Slashdot Mirror

Government jobs *don't* have poor pay in comparison to industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Personally I care less about what they're made of and more about the sizes and colours. I know dollars are tinted now, but they're still basically green, and all the same size. Not a major issue, I know, but it's just that little bit less convenient when you're thumbing through your wallet.

Or, if you happen to be blind, more than "a little less convenient". US paper currency has been ruled to be discriminatory to the blind. Unfortunately, this redesign does not address the issue.

The biggest reason I've seen for not changing the size or adding raised/textured numbers that can be felt by hand, is that it would screw up vending machines. But there are a couple of points of counterargument. For one, can you say that older vending machines will be able to read this new redesigned bill either? It seems so totally different that it's unlikely.

But even if it can, there's the second point; most of the many, many vending machines in the US accept $1 and $5 bills, selling $1.50 cans of coke or $1 bags of candy. Yes, there are a small number of machines selling higher priced items such as electronics, but these are much less common (and have higher profits as well). So, the solution is to start changing size from the top down, keeping the $1 bill the same. Only the relatively rare, high-profit machines need to be changed over to accept the new bills. The machines found in every school, shopping center, and transportation hub selling Coke and M&Ms don't have to be touched.

Global warming and volcanoes are related.

What's your source for this?

They are related in the same way as immodesty and earthquakes are related.

Dear Iceland,

Until you can name a volcano something that the rest of the world can actually pronounce, you will still be considered a terrorist nation. No amount of volcanic ash or glaciers melting (playing up to the global warming crowd) will excuse you.

Dear Dunbal,
is Katla easy enough.

1. Get a Bank or Credit Union that gives a damn. Investigate before you choose one. A good one will monitor your activity and shut it down and call you when something goes wonky (like charges from all over the place or charges from known fraudulent organizations). When it does go wrong a good one will either fix it quick or possibly give you provisional credit to get you buy until they do fix it.

Problem with this is, the ones that tend to give a damn are the smaller banks. And with those bank bailouts that the US Gov kept giving out only to the big banks has caused many small banks to go under. This leaves most of the power in the big banks, weakens to small banks and leaves most people with a lack of options and no longer looking for which bank gives a damn and more looking for a bank that won't completely screw you over.

This is a better discussion of my position: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/freeman/ncjf49.htm

Huge mistakes like this should be used to make sure that they don't happen again. Top brass lying and changing the story around just makes the US look dishonest and 'evil'

Things like this are routine. What's extraordinary is having proof because the cover up is also routine.

I don't even understand why there needs to be a cover-up. The military could have said "this is under investigation" and apologized for the deaths. Here's another example of why any attempt at a cover up makes you look really bad.

Afghan investigators claim U.S. special operations forces dug bullets out of their victims' bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched February raid, The Times of London reports.

The Times says the soldiers washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.

The claims were made as NATO admitted responsibility for all the deaths. NATO initially had claimed the women had been dead for several hours when the assault force discovered the bodies.

Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot Feb. 12 when U.S. and Afghan special operations forces stormed their home outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The breakdown of the force hasn't been made public.

The New York Times reports that a NATO official said Sunday that an Afghan-led team of investigators had found signs of evidence tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets from walls near where the women were killed. On Monday, the Times says a senior NATO official denied that any tampering had occurred.

The actual tampering claims in this story are alleged so I can't really comment on that much, but had the NATO outright said "we don't know what happened, we are still investigating" rather than trying to claim that the women were already dead makes me question why they ever think it's a good idea.

college sports players are the same and need to be paid for playing . . . .

Fixed that for you.

Seriously, how is this the same? College athletes are paid. They're paid with an education, and the cost of that education can be stratospheric. Take Duke, a big time basketball school in the Final Four. Tuition and fees, room and board, and other expenses add up to over $53,000 PER YEAR. http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/finaid.html As another example, TCU, a big time football school, has annual costs of over $41,000. http://www.fam.tcu.edu/cost.asp How may 18 year old kids are worth $53,000 or $41,000 per year? That's $41,000 or $53,000 worth of education for every player on the team. How is that not enough? Most college athletic departments are in the red and don't pay for themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm

College players get to go to school and don't have to pay for it. Most families can't afford to send their children to a college like Duke or TCU. Maybe the college athlete wins the sports lottery and gets drafted, or maybe he just gets a great education that opens a lot of doors. Either way, college athletes have nothing in common with interns who get paid NOTHING and get NOTHING in return for their time. No salary, no TUITION, no ROOM AND BOARD. Nothing.

just to make it clear : I don't like flash.

