Slashdot Mirror
Firefox May Soon Overtake IE In Europe
peterkern writes "The July browser market share reports are somewhat inconsistent, but if we believe StatCounter, then it looks like Firefox will be overtaking Microsoft IE's market share next month. The two browsers are both within 1 point of 40% market share, IE above and Firefox below. Europeans are more crazy about Firefox than Americans: In Germany, Firefox has a 61% market share, while IE has only 25%. Google Chrome is, according to StatCounter, now above 10%. ConceivablyTech has more details, including market share data from both StatCounter and Net Applications (which as of this month is limiting its free data)."
as long as other browsers have a big enough market share that MS has to continue play nice and follow standards it's not even that important.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Of course this is all irrelevant to firefox making history by overtaking IE in Europe. An analogy, many parts of the world have universal healthcare but it would still be history for the USA if it was introduced there.
It's getting harder and harder for Steve Ballmer to point to his resume and be able to justify his work over the past decade. While Microsoft has pushed out upgrades to all its software, the big picture is gloomy enough to make him sweat at upcoming board meetings: total loss to the ipod in the music market, total catastrophe in Microsoft's internally-competing music formats and platforms (Plays for Sure?), impending catastrophe in smart phones as RIM, Apple, and now Android eat his lunch, and growing irrelevance of desktop office software. Yes, they skirted disaster with Vista and pushed out Windows 7 which is generally well liked. But Microsoft is slipping behind in key growth markets and lack of vision and leadership is a big part of that.
If I were on the Board, I'd be telling Ballmer to go work on his golf game, and bring in new leadership. Microsoft has lots of talented developers and engineers. But upper management is sinking the ship.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
And Firefox has succeeded in doing what it was really meant to do - getting rid of the hell that was IE6. As long as microsoft keep trying to imporve their implementation of standards, then I don't care if people use IE or not. Personally, I use Firefox because of NoScript, AdBlock and DownThemAll, and the fact it has a master password for it's password database (unlike Chrome).
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
your stats are all over the place literally, your opera 50% share crawls along the bottom of the graph where your showing IE as gaining. Thou did you notice the blue line was higher at the start of the graph than where it is now. The graph doesn't actually say where the stats cover I assume it is worldwide or maybe just microsofts website.
we just don't know do we.
ok so browser share is pretty much static and perhaps there is some more interest in chrome.
pretty much expected don't you think
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'm hoping the big change comes as corporations replace IE6. Moving to IE8 puts them in almost the same position they're in now 5 years down the road with respect to standards compliance, tie-in to the OS, etc, but it seems that's what most are doing. Perhaps some of them will have learned something.
This is strange. A news article in Germany http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,709769,00.html (german) which refers to Net Applications statistics states that it is actually the other way around. Though this seems to be the world wide statistic.
In Germany, Firefox has a 61% market share, while IE has only 25%.
And a huge part of that is companies that are suffering from Microsoft lock-in. Seriously, when I see people's private computers, be it friends or people at the airport, etc. - it is probably 80% or more Firefox. In most of the companies, however, IE is still the corporate standard, and quite often the only allowed browser.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I looked up browser shares yesterday, the w3schools collection of stats tells yet another story - it even shows chrome as picking up a lot recently. Personally, I'd go with "IE still on it's slippy slope, Firefox taking over, Chrome might be next".
To much anime is bad for the brain...desu.
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Is this home users? Business users? How's the data collected?
My experience of home users that the majority certainly aren't downloading alternative browsers. My experience of business users is that you get some IT types hating IE but others wanting the enterprise integration IE offers, the balance being those apathetic who leave IE on. So, assuming the stats are representative, what is triggering this switch?
I use opera instead. I find IE just as much security issue prone as IE.
To offer a counter argument, from my personal experience I've found Opera to be as much of a security issue as Opera.
It is important that a bad browser has a big share : a whole ecosystem of ad-financed websites rely on people being unable to use adblock-like filters. The FOSS fan in me yays at firefox gaining more adherents but the cynical in me thinks that he may see more sites becoming less profitable.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
IE increasing at the cost of Firefox? Really? My sources show that the slow march down for IE is still continuing.
