly BECAUSE of her critiques (the creative director on The Last of Us has publicly stated her work heavily influenced the character designs and story of the game).

But I don't see that as a reason to not call out certain games for falling back on tired and occasionally demeaning representations of women.

There will continue to be those who either intentionally mislead or actually are incapable of understanding the science that will cherry pick data to make their pre-conceived notions seem correct, and others who look at the totality of data, analyze hypothesis, test them, check others tests, and can come to rational conclusions.
It is GREAT that science is not ONLY about consensus, and is really about repeatable provable theories. It is TERRIBLE that action based on science is nearly all a matter of consensus, and that the uneducated, the disingenuous, and the paid shills have managed to confuse the populace enough to make consensus impossible, or at least intentionally difficult and slow.

I'm not excited. I think YOU need to read your stuff again if you think you aren't taking sides.
You've taken the position that his action was instigated by others not de-escalating the situation (even though many people tried to do exactly that)...absolving him of responsibility for his own violent actions.
If being filmed is 'egging him on', then he's ALWAYS being egged on towards violence. There's ALWAYS a camera on you if you're in public. Being filmed is NEVER an excuse for violence, reasonable people see it as a reason to avoid escalating to violence and a way to de-escalate a situation (because a non-insane person doesn't want to be caught on camera acting insanely).
You seem to say the opposite, that filming him drove him to violence, seeming to absolve him of responsibility for his own actions and blaming the bystander that was violently attacked repeatedly. What?!? To me, that's insane.
No, it's not simply jumping to conclusions to say he started things here, it's analyzing the situation and seeing clearly that he would not have multiple people filming him, and the rest of them watching him, if he was not ALREADY being outrageous and causing a scene on his own.

EDIT: And I guess the guy in the hat was also not de-escalating things enough, so it was reasonable for the asshole to throw off his jacket in preparation for a fight and angrily approach hat man? Hat man wasn't filming. In fact, I'm wondering how you KNOW that the elderly victim was filming, and not just using his cell phone. Just because drunk asshole assumed that he was doesn't make it true. There's only one person we KNOW was filming this, and they weren't attacked at all. It seems you've jumped to some conclusions.

Yeah there are slap bands out there, but they don't work like this is presented to work. The arms would have to bend in multiple dimensions, and then straighten out and be able to provide a stable flying platform. The closest thing I think of for doing something like that is the "bendy" character toys where the metal wire is co-molded inside the body. That is a very heavy solution.
I misspoke on the 2" square, it is 2" x 2", so 4" square. I'm not sure that I agree that theirs is 6" x 3", but even if it is that would mean that the prop size would have to be about 1.25" and that doesn't work for a 6" x 3" vehicle. There isn't enough thrust and the motors at that size don't provide enough RPM's for that kind of weight.
On the electronic side, they show it connecting to a smart phone with video feedback. That means you have to have bluetooth at least, or a 5.4ghz video system if you want more than 30' range. or it has to have a Wifi TX on it. All of those thing require power. Sure it could analyze the video signal to determine subject matter, and provide guidance but you have some very serious issues there. If you do it on board it requires some processor power (More drain), if you do it on the smart phone app it will create lag.
Your phone has over 1,000 mAh in it (1440 in Iphone 5), that is a TON (4-10x) more than what this thing would have. Battery technology may be a big research project right now, but there isn't anything on the horizon that will get them to where they need to be. Most of the tech research is in sub 1C rated batteries for things like full size cars. Something like this needs a 10C rating minimum if not a 20C rating. Unfortunately most of the upcoming technology can not handle drains that fast. Things tend to go "Boom!". When you do something small, and even 6" x 3" is small, you have very serious power vs weight issues. It all comes down to issues of power density, and nothing exists today that will give it to them as they would need..

So right now these guys need to figure out:
1) A new light weight material that can lock rigid but also bend as needed in multiple directions.
2) A new battery technology that allows them to get the power they need, for a 6 axis gyro, 4 motors, control board,a RX, a HD camera and some sort of VTX while reducing weight. How long it powers all of that would be open, but if it is under 10 minutes I think people would be a little disgruntled. Right now people are wanting the video quads to get about 30-45 minutes of flight time on the 5200+mAh batteries.
3) Write code that allows them to analyze video in real time so as to provide object tracking and avoidance without lag while capable of running on a smartphone. It would also need to return to home when the battery runs low. That would be a little tricky on a cliff face, or if you are riding a bike through a forest. Another issue is that they tilt the camera down, they don't say if this is actuated, or done by hand, but it could lead to serious issues with programming object avoidance if you can't see anything above you.
4) Since they show the image as HD on the phone screen, they would also need to come up with a new way to broadcast HD video wirelessly. Right now that system costs $40K and is rather large.

All in all it is a dream product that people are going to get suckered into funding it. Some tech may come out of it that could be monetized, but I don't see the item coming out in this format, at least not in the next 3-5 years. You'd be better off going with AirDog.

To me it seems she's using the 'logic' that the reason people do 'good' may or may not be intended to 'please god', either way god is pleased by the 'good deeds', but the true reason people try to 'please god' is not altruistic, it's all to gain 'god's favor' for their own personal gain and happiness (if only in the afterlife) and therefore it's actually selfish and self serving when thoroughly analyzed. It makes sense to me.

capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?