How can a device built for a non-techie crowd (aka. Facebook Bubble Bobble Clones consumers) be more convenient for web browsing when most of the sites and content they are likely to consume ARE flash based

How do you ~consume~ emails, if you can't really reply because "typing on the on-screen keyboard is a horrible experience" (dixit Pogue)?

What is convenient about watching photos or videos when "every fingerprint is grossly apparent. "

Why use it as an eBook reader if "You can’t read well in direct sunlight." and "At 1.5 pounds, the iPad gets heavy in your hand after awhile"

Yes, I actually read them, and I'm officially impressed that the battery life is really that long. That said, the articles' titles are all very enthusiastic, while the content itself is generally much more ambivalent. It's nice PR though : when you get to a news aggregator (let's say news.google) and you really just glance at the titles of the reviews, you'll surely come to the conclusion that it's the second coming

Check the video of the USA Today review for example. Title of the article "It's a winner", video "damn .. the colour pops out." and then lots of bitching about iTunes and how things just don't work as well as they should. (but "ooooh, the case is soooo bootiful".

I'm sure it will sell well. But it's not revolutionary (pretty much every review in GP point out that it's really just an iTouch XL), and the reviews are weirdly at odds with their title

Andy Ihnatko's Sun Times review + Unboxing

Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing review

Goatberg's WSJ review

Baig's USA Today review

and Pogue's awkward review for NYT

This is the comic.

> Assuming extradition is not enforced, that person would only be labeled criminal when in Saudi Arabia's borders.

That already happens now - it's how the laws already work. If that's all you want, it's already done, so what your point? See Dmitry Sklyarov.

As for "diplomatic ties", that's also already done and being done. There are many countries that have "harmonized" their laws with the USA for the sake of diplomatic ties (often whether their citizens like it or not).

> How do you think citizens from the country you are exploiting feel?
> Do you think they are endeared by your actions?

Far fewer citizens have really been exploited by copyright infringement by P2P etc, than the number of artists and stars that have been exploited by the labels[1] and the programmers that have been exploited by their companies (e.g. EA etc). And how about the people were who rooted by Sony's rootkit (which is technically considered hacking in many countries)? Who went to prison for that hacking?

If the artists and creators are already getting ZERO $$$$ from the labels they can't lose any more to P2P. In fact the smarter ones have realized they might as well encourage distribution of their stuff and then make money via tours - otherwise they're not going to get anything (it's all taken up by the "middle man").

If you feel so strongly about exploitation, go bark up that tree instead.

And if you're actually from one of those Big Media Companies and trying to promote their agenda, take this message to your handlers: "FUCK YOU".

The ordinary citizen in the USA has little to worry about from "piracy", it does practically nothing to them.

The media companies actually make money, they just use hollywood accounting to pretend they don't, when it suits them.

[1] directly:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement
Or via Hollywood accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
See also: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2002-11-13-stan-lee-sues-marvel_x.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578440/JRR-Tolkiens-estate-to-sue-New-Line-Cinema-over-Lord-of-the-Rings-trilogy-profits.html

Aside from the critical acclaim and the plethora of Oscars and other awards, the complaint claims that they have grossed over $6 billion (£3.07 billion) worldwide through box office receipts and DVD and merchandising sales.

However, the suit filed by the Trust claims that, apart from $62,500 (£32,000) paid upfront before production began, "not one penny" has changed hands.

p.s. Not related but assuming you are a US citizen, just for some perspective go divide the trillions your Government has spent bailing out ill-deserving companies by the number of US citizens. Google for Federal Reserve trillions.

As an aside, the census had nothing to do with the Japanese internment during WWII. At most it made calculating the number of Japanese-Americans easier, allowing the round up to be more accurate. Maybe. Given how easy it is to separate people by obvious ethnic ancestry, the round up would have occurred any way. Besides which, it's not as if either of scenarios mentioned in the OP actually provided anything more than numbers. They didn't provide addresses, names, or any actual personal information. Merely the number who marked a certain ethnicity in a certain county.

So yes, these people are still just paranoid.

Bullshit, total and utter bullshit. And those who modded the parent up as informative are idiots.

Yep, there are certainly idiots on both sides.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS248104+14-May-2009+PRN20090514
http://cofcc.org/2009/09/actual-political-violence/
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2670
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/24/0824kibby.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-05-gop-office-attack_x.htm
blah, blah, blah...