....they immediately charge back if the service is not up to par, etc. etc. It's a hell dealing with Europeans.
bloody scrooges!!! what the hell they think they're doing with their money?!?!?!?!
***Game Over***Insert Coin***
I didn't want to install software on my win7 running netbook but IE annoyed me so much, it became usable and smooth only after installing Firefox.
Today the first thing you do, you simply install Firefox, don't use IE, it is a pain.
Could this be highly related to the fact that in Europe, as part of an anti-trust settlement, when you first log into a new Windows machine you are presented with a choice of internet browsers and no longer default to MSIE?
C17H21NO4
Have you noticed that Europe has a much bigger uptake of Linux, Firefox and in the older days Amiga?
I've often wondered if this is Europe being "open minded"....
I would love to be able to say the same about Australia...
AC
Really, selling online I've noticed that Europeans are terrible consumers. They don't listen well to our support staff, they immediately charge back if the service is not up to par, etc. etc. It's a hell dealing with Europeans.
If you're looking to make money, honestly, invest in US consumers first. Much easier to part them from their money and to convince them not to cancel/buy more.
So what you're saying is that we're less gullible and more demanding? Why thank you, that's really nice of you.
I'll let you get back to assraping ignorant 'merkins now ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Unfortunately there are still sufficient users stuck on IE6 that we have to continue to develop for it (unless we're willing to turn away a sometimes significant number of users). These users are the ones who likely don't even have the option of using Firefox, probably because they're on a locked down corporate network. That means we have to rely either on MS back porting IE8 to older operating systems (never going to happen), admins allowing non-IE browser installations (I'm guessing there's a valid reason they're not doing this already) or just waiting around for those users to be migrated to more recent Windows installations. Either way we're still stuck with the horror of IE6 for some time yet, I fear.
I was really hoping for an analogy using the metric system.
This is true, but the point is, the trend has started. Not much we can do to speed it up, but at some point, reasonably soon, IE6 will become a distant memory.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Yes but the point is, there are now sufficient users running browsers other than IE that you have to develop for them...
A few years ago, sites were developed for IE6 and nothing else, causing problems for people on non windows systems.
The fact that developers are still burdened with having to make sites compatible with IE doesn't really effect end users so much, it's much easier to develop a site that works with modern standards compliant browsers than it is to kludge a site to work with IE6.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Could the browser marketshare be related to spam levels? US is a much bigger spammer, meaning more zombie computers. Easier hacked due to running IE?
If Oracle keeps acting like retards. I work for an engineering college at a university. If you know anything about engineering they it'll come as no surprise we are a Solaris and Windows shop. Solaris has a heavy legacy, it was doing high end work before other things could, and even today there are products that are Solaris only (though they could be ported to other OSes, they just aren't). While I won't say Solaris is problem free, I see the value in it. There is a difference between a real enterprise UNIX and Linux, loathe though Linux heads might be to admit it.
However we are currently in the process of getting rid of as much of it as we can. We are cutting it down to 4 essential servers and that number will likely go down further, perhaps to just one. Why? Because Oracle has decided to be complete fucks when it comes to licensing. So you already pay heavy maintenance on these SPARC systems. We could buy a new x86 server per year for the cost of maintenance on most of these things. Now that's not enough, they want to charge for Solaris patches, and they want to charge a lot. Oh, and should you ever stop paying they not only do you no longer get patches you are required, and I'm not making this up, to UNINSTALL all patches you've installed.
That's right, they are extorting you: You have to pay a yearly per server fee, or have a vulnerable system.
Well fuck that. We are getting rid of that shit post haste. Going to be Windows and Linux for as much as we can do. In the end I expect we'll need a single SPARC system to run the few apps that run on nothing else but that's it.
Guess what? If Oracle continues strategies like that with regards to other products, you'll find that MS will just gain more marketshare.
It amaze me how many users are still using IE 6. I mean, why such a pain?
I can only explain it as either masochists or spambots identifying as IE 6. Only machines can sustain these unhuman conditions.
