Bed Goldacre demonstrates some of the most distorting ways bad science is being used in medicine a pharmaceuticals and offers ideas for a solution:
I'm a risk-taker. According to life insurance companies, I exhibit a "habitual pattern of high-risk behavior". I love the personal growth that comes from confronting my fears, the exhilaration of pushing my boundaries, and the magic of experiencing life at the edge.
Which is why it seriously bothers me that people are trying to make the world "safe" by their standards. Somewhere in the last 50-75 years, society decided that taking risks was not acceptable, that people like me should not be allowed to explore the world on our terms.
This is an interesting (and funny) talk about what conditions are necessary to make prosperity possible:
What's the best way to settle a dispute? A duel, of course.
Except this is not the duel of the 19th century, with two men and pistols at 20 paces. This is a battle where nobody dies, nobody even gets hurt, and two companies battle it out for a couple hours to resolve a dispute that could cost each of them millions in the courtroom regardless of the winner.
This is the challenge:
I understand the origins of intellectual property (IP) law, and I get the arguments for it. But I disagree, fundamentally, with the notion. Ideas are meant to be copied and built on... that's exactly what humans do, and that's exactly how we've innovated and architected ourselves out of the stone age.
I agree with copyright as it was originally conceived (a few years bast authorship). But it has gotten ridiculous:
I often use Google as an example of brilliance in business, technology, and innovation. Their culture teaches a new way of looking at the world, at inventing and evolving and staying ahead of the competition. The question is, can this culture be created elsewhere? Forbes weighs in:
I'm rarely a supporter of activist groups, mostly because the most visible ones are too radical in their approach. People get swept up in the emotional charge of the issue and don't think through either the social implications of their actions or the hypocrisy of their methods. I agree with the vision of groups like Greenpeace, but I fundamentally oppose most of the activities they participate in that make headlines.
"Your politics does not belong in my bedroom." That's basically Giuliani's stance on gay marriage:
Giuliani, who personally supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage, said that he was against the recent vote in New York to legalize gay marriage in the state. But while he called that decision "wrong," he described it as a "democratic vote" and urged Republicans to move on.
I couldn't agree more!
Here's a thoughtful article about why the recovery doesn't feel as good as economists are saying it is:
Not a single forecaster in Bloomberg’s monthly survey of 85 Wall Street economists got it anywhere close to right. The most common reaction was “surprise.” That any professional can sincerely claim to be surprised by continued weakness — in employment, GDP or retail sales — was the only revelation.
There's an easy cure for individuals to stay out of debt: don't spend more than you make. Governments should generally try to abide by this principle. In addition, governments have a responsibility to the people they represent, and should be leading by example.
I know, I know, they are not a business and the difference should be taken into account. I agree. But that doesn't give them open permission to spend on anything they'd like... there still must be accountability to the people when their spending is out of control.