That's contrary to what I know: Capsaicin binds to the TRPV1 receptor, which has a primary function of activating due to heat (>43C according to Wikipedia). The same receptor is present on some (but not all) pain nerves. The "second pepper isn't as hot" desensitization effect is due not to damage but to depletion of calcium used to transmit the signals from the affected nerves. You haven't killed anything off, just used up the fuel they use to signal the brain.
It's also not a permanent pain reliever, it is temporary. It can last longer than other methods though. AFAICT it can last for a few weeks.

Not so sure about your "no chemicals" claim, but that's probably because I live in the City of Los Angeles, and tap water is nigh undrinkable.

Hrm, your opinions run counter to a water taste test in 2008, where the LA tap water won first place. From L.A. water tops national taste test:

Though they might not believe it, Los Angeles residents have the nation's tastiest tap water, according to the judges of a national competition. The 18th Annual Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting was held Saturday, with more than 120 waters competing for top honors. ... The entries were judged by ten journalists and food critics. The contest is known as the world's largest and longest-running water tasting. The title for Best Municipal Water in 2008 is shared by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves Los Angeles, and Clearbrook, British Columbia. "It's not the first time Los Angeles has won, they've won a number of times over the years," said event producer Jill Klein Rone.

And can you equivically state that the insurance company would not have raised rates if this bill failed, or if this health care debate never happened?

Hint: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Since 1999 [to 2009], health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Sounds to me like it's just business as usual for the insurance co., they just have a good scapegoat this year.

And here is a problem with circumventing those yearly caps. Last I heard with the immigration debate was that there is something like 12 million illegals in the USA according to some and closer to 20 million according to others. Remeber, if they pop a baby out while over here, their baby is a natural citizen so kids who didn't cross the border do not count as illegals.

Right now, unemployment in the US is around 10.4 percent according to Google's search answer and 9.4 percent according to the government BLS. With that in mind, and the last population estimates coming in around 303 million people in the US, then unemployment can be dropped by anywhere from 3.9 percent to 6.6 percent just by removing all the illegals.

In other words, between almost 4% to almost 7% of the unemployment is caused by people entering the country by circumventing the normal mechanisms. Actually, it will most likely be less then that because not all illegals will be employed but you should be able to get the drift. Now I'm not sure if this is the case in other nations, but in the US at least, businesses that hire illegals like to do so because they can pay them less. Sometimes this pay is even less then the minimum wage which displaces employment for others. The travesty of this is that the illegals do not have an effective remedy against this because reporting the violations of labor laws would also disclose their status. They are held basically in bondage by fear of deportation or imprisonment and exploited because of their unique situations. If you ask me, this is far more harmful to the illegals then waiting in line for a visa or whatever to come up. And for every illegal employed, it displaces at least one legal employee from a job so even though someone might make the claim that they add to the system by paying sales taxes and such, they are taking more away because of the unemployment benefits and welfare created for others. Another problem is that this also inflates the work pool and causes wages to stay down which in turn causes legal employees to earn less and sometimes take two or more jobs just to get a decent standard of living for their families.

IF they want to come in, they need to get in line and wait just like every other legal immigrant does. There is a limit for a reason or several reasons and if all the illegals were not in the country right now, more legal immigrants would be allowed in. All they are doing by jumping the lines and coming in illegally is making it harder for others to come in and causing government resources to be diverted making taxes go up even more while wages go down.

Read this story from 2007 in USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-08-27-airport-radar_N.htm

The new system is to be known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).

ADS-B will create a nationwide system to replace radar with a far more accurate aircraft tracking system based on the Global Positioning System. It also will build a high-speed data network that will allow aircraft to transmit information to one another and the ground as if they were on the Internet.

Look for Gaglani on this page. He did it back in 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-05-17-hs-allstars-first-team_x.htm

The $6400 is just an average I saw somewhere. I can't find that article; however, here's a breakdown on employer provided plan costs. Your employer pays $4824 for just you, or $13375 for a family plan. Since individuals buying health insurance don't have as good a bargaining position, I would expect the premiums to be much higher, and $6400 sounds about right. Note the $13375 figure for the family plan, which is what most people will be buying.

> I've read that all this migration has cost MILLIONS

Yes, there's a lot of shilling going on, trying to paint this transition in a bad light. man_of_mr_e provided me with a link to the Microsoft bid which was $23M. The original Linux bid was $36M. And it's probably cost more. But as I replied to man_of_mr_e, this is still probably a good fiscal decision for Munich, since I find it hard to believe that if they save MS relicensing costs of about $23M every, say, 6 years, they won't pay for the extra conversion costs fairly quickly.