How about taking into account the holiday season ? I'd be interested to compare this with the trends for June, July, August and September the previous years, as I expect that browser-usage depends on sunny weather conditions, holiday-trips and people in the office browsing more with less work on their hands ? Maybe ?
On a global level this may mean not that much, but a 1% to 2% fluctuation could be addressed by this. So maybe we should wait until September or October before making any conclusions...
Seems clear that the people of Europe are generally unsatisfied and I am willing to bet that other changes, not related to Microsoft or MSIE are occurring at the same time and I would venture to guess that it is anti-American at its hearts. Not that I blame the people of Europe in the least. In a way, it might help the people of the U.S. become better people.
Well, old in the computer world at any rate. IE 8 came out in March of last year. It more or less has not been updated since then. It's been patched, of course, and gotten some compatibility view updates and such but the browser, the rendering engine, all that is nearly a year and a half old.
Lot has changed since then, there are new features people want that IE does not offer. Stagnation can cause people to switch. I switched from Netscape to IE back in the day for that reason. Netscape hit 4.7 and just stopped. IE continued rapid development. Same reason I switched to Firefox.
So we'll see, this may change back when IE9 comes out. Depends on when that makes it out, how good it is, what FF is doing then and so on.
It also may depend on if they introduce an easier plugin architecture. One of the things people love about FF is the plugins you can get. IE is just as extensible, possibly more so, but much harder to do. As such, less people actually make the plugins and they are harder for users to manage.
If IE9 is a good browser with a good plugin interface, it may win converts back. It is going to support hardware acceleration, which is pretty slick. FF is too, of course, but who knows when it'll be final, or how good a job it'll do.
Don't worry, eventually the metric system will take over the USA, inch by inch.
Oracle is seriously screiny us around as well.
I hate to say this but DB2 looks more attractive from a pricing point of view every day.
That coupled with the insance price increases in WebLogic and Solaris, makes us seriously consider not buying anything more from Oracle/BEA/Sun.
We are already moving many critical systems to Linux on X86-64 Blades (Currently HP but maybe IBM in the future).
Oracle don't give a toss. All they want is more and more every month.
Oh grasshopper, allow your old and wise pal Hairyfeet to explain the ways that led to the garden of evil.
You see young one, once upon a time there was this thing called ActiveX. And in this naive and innocent time, when the web was young and the word bukkake was unknown in the west, the developers at Redmond pushed ActiveX as "everything you ever wanted...in a box!" it could build Rich Internet Apps, and turn even the hardest job into a simple form even sally in the typing pool could do. And even trained monkeys could write for ActiveX! And you know what? It was true! Oh how young and foolish everyone was! Every PHB on the block joined right in, and all thought it was well.
Unfortunately there was a REASON why ActiveX was so damned easy, and that was because it blew a hole right through the OS the size of a Peterbuilt. It turned out that trained monkeys also existed in China and Russia, and thanks to security not being taught the day the ActiveX guys were at school it quickly turned craptastic. MSFT, after getting laughed at and having rotten fruit thrown at them wisely treated ActiveX like the red headed stepchild and tried to quietly bash its brains out and bury it in the backyard. Sadly waaaay too many PHBs had bought into ActiveX Intranet apps, and found out that IE 6= works, and IE anything else =toast. But PHBs, being a rather stupid lot, decided that rather than spend the money to rewrite their Intranet would simply keep IE 6 4EVAR BWA HA HA HA HA!
So there you have it my son, the reason why a crappy browser nobody really liked is still used day, after day, after day, after day. It is because PHBs are stupid, more crappy Intranet ActiveX sites exist than you'd care to know (I even know of a few that still use IE 6 ActiveX based sites for processing CC info of their customers EEEK!) and until XP is quietly pushed out on that iceflow to die IE 6 will continue to slowly lumber on.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Also as it happens, IE is no more losing market share, but increasing it at the cost of Firefox [mashable.com]
A <1% gain two months in a row doesn't rise above the level of statistical noise.
My blog
So when does Firefox become the big corporate enemy that everyone hates?
