OK. Let's see the proof.WWGD said:There are possible worlds where possible worlds don't exist.
You live in the world where such proof is impossible, unfortunately.Tom.G said:OK. Let's see the proof.
So in that world, this is not a possible world. Therefore we do not exist.WWGD said:There are possible worlds where possible worlds don't exist.
Attn Kurt Godel.Ivan Seeking said:So in that world, this is not a possible world. Therefore we do not exist.
No...wait...
Is that a measured number or based off the number of hours televised?Ivan Seeking said:Over the course of the TV series House, they shot over 4000 miles of film.
I don't know. But they specified 4076 miles.caz said:Is that a measured number or based off the number of hours televised?
Yeah, you missed the point.WWGD said:I may have missed the point of the show ' House' but it seemed pretty contrived to me often.
Which is/was?Ivan Seeking said:Yeah, you missed the point.
Well if you don't know by now...WWGD said:Which is/was?
Any good refs?Ivan Seeking said:Well if you don't know by now...
LOL! What do you mean by contrived? It was a TV show. Of course it was contrived!WWGD said:Any good refs?
Well, if read of many who had it in high esteem and believed in it at a " meta level", but never went into detail. I understand there is plenty of fluff on tv ( though I don't own one nowadays any more) but , still, shows that last as long usually have something substantial to them. Fluff only takes shows so far for so long.Ivan Seeking said:LOL! What do you mean by contrived? It was a TV show. Of course it was contrived!
Contrived: deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
I always thought that House was a medical version of Sherlock Holmes.WWGD said:I may have missed the point of the show ' House' but it seemed pretty contrived to me often.
While there are also political issues, the fundamental question is at which point do the unintended consequences of increased spending outway the direct benefits.Ivan Seeking said:We are looking at a $3.5 trillion spending bill. Some people are objecting. They can see spending a trillion or two but at 3.5 trillion we are talking about real money!
You can't make a show based on appendicitis.WWGD said:Well, if read of many who had it in high esteem and believed in it at a " meta level", but never went into detail. I understand there is plenty of fluff on tv ( though I don't own one nowadays any more) but , still, shows that last as long usually have something substantial to them. Fluff only takes shows so far for so long.
Actually, I know someone whose appendix went bad and a cyst formed around it. The person did not feel bad until ~1 year later when it cracked and started leaking. It took a couple of months to figure out what was happening at which point the person was rushed into emergency surgery. While they found gangrene, the person was basically back to normal within a couple of weeks.fresh_42 said:You can't make a show based on appendicitis.
The real solution is to just hand out large sums of money to people my age. :)caz said:While there are also political issues, the fundamental question is at which point do the unintended consequences of increased spending outway the direct benefits.
As usual , it seems we're being orthogonal to each other. This is not intended as a medical documentary. This is a vehicle to convey a message, not the message itself.fresh_42 said:You can't make a show based on appendicitis.
No, and I do not appreciate word parsers. There are known fiscal negatives to high taxes and high government spending. I believe that most people also recognize that there can be negative societal consequences as people become more and more dependent on the government. There can be positive unintended consequences, but I ask you to name one government spending program that should be increased without bound.Ivan Seeking said:The real solution is to just hand out large sums of money to people my age. :)
So you only want to compare direct benefits to unintended consequences? How about unintended benefits? Clearly you assume that all unintended consequences are negative.
Not without bound , but government does certain things right. And private sector has its share of nepotism and other flaws. It may sound trite, but there is a valid middle of the road here.caz said:No, and I do not appreciate word parsers. There are known fiscal negatives to high taxes and high government spending. I believe that most people also recognize that there can be negative societal consequences as people become more and more dependent on the government. There can be positive unintended consequences, but I ask you to name one government spending program that should be increased without bound.
The medical issues are the show's major means to create tension and arguments.WWGD said:As usual , it seems we're being orthogonal to each other. This is not intended as a medical documentary. This is a vehicle to convey a message, not the message itself.
WWGD said:Not without bound , but government does certain things right. And private sector has its share of nepotism and other flaws. It may sound trite, but there is a valid middle of the road here.
caz said:While there are also political issues, the fundamental question is at which point do the unintended consequences of increased spending outway the direct benefits.