And that's not even counting the advantages to being free of lock-in.

I could not disagree with you more. The vast majority of these people who "can't pay for insurance" still manage to pay for an iPod or a Cell Phone or a form of reliable transportation (read: new car in most cases 2).

First, An iPod costs a couple hundred dollars, once. A cell phone plan costs an average of $635.85 annually, though you can easily find low-cost plans for about half that.. Health insurance, for an average family, will cost you and/or your employer a whopping $13,375 annually (Sources: USA Today, about.com). So even if they gave up all the things you mention, they still don't have the cash to get decent health insurance.

Second, not everyone really needs health insurance. I've looked at my health care costs and my insurance, and at my age, even with a fairly significant chunk of medical bills late last year, my insurance still didn't pay for what it cost me and my employer. And that's for the cheapest tier of health insurance I can get through my employer. For younger people with no family history of cancer, health insurance is basically subsidizing other people's care. So for many people in that age range, it just doesn't make financial sense. Fortunately, my employer basically pays the entire cost. Were it not for that, I probably would have pocketed the money until at least age 30.

As for your assertion that individual funding cannot be solved at a governmental level, that's a big part of what this plan does---the government gives tax credits to people who buy insurance for themselves, thus effectively covering the cost of the insurance. If people don't take that health insurance, they don't get the credit. Unlike money that they earn from their employers, the credit can't be used to pay for anything else, eliminating the incentive to skip it. And that was my point.

So then all laws requiring motor vehicle insurance are unconstitutional? That would be interesting.

The car insurance analogy is like comparing apples and oranges. First of all the government does not make you drive, but if you do drive you need insurance to have the privilege of using public roads. But to further tear up your argument. The government can revoke your license if you drive poorly, can the same be said for health care? Wouldn't that be like telling people who smoke that they can't go to the doctor anymore? Driving a car on public roads is a privilege that can be revoked. Living is not. Simply being born under this bill will require you buy something, and if progressives get a single payer plan, you will most likely buy from the government.

We spend 17% of our GDP on health care right now. Other nations get the same or better overall results spending less than half of this. Yes you might have to wait for some services but there is clearly huge inefficiencies in the current system, so much so that it is easy to argue that even a government run program would be better.

If you are diagnosed with a disease like cancer, time is your #1 enemy, and oftentimes it is how long it takes to get a CT scan or see an oncologist that makes the difference between life and death. So, you see, this is a really major issue. If you had a sucking chest wound would you want to wait more or less time? For that matter, if you had anything wrong with you, would you want to wait a longer time? You say there are huge inefficiencies in our system, but then fail to point out a single one. Here's a link that pretty much blows that whole argument out of the water though: Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada. This is due to our better health care system. By the way, can you produce a list of high profile individuals that flew from the U.S. to the U.K. or Canada to receive medical treatment? Because they sure come here in droves! You also fail to point out how out health care system will compare when 1/3 of the doctors quit, and incentives (high pay) to practice medicine decrease.

Other nations get the same or better overall results

I'm going to have to call you on that one. Maybe you can point out another country that has a better medical system, since they are so numerous and all. Be nice if you provided a link. Something real too, I don't want to hear about how the U.K. has more coverage, even if they have to wait for 6 months for a CT scan. Coverage delayed is coverage denied.

it is easy to argue that even a government run program would be better.

I pointed out in my earlier post that medicare is the #1 denier of claims. I pointed out how medicare costs are rising almost 2x as fast as private insurance, And cost estimates were wildly underestimated (predicted $9b actual $67b). How does that jive with your argument that the government run program is better? We have the proof that it is not run better right there! Where is your proof that the government is going to be more effective? Seems like you just want to debate the points you think you have a shot at winning, or so you thought!.

There is quite a bit of evidence that the US has a huge and expensive overcapacity in exotic medical devices brought about by our current insurance system. We also clearly pay far more for the same drugs than people in other countries.

If there is quite a bit of evidence, I'm sure it wo

Let me count the ways:
Constitutionality:
The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract. By anyone. If you don't like it amend the constitution, but you cannot just make up your own laws. That's called anarchy. So right there the bill is dead. But let me go on.