This is sadly true. I have a number of critical paperwork handling work applications which do not work properly on IE 8 or Firefox or any sane modern browser. And I have others that will no longer run on IE 6, so I need 2 desktop environments, and 2 licenses for them, just to push the paperwork.
Yet I still get angry glares from some of our own corporate staff at software presentations when I ask "does it run on Firefox" or "does it run on Linux"? It's especially sad when I ask "which version of Java does it require", because the "write once run everywhere" sometimes breaks down.
Quite a story. So, wise hairyfeet, I wait for another day in which you tell me the thing behind COBOL.
Fortunately, according to http://gs.statcounter.com/ Firefox is the most widely browser for some time now in countries like for example Finland http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-FI-monthly-200907-201008 and Estonia http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-EE-monthly-200907-201008 .
I don't think it's really making history, considering Opera has always had up to 50% market share in CIS countries.
ITYM "over 50% market share"[0]. According to your source, Opera has only over 50% in Belarus. If this was always so isn't mentioned in your article.
[0] otherwise: Opera had up to 50% market share since it's release. Just like FF. Worldwide.
>>>many parts of the world have universal healthcare
Monopoly healthcare. No choice healthcare.
Oh and yeah you're right. The article is about making history in EUROPE, because it would be the first time since Netscape that IE was not #1. The fact Opera is #1 in the former Soviet Republics is irrelevant to European browser share.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I seriously hope you mean square inch by square inch ...
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Goes to show you really can't take any of these findings seriously.
No. TFA is about market share in Europe - yours is about worldwide market share.
And debt. $130,000 per US home. Is there any country higher than that?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>DownThemAll
Why would I want to use this instead of Firefox's built-in download manager?
>>>it features an advanced accelerator that increases speed up to 400%
I don't see how this is possible. My ISP is 90 KB/s and I don't see how that could be accelerated upto 360 KB/s
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes but the point is, there are now sufficient users running browsers other than IE that you have to develop for them...
The funny thing is that when Firefox had a similar market share to what IE6 has now, lots of sites said "screw it, this site only works in Internet Explorer". Adding support for Firefox was easy; just write a reasonably standards-compliant site and it looked ok in Firefox. Now developers have a much harder job trying to make sites work in IE6, yet you rarely see sites just rejecting it.
I still find the occasional site telling me I have an unsupported browser (Yahoo is one of them, which is pretty hilarious in 2010). HP blade enclosures "support" Firefox by asking you to install the IE tab extension.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Youtube and Google Apps have already dropped support for IE6. If they work in the browser, great, but if you try visiting either site using IE6 you'll get a "hey idiot, isn't it time you upgraded your browser?" message.
Many other major sites have stopped developping for IE6 out there... Dell's website doesn't render properly in IE6, Microsoft's own website and MSDN portal don't work properly in IE6. It's really just corporate tools that've been developped for the piece of shit browser that's holding things back these days, and the natural upgrade cycle will, eventually, get rid of that problem. I'm fairly sure that once corporations start upgrading beyond IE6, the number of users still stuck with it at home will become insignificant.
The thing is, the majority of the web isn't *developped* for any specific browser. Slashdot will render mostly correctly in IE6, for example, because aside from some of the AJAX involved, it's mostly just plain text/html. E-bay is just frames and tables. Hotmail the same. Most of the web doesn't require special functionality of any browser these days, and it's been that way ever since Microsoft changed the default behaviour in their browser to disable activex in the first place, and to sandbox it when the user enables it.
2 months in a row does become a trend though. Yes, it's less than half a percent rise, but if the stats show a half a percent rise every month in a row for 6 months, that does become more than statistical noise....
As others have pointed out though, the numbers the GP posted are suspect at best....
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Europe is a bigger market than the US.
Monopoly healthcare. No choice healthcare.
I'm genuinely curious as to where this happens.
