Aceflyer

Isn't that what we were already planning to do, TJ?

That is, of course, true, but the Wiki Moderators as a group are responsible for, well, moderating the Wiki, which includes making judgments about relevant content. I really don't mind either way, so I guess if you think that's best...

I know, was amazing.

I also agree with the above. It makes logical sense to have SSForum itself handle the file download for a Download Continuum thing. It also makes logical sense to have a GetContinuum.com item under Community Resources. Further, it may be a good idea to have "Get Started" with a link to GetContinuum.com for the reasons Samapico has already said.

When we see a good idea we see a good idea. Yeppers, agreed.

When Petraeus is the US commanding general in Iraq, I'm going to assume his statements regarding US policy are accurate unless I'm presented with convincing evidence to the contrary. You haven't presented any evidence that President Bush has overruled Petraeus on this matter, hence, we have to assume General Petraeus' statements are accurate. I was merely attempting to draw an analogy with Continuum in hopes of better illustrating my point. > Lieberman still doesn't direct US policy, hence Petraeus' statements trump Lieberman's at!@#$%^&*udes in case of differences between them. > The rest is still just unsupported speculation based on your personal opinions.

I think that's reasonable. Whatcha think CRe>, Combine, Killerbot?

They would have to prove that, in fact, their 'belief' that the 'extra' doctors are less capable is correct. This would be rather hard to prove unless it were, in fact, true. Furthermore, how would anyone be able to tell who is a 'new doctor' and who isn't? If medical schools were to expand their facilities and start admitting larger classes, no one would be able to tell who the so-called '1001st candidate in line' is. There is also no reason to suspect lawyers would be dumb enough as to just blindly believe this. It is far more likely that lawyers, as well as the public in general, would simply see medical schools expanding their facilities and resources and hence training more capable doctors. There is no logical reason to simply assume that training more doctors would be attendant with a compromise in quality of training.

Since Petraeus is the US' commanding general in Iraq, we have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. This is not some random Army lieutenant we're talking about here, after all. It's like, say, Rudy making some remarks about Trench Wars policies regarding players. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary (e.g. a TW Sysop statement to the contrary). You wouldn't say "oh, that's just what Rudy says... doesn't really mean much since he's 'just' the SMod in charge of enforcing TW policies regarding players..." > Lieberman doesn't direct US policy. > The rest is just unsupported speculation based on your personal analysis.

Jeez, thanks for the unwarranted, highly negative overgeneralization.

I never said the quote was a lie or was misleading. In fact (see below), I explicitly stated that "we have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary." I was simply adding that the (unknown) presence or absence of underhanded actions has always been part of diplomacy, and does not necessarily reflect on the negotiating parties' sincerity toward said negotiations. I actually agree with the view that Petraeus is basically Bush's figurehead. Still, comparing him to Hitler's generals is unwarranted. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we still have to assume his remarks are accurate. So basically you don't have proof to back up your previous claim. The above is ungrounded speculation at best. Concession accepted.

I think that was obvious to most.

Not necessarily. Medical schools don't always eliminate candidates on the basis of qualifications (or lack thereof). It is sometimes a matter of personal preference (on the part of the interviewers and admissions committees), sometimes a matter of 'balancing' their (limited-sized) entering classes, often a combination of both. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to claim that everyone who applies to med school is qualified to train to become a doctor. But it is commonly accepted that many, many entirely qualified candidates get turned down not because they aren't as qualified as the next guy but due to a simple lack of resources to train all qualified and willing candidates.

Yep. GetContinuum.com as the first link under Community Resources --> Community Sites would be nice. Alternatively the SUBSPACE image on the left side of the nav bar could be a clickable image linking to GetContinuum.com, if that's possible to implement.

Proof that Sadr wouldn't also be making underhanded maneuvers? Underhanded maneuvers are a fact of life; they have always happened and always will happen while official diplomacy and negotiations go on. The point is you asked me to provide proof of the US' willingness to negotiate with Sadr, and I provided this proof. Accept it and move on. Claims about Petraeus' character are irrelevant. He is the commanding general in Iraq, and he was briefing Congress when he made his remarks. We have to assume his remarks are accurate in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. Provide proof. You won't be able to provide it, for the simple reason that Iraq isn't stable enough for accurate stats to exist about who is killing the most civilians.

Haha nice.

Hahaha.

No, the problem with national healthcare is the lack of sufficient medical training capacity (i.e. lack of sufficient medical schools). There are plenty of people who are qualified to attend medical school and who want to be doctors but can't due to a simple lack of capacity of our system to train them. Increasing the number of doctors would not necessarily lead to lower quality of healthcare as long as we had sufficient facilities to train them all. If we attempted to increase the number of doctors with the existing training infrastructure, though, I'd agree that the quality of healthcare would suffer as a result (since the current system for training doctors is running at or near capacity as is).

Not necessarily, trivia isn't really all that hot, as anyone who was around back when I was HS staff will probably attest to.

Happy 25th MikeTheNose. Wishing you all the best. Posted in Trash Talk because I wasn't sure if this would be appropriate for 17th Parallel General Board; 17th staff feel free to move this to General Board if you deem appropriate.

It would only be socialized for those people who opt into a public plan like Medicare. Tax credits have nothing to do with healthcare being socialized or not. Private plans, including current plans, will continue to be supported. While this system would likely result in more people using public plans like Medicare than there currently are, private plans will continue to plan a significant role.

I think that's a good idea actually. In fact, I'm surprised to see that there's no link to GetContinuum.com, the official SubSpace/Continuum portal, in the entire SSForum.net homepage. This even includes the nav bar, which has links to SSDL, SSCentral, and other places.

Your homepage is SSForum.net?

I'd like to point out that not everyone who has commented on the US presidential candidates in here has a specific candidate they support. Hence the use of the term "your candidate" in your post above may not be fair. For example I personally have no clear preference between Obama and Clinton. While many of my posts may appear to be in support of Clinton and in opposition of Obama, I have simply been trying to analyze both candidates in an objective manner without swooning over Obama just because he's the first strong black US presidential candidate or because he promises "change."