Common sense
The kings of inefficiency. The same people who spent so much of your social security and medicare money on things besides social security and medicare, to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillion, are now going to, according to the bill, take 500B from medicare to pay for the new program and supposedly expand the roles of people on medicare and the new plan. Do some simple math! If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost more not less! You have to be insane if you think adding people to the government's dole will somehow lower costs as progressives claim. Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers predicted it would only cost 9$ billion by 1990, unfortuanly the real cost was $67 billion. But don't worry they were only off by A FACTTOR OF 7. I'm sure they are better and more trustworthy in making cost estimates today. Congress would never deceive us!

This bill causes lack of care (not coverage)
Sure the government will cover you for all preexisting conditions, there will just be no faciliteis or doctors to treat you! OH BUT YOU'RE COVERED!!! Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days. The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes, further eroding our resources. So ya, you're covered, but you're going to have to wait a few years for that liver transplant now. People other countries will no longer have a "capitalist health care system" to save them, unfortunately nether will we. We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors. A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life. In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first. In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.). While dems try and portray private insurers as evil for turning down procedures, drugs etc. keep in mind that the number 1 denier of care per capita is medicare! So there's another false argument made to try and pass this bill.

How much is too much?
People in this country continue to live longer and longer. This is attributable not to better diets or healthier living, but as a direct result of having invested such large sums of money into our health care system. I've heard 17% from democrats, decrying the amount. Dems say that our private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate (3%/yr) but they want to change us to a system that is similar to the unfunded medicare, but medicare is increasing at a rate much faste

"Toyota Knew About Sticking Pedals In Europe A Year Before U.S. Accidents"
http://consumerist.com/2010/02/toyota-knew-about-sticking-pedals-in-europe-a-year-before-us-accidents.html

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Toyota has known about brake problems in its popular Prius cars for some time, going so far as to fix it in new production vehicles, but has kept Prius drivers in the dark about the problem until the Japanese government called for an investigation."
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/autos/prius_timeline/index.htm

"Toyota says it knew there were problems with accelerator-pedal assemblies from supplier CTS late last year, but not enough to warrant a recall."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-01-25-toyotalong_st_N.htm

Your opinion of its likelihood is not relevant. Not only is it likely, evidence points to it being true. You are being disingenuous by phrasing it "no economic gains to be had by killing your customers." A product has a flaw, people die, that happens sometimes. If you issue a recall, you draw attention to the problem and cost yourself money in lost sales, repair costs, and possible lawsuits. "Killing your customers" is a bit different from "hoping that driver error is the official cause, not faulty cars," and you deciding to phrase it that way is an appeal to emotion, not a logical argument.

You can say we're just arguing semantics, but you're going to have to back up your unlikely opinion with links to convince me.

Nah, the cooler can't be made of melamine.

They used all that up in the baby food.

They also wax poetic about how awesome it is to be accountable to no one, and specifically gloat over not answering to the FDA. Now, IANAL, but I doubt their claim will stand up in court if/when the FDA says "Oh, really? We'll see about that." But leave that aside for a minute.

Why would being answerable to no one ever be a positive thing? Especially in the medical field! The entire reason the FDA exists is because people were selling sugar water for $30 a bottle and claiming it would cure any disease. Or worse, they would sell a folk remedy that turned out - once rigorous testing was done - to be poisonous. Anyone remember Vioxx? Or Fen-phen? History is replete with dozens of examples of serious complications like this.

Look at asbestos for example: it took decades of painstaking research to uncover the connection between asbestos and the diseases that are caused by exposure to it over very long periods of time, and not right away. But now? It's so hazardous entire specialized industries exist that serve no purpose but to know how to safely clean up asbestos-contaminated sites.

Similarly we have no idea what this therapy's non-obvious long term implications are. None. There is no way of knowing whether this treatment is going to lead to uncontrolled cell growth (that is, cause cancer) or somehow cause an auto-immune disease. Sure, using the patient's own cells makes this unlikely, but introducing bone marrow cells where they're not normally found might confuse the immune system. The FDA approval process is designed to mitigate these risks, and ensure that the procedure actually does what they say it does. Openly bragging about circumventing the FDA makes you a quack automatically, for that alone.

It's almost impossible to fire a teacher.

Unless you're in Rhode Island

This is a dictatorship with deep financial troubles. The reasons they give for seizing valuable equipment don't bear deep inspection.

Venezuela wrote forgave Haiti $295 million in oil-related debt. South America leaders hold Haiti aid summit

It's unlikely that Chavez has forgotten or forgiven Mercenaries 2. Video game simulating invasion of Venezuela raises ire of Chavez allies

There have been other irritants in the Tom Clancy lie: Venezuela [As a Video Game Setting]

How many "school shootings" in the past 10 or 20 years? Go back to your 50 years and replace "knife" with "gun", and check again. I bet you'll find that in lower-income schools especially, school violence has remained relatively constant. Or else the difference may be that they simply waited until after school?