Are those metric dollars or imperial dollars?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Is that just personal or sum of state and personal debt. If its the latter then we can
What I don't get is why it is so complicated to just have two browsers installed: IE6 for legacy corporate apps, and a modern browser for the internet (there may be trouble having IE6 and IE8 at the same time, but there should not be any troubles having IE6 and Firefox, or IE8 and Opera). Maybe you can have a proxy which ensures the right browser is used for internet access (i.e. that blocks all IE6 traffic leaving the corporate network). That solution would be simple (no need to update internal ActiveX stuff) and even more secure than using another browser for everything (because any internet site which compromises the browser, but doesn't otherwise compromise the user's account, cannot access any internal stuff because of the lack of ActiveX; moreover non-IE6 access can simply be blocked for internal stuff for additional security). If you use Firefox, you can even make it almost seamless by using IE tab extension.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Monopoly healthcare. No choice healthcare.
Only if you believe the drivel forced down your neck by the US media.
Government healthcare is NOT monopoly healthcare or "no choice healthcare". Here in the UK I have the option of being treated on the NHS (government) or I can go private, it is entirely up to me.
Here are some useful links to anyone interested in private healthcare in the UK:
http://www.spirehealthcare.com/
http://www.bupa.co.uk/
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/
Unfortunately I still have to pay for the government healthcare out of my taxes but that is not what you were complaining about at all was it?
I dont read
I believe the slashdot crowd has already debunked these people effecting the numbers numerous times. People who don't have a browser can't get a browser to get on the internet. Furthermore, this must have caused all of the nuclear plants in Europe to blow up leading the continent to a fate not unlike Atlantis.
And even in the unlikely event a there were number of refuges... the sample group would be too small for anything meaningful plus correlation does not necessary equal causation. Many would be likely using other people's computers that have had less radiation seep into them.
In conclusion, I think I can modestly speak for all of slashdot when I say 'hogwash'.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Germany has basically universal public health insurance and people can chose between dozens if not hundreds of regulated insurance companies as well as many, many private insurance companies. There is absolutely no monopoly and a bewildering amount of choice.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Monopoly? Here in Argentina public healthcare is open even to illegal immigrants, and it coexists with private hospitals.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Well to put a more realistic view on this whole subject:
51% Microsoft Explorer
31% Mozilla Firefox
10% Google Chrome
4% Apple Safari
3% Opera
StatCounter
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
But here in Germany we have more than enough problems with our costly health system. Politicians are trying to reform it for at least a decade, because a breakdown has been imminent for decades. So I don't think, it is an example of a good health care system.
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
If the cost benefit ratio is less for a market-based solution compared to an alternative solution, then maybe it's time to go with the alternative.
By all metrics, the US healthcare system is delivering comparable medical outcomes to other industrialized nations at about 2 times the cost.
It is beyond debate that a completely laissez faire approach to markets ultimately leads to distortions that prevent efficient resource distribution in most (if not all) sectors of the economy. The is just no reason to object based on the facts, yet people still object. Funny this ideology thing.....
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
That happened a while ago in Slovenia.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iprom.si%2Fnews%2F2086%2F25%2FBrskalnika-Internet-Explorer-in-Firefox-po-priljubljenosti-izenacena.html&sl=sl&tl=en
Sounds like Germany's healthcare system is in as sad as shape as America's healthcare/retirement system (medicare and SS respectively).
The reason I labeled it a "monopoly" is because even though you have "choice" between doctors, you are still dealing with the same central monopoly. It's akin to if you bought a Macintosh or Amiga or Linux computer, but still had to pay money to Microsoft.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>public healthcare...coexists with private hospitals.
Same here with our public and private schools. But the monopoly still controls the money. It's akin to if you bought a Macintosh, and yet still had to send $1000 a year to Microsoft. You have "choice" of which device you use, but not where your money goes. It's a monopoly.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Indeed, Korea really loves their activex. It's so bad that you really can't use the Korean Internet without activex. One example: try to even see the front page of one of Koreas major banks without ie: www.kdb.co.kr
$130,000 is the public debt of the government.
The average personal debt is about $80,000 per US home. Total would then then be $210,000 public plus personal debt. That exceeds the UK and probably every other civilized country.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think that the announcement of Firefox taking over from IE is becoming like the yearly calls of 'the year of Linux on the desktop.' A tradition, like Christmas. It comes around, people oooh and aaah and then get on with life til it comes round again.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I'm not so sure. Back in the 60s (IIRC) the Feds made it law that everyone had to switch. After much complaining, the car makers switched and began building cars largely in metric. (it was not a coincidence that more parts were coming from metric countries.) Just about the time when the manufacturing sector was finally getting tuned to working in metric, the government switched back. Sigh. But in fact the inch has been defined as 1/3937 meter for about 100 years, so we can argue that we are already metric - just in funny numerics.
If it happens it will happen because (as you allude) everything will have become de facto metric, and there won't be any reason not to. That will be after my lifetime.
On a side note, for computer geeks some of the Imperial system actually makes pretty good sense - the liquid measures (cup,pint,quart, gallon, etc.) are a base-two system (with a few gaps where little-used unit names exist, like two quarts). IMHO that actually makes more sense in the abstract than a decimal system. There's nothing magical about base-10 units other than for counting on one's fingers. Base-12 makes more sense, since it is divisible more ways, and (obviously, for us geeks) base-two and base-16 are ideal for computing.
Another one - we use thousands (three digits) for grouping, but the Chinese use ten-thousands (four digits) for the same purpose.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
>>>Do what is good for them? What a stupid, shit headed, arrogant faggoty cocksucker you are.
Ooops. My fault. I forgot my sarcastic tag. I was not being serious. Hence the reference to the Democrat Congresses' $950 fine to punish the People for not buying health insurance. Congress must force the People to do what is good for them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If its anything like other download managers, it downloads over multiple connections to get around transfer limits on the remote server.
But you are right, in most cases it won't make any difference at all - so all you are doing is tying up connections without achieving anything.
In those cases where it DOES work, you are potentially DoSing other users - transfer limits are usually there because of limited resources.
Well it happens in the US, not just in healthcare but also schools. If I choose to attend a private hospital/school instead of the public variant, I must pay EXTRA money on top of the money I paid to the Uncle Sam monopoly. It's akin to if I decided to buy a Mac or Amiga computer, and yet still had to pay $1000/year to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Choice is not choice, if someone else controls the money.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's partly because the US sucks at regulating anti-competitive practices.
$ make available
You can get some amazingly high end MSSQL servers these days. I've never had occasion but I do have a couple friend who work at places that do. You can get an HP Superdome 2 with 2TB of RAM and MSSQL will use it, given a large enough database. When you get the Datacenter versions of Windows and SQL Server you find that it has all the heavy hitting features you expect from a high end database. It scales to obscene levels and can handle massive reliability requirements.
I'm told that Oracle can go further still... But then how many people need that? For most people, even though with very high end needs, MSSQL is a real contender. Nobody is going to call it cheap, but then it is cheaper than Oracle and MS doesn't fuck you on pricing or support. You pay a hefty fee for Windows and MSSQL, but that's all you have to pay and you are guaranteed updates for a certain period of time, which they may choose to extend (Windows is generally supported for 10 years minimum from release, SQL server for 9 years).
Of course as you noted there's also DB2, and for lower end applications free stuff like MySQL and Postgres.
Are you sure that's a real page? Firefox blocked it as an "attack" (which I'm choosing to read as phishing).
$ make available
>>>The funny thing is that when [Netscape] had a similar market share to what IE6 has now, lots of sites said "screw it, this site only works in Internet Explorer".
Fixed that for you. "It never hurts to kiss-up to the boss." Microsoft was viewed as the safe choice to support for 90s-era sysops desiring to keep their jobs, where Netscape was viewed as a small company and not worth sticking your neck out for.
BTW I hear a lot of hate directed at IE6.
Is IE7 any better?
What about IE5? Anybody still using it?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Good point. I actually have 3 browsers: Safari, Firefox and Chrome. I use Safari by default, because I like its look, feel and performance. I use Firefox all secured-up with restrictive settings and script protection, for when I'm note sure where I'm going. I also use Chrome. I had Opera at one point, but haven't used lately. I use a Macbook for work, but there are times when Safari won't work with a particular site. Usually Firefox or Chrome will. For home I use a Debian Gnu/Linux distro, but also have browser diversity for same reason: Firefox, Chromium, and Opera. As long as USG and other institutions still insist on using IE-optimized pages, browser diversity will probably be a must.