How many turned out to be related to violent gangs?

How many were actually "videogame related"? And no, Columbine doesn't count, despite the propaganda and misinformation you've been hearing.

He's already proved he can create government jobs. The federal government is now larger than it ever has in history.

[citation needed]

Are you aware that there were more federal government employees in the 1980s under Reagan than there are today?

Are you aware that there were more government employees in the 70s under Nixon, Ford, and Carter than there are today?

Go take your horseshit somewhere else.

Sources: Article on Bush increasing the federal employment rolls, just to point out your misplaced ire.
  All fed employees, 1962 to 2008 Here you go. What's that? Federal employment peaked at the end of Reagan's term and decreased under Clinton, only to increase again slighlty under Bush? How can that be, in your misinformed little world?

  An article pointing out the increase in federal employees due to Obama's stimulus packages as of last September. It was newsworthy that 25k federal employees were added from Dec 08 to Aug 09. FYI, more have been added since, with 33k added in Jan 2010 as an example. Still far under what we had in the 80s under Reagan.

Get a clue. Dig into the numbers before you make erroneous claims parroting your stupid right-wing ideological leaders.

Does your 'genius' level research include contractors to the US government? I'm not seeing Blackwater, Raytheon, and the likes showing up in your calculations....

I agree, my point is, theres all this raw HATE for the iPhone, much of it from bitter people who for whatever reason cannot have an iPhone, and "the coverage sucks" is a very common complaint I hear.

The problem is not with the phone, its that damn AT&T network in the USA. I hope people remember, Apple supposedly went to Verizon first

From what I understand, Verizon is the best US network, and the iPhone is a very desirable phone (anywhere in the world), if the two met, it would be a marvellous thing.

I know it sucks having "locked" phones, most of the world has "unlocked" phones, you can easily run any iPhone 3G or 3GS on any of the three networks here in New Zealand, just throw the sim card in, boom!

Its AT&T that sucks for reception

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
~Ronald Reagan
I like the service from the USPS. IF you take the time to read the above links that I have posted you will find that the major problem with the USPS is the people, health care, and pension funding for USPS employees. Like so many things in the USA, what was a service job became and entitlement, and is now an unfunded liability.
Please explain this to me, a private sector employee that has had limited raises for the past two years: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

"The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available."

"When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000."

Years of deregulation and resource starvation have strangulated our regulatory agencies

Here's some recent data about the resources available to the DoT, the parent agency of the NHTSA: When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. Plus the juicy benefits and pension plan. I'll bet all those managers and supervisors raking in the big bucks would agree that their agencies are "resource starved" and that if they only had more money and more power, they could hire two or three software engineers (for the cost of one manager).

He's already proved he can create government jobs. The federal government is now larger than it ever has in history.

[citation needed]

Are you aware that there were more federal government employees in the 1980s under Reagan than there are today?

Are you aware that there were more government employees in the 70s under Nixon, Ford, and Carter than there are today?

Go take your horseshit somewhere else.

Sources: Article on Bush increasing the federal employment rolls, just to point out your misplaced ire.
All fed employees, 1962 to 2008 Here you go. What's that? Federal employment peaked at the end of Reagan's term and decreased under Clinton, only to increase again slighlty under Bush? How can that be, in your misinformed little world?
An article pointing out the increase in federal employees due to Obama's stimulus packages as of last September. It was newsworthy that 25k federal employees were added from Dec 08 to Aug 09. FYI, more have been added since, with 33k added in Jan 2010 as an example. Still far under what we had in the 80s under Reagan.

Get a clue. Dig into the numbers before you make erroneous claims parroting your stupid right-wing ideological leaders.

Even USA Today "Experts say school could track missing laptops less intrusively" Really?!? You don't say!

Okay, so your point is a family of four's total cost to the system is about $1600 per month in Canada. That's about $400 per person. In 2009, US healthcare spending was about $8300 per person per year, or about $33,200 for a family of four, or about $2770 a month. So we're still spending about 73% more per capita (and clearly don't get 73% better results than Canada).

The average health insurance plan in the US has increased to almost $5000 for an individual (see this article, for example), approximately doubling over the last 9 years, while average deductibles and out of pocket expenses have increased massively as well.

And while Canada's income tax rates are modestly higher than in the US, I don't think the difference is particularly startling - see, for example, the chart here.

And the studies seem to indicate that the quality of health care in Canada is at least as good as that provided in the US as in this study.

None of this is exhaustive, and I agree with your point that the OP was comparing apples and oranges, but it doesn't take rocket science to conclude that Canada's health care system is significantly more efficient than the US system at providing health care, and that their system works far better for the average taxpaying citizen than our system here in the US.

Oh, and some states are seeing 40-50% premium increases for individual and small business health insurance plans for 2010. Even mid-sized corporations are seeing rate hikes of 20-30% for 2010 and being forced to make tough choices, cut workforce numbers, and move jobs overseas to remain competitive in the face of the drag on their bottom line that health insurance costs are creating. All of this makes the comparison with countries like Canada that much less favorable.

If main stream news sources in copious quantities isn't sufficient corroboration for you, call the court and ask.

Not my fault the school administrators are monumentally stupid.

Oh, and dial back the paranoia a notch. It got away from you.

Contract Bridge. It's not hard to google up references to it, e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-12-19-bridge-schools_x.htm

Let's look at estimates on what we've pissed away on war

$1.05 trillion dollars total http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

$704 billion for Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

$300 billion for Afghanistan http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-02-war-costs_N.htm

Now if we had a trillion dollars put into laying fiber to homes I'm pretty certain everyone could have fiber to the door, we wouldn't have pissed off a whole region that is likely to try and pay us back, we wouldn't have thrown away so many young lives and once again the US could out do other countries at something other than expanding waist sizes.

We managed to get electricity and phone lines to virtually everyone. Hell I knew people that couldn't even get proper plumbing, relying on the gravity of water coming down a mountain but they had a phone line. A lot of this was kicked off before we were the richest nation.

We can thank the government for this too due to the communications act of 1934. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Communications_Act_of_1934

As someone who has lived in a rural area (though actually not that far at all from two largish towns), I know full well the phone companies pretty much despise helping but do it because they have to. You can debate all you want about whether it is correct for the government to do that but do you honestly think we would be better off leaving huge chunks of the US in the stone age?

Even in the days before wide spread broadband, we had enough people in our area to get cable run back to the area but naturally companies weren't very helpful despite the fact some people were even willing to do something of the physical labor to get the cable back there. So it's not even like we're giving the opportunity to allow rural people to do it on their own.

Those populations might not be as dense as large cities but remember it's those areas with thinner populations providing most of the food for you. It would be unwise to leave farmers in the stone age because it would holding farming back and you would end up with a situation, like the Amish, where increasingly the youth get envious of those who have and move away from farming and we'd possibly be more dependant on other nations for food. It's bad enough oil countries have us by the balls. Would we really want to be held at ransom over food?

The microsoft bid was $23.7 million. ... License upgrades? it's 14,000 computers. Even if you calculated the cost based on retail prices, that's 14,000 x $199, that's 2.7 million dollars,

I don't understand. Microsoft wanted Munich to pay $23.7M instead of going to the store and paying $2.7M? Sounds like a great deal to me (not)?

Your post doesn't make sense. It seems pretty clear that taking the Microsoft bid meant that Munich would be paying another $23M again at least every 6 years. Whereas going the Linux route means that after the initial conversion costs, they're only going to have to pay some developers whatever it takes to keep their distro current with respect to hardware (the cost of which cannot possibly be close to $4M/yr.).

Please explain?

The microsoft bid was $23.7 million. Munich chose to go with the Limux option at a cost of (at the time) $35.7 Million. The costs have risen since then, and nobody is sure by exactly how much, but given that the original estimate was more than 1.5x to begin with, it's certain the running tab is well over that 2x mark by now, especially considering the project was supposed to be DONE by 2008. Who do you think is paying all those salaries for the last 2 years of unerestimated work time? Much less the next several years.

License upgrades? it's 14,000 computers. Even if you calculated the cost based on retail prices, that's 14,000 x $199, that's 2.7 million dollars, or less than 1/4th the difference in projected price, and a lot more than actual price difference of the conversion to Linux.

You could pay for new license for 5 or 6 new versions of Windows with the difference. You put way too much concern on the least expensive part of owning a computer. The license fees.

So yes, in 20 years, they might pay back the extra money they're spending. But by then, they will likely have gone through several Linux upgrad cycles as well. And that assumes they didn't skip a windows upgrade cycle (considering that all their computers had been running Windows NT4 then that should tell you something about how often they upgrade).

How about we go and cover up all those naked people in paintings and chisel the genitals from sculptures, while we're at it?

You jest, but remember, just a few years ago here in the U.S., U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft actually spent FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO COVER UP the statute of "Spirit of Justice", because the statute depicted NEKKID BREASTSESESSS.

On prediction failure, Hansen's 1988 "A,B,C" forecasts of rising temperature are rapidly diverging from the cooling we are actually experiencing right now, where case C assumed we massively limited CO2 also

In the past ten years, we've seen warming of 0.18 degrees Celsius, which is less than the 0.25 degrees Celsius that was predicted, but it certainly hasn't been cooling. This is why the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are melting. Yes, stop the presses, the globe is warming!

I care that a nuclear reactor just a few miles from my home can't go two weeks without ending up in the news over some screwup. They don't know where the pipes are, or what they do; they don't keep up on maintenence, they choose not to fund their decomissioning fund; they can't cool the water they dump in the Connecticut River; they can't always remember where they put spent fuel rods ...

And they want to up the rates.

but if you have a job where you can actually afford real healthcare

As a Canadian whose daughter has cancer, I am extremely thankful that my "inferior national healthcare system" means that I haven't had to pay the $2400 per day that it would have cost me for the sixty-five days she has been in hospital thus far. She is not even halfway through the part of the chemotherapy administer in-hospital.

That's just the hospital room and associated nursing care thus far. Then there's the diagnostic scans: CT scans, bone scans, MIBG scans, ultrasounds, almost daily blood tests, urine tests; and the cost of the pain killers; and the cost of the actual chemotherapy itself; and the cost of the six different anti-nausea medications; and the cost of diagnosing and treating the various infections that happen because of the immunosuppression that the chemo causes. And the cost of surgery, which is likely to be required. And the possible cost of radiation, which hopefully won't be necessary. I can't be bothered to google actual numbers for all of those, but, as an example of one of the costs that I do know, the per dose cost of G-CSF is almost $200; times ten to fourteen days per course, times six courses. That's just one of literally dozens of drugs.

I notice on rereading, that I left out the physiotherapy.

So I rejoice that my "inferior national healthcare system" means that I don't have to worry about making the choice between treating my daughter and feeding the rest of my family.

And given the importance of the patient's mental state in the treatment of cancer, I am glad that my "inferior national healthcare" includes mental health support for both patient and parents in the form of therapists and social workers and, if necessary, psychologists. (The clowns aren't covered by my "inferior national healthcare system".)

Google is EVIL. Period.

Google is no cooperating with the NSA. They are a fully-funded CIA company operation, with stock-price manipulation managed in a hideous outgrowth of the "plunge protection" team.

Look. George Herbert Walker Bush and his invisible masters are teh real, secret government in the USA. The former head of the secret police has been the Defense Secretary for the past 2 administrations.

The company captured the US. This became apparent as they engineered the killings of JFK, RFK and MLK - then ensured the downfall of Nixon - to be replaced by Ford, one of the lead stooges on the Warren Commission.

Google is the new name for Big Brother. This is the principal tool for social control and monitoring of the shadow-corporatist government, enforced through the "TLA's"

Use this shit, and it's like kissing your own prison floor.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/googles-reported-tie-up-with-nsa-raises-concern-/1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057.html?wpisrc=nl_tech

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/9612

http://groups.google.com/group/global-text-project-general-group/browse_thread/thread/d7256b9b18f0b0a7

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6130M120100204

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CIA_creates_miniGoogle_0331.html

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html

http://911review.org/Alex/reference/google_and_CIA.html

Quite right.

The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology, so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.

The Nazis were just more vigorously implementing a eugenics concept that originated in the U.S., where compulary sterilization was carried out on over 60,000 people. (The SCOTUS okayed this in Buck v. Bell, which has not been overturned.)

If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect, it is the same result. Just less gas and mass of bodies, but the results are the same.

You can't kill a "baby" before it's born., because it's not a "baby" yet. It's a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, or zygote. The distinction is very important: selecting which of several embryos to implant in order to avoid creating a person with a genetic disorder, is not the same as killing a three month old infant.

If the "lives" program were implemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.

Sorry, you lost me here. Are you suggesting that Rahm Emanuel has been advocating some sort of forced eugenics program? Link, please?

Did they have downs? Nope, just similar gene issues, but mentally they are higher than their peers.

What the heck is "similar" to trisomy 21? Down's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration, it's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.

But I guess he wouldn't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.

Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior. (Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.)