DownThemAll utilizes Firefox's built-in download functionality, but it does a lot more with it, like say downloading multiple parts of a file at once to bypass download rate limit restrictions. Which of course generally makes one an asshole, but it's not hard to prevent that sort of thing and DTA will do the right thing if a server manager has done so. It also has a number of very nice functions for downloading multiple links from a page at once. You can do stuff in the browser you would normally have done with for, seq, and wget.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you are against taxation, not just national healthcare? That's what tax is - it's money to the Government, even if you don't personally benefit.
It's akin to if I decided to buy a Mac or Amiga computer, and yet still had to pay $1000/year to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Well no, Microsoft aren't the Government.
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
Indeed - and it's also funny that these people seem to have no problem with the vast amounts of money the US Government spends on a socialised military.
Way to look on the bright side, Firefox.
Have you ever set up a transparent proxy? No need to configure each machine individually. Just all port 80 traffic is routed through to your proxy.
Such work is simplicity itself as well: set up your DHCP to return a set of variable/value pairs and you can set your network however you want.
NOTHING to configure for each installation. Just set your server with the right rules.
AD server is a hammer looking for a nail. And you're getting screwed.
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
"Intelligence", "Insight", "Common Sense" and "Has memorised so many facts that they can pass for intelligent, even though they can't really apply those facts to anything outside their sphere of experience" are all different things.
I think it's already doing that, at least in engineering circles; I can think in either pounds or kilograms equally fluently, and for more abstract measurements like power, I only think in SI. As for how long it will be until other start to intuitively think in SI, there are still people in England who think of their mass in Stones.
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
Why is that a bewildering number of people paint the world as black-and-white? ...
Choice == Freedom. Monopoly == Slavery.
You've got a mighty big brush there yourself.
First: You exaggerate. US healthcare is more costly, but only by 1.1x not 2x. Foreign healthcare like Canada is also costly, but most of the cost is hidden behind bureaucracy and taxes.
Total horseshit.
You are looking for "Table 1. Health Care Spending in OECD Countries, 2004"
In 2004, health care spending in the United States averaged $6,102 per person,
according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). The OECD consists of 30 democracies (listed in Table 1), most of which
are considered to be the most economically advanced countries in the world.1
As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, U.S. per capita health care spending was
well over double the average of OECD countries, which was $2,560 in 2004. Health
care made up 15.3% of the U.S. economy in 2004, as measured by Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) -- up from 5.1% of GDP in 1960. No other OECD country devotes
as much of its economy to health care, also shown in Table 1.
The table before that ("Table 1. Health Care Spending in OECD Countries, 2004") shows the breakdown between private and public funding for health care in industrialized countries. In case you didn't feel like doing the math, it works out to about $2,684 spent by the US government last year for your health care, which is more than the Canadian government spent on universal health care per capita ($2,183).
Please stop peddling this bullshit like you aren't going to get called out on it.
E pluribus unum
"Monopoly healthcare. No choice healthcare."
Even if you were right ( you are not ), think this over :
My doctor asks for a complete blood test, billed $500 to me. My health insurance then takes over and responds to Labcorp: "we agreed that we'll pay you $50 for this test ". Labcorp agrees and finally accepts $50 for the same service. I guess they still make profit so this means that they mark their prices up by >1000% to someone who walks in w/o insurance.
Could you try to charge services / sell products with 1000% profit on a market where there is real competition? I don't think so.
Is there a complicity between health care providers and the insurance sector ? Probably yes, I'd even call it a sort of mafia - if you don't pay the "protection money" for the insurance company, their friends the service providers will overcharge you 10x for everything.
Unless this changes, you don't have much bragging rights about health care in the US.
OK you've got us beat. Ours is only £ 113,742 which is 181 202.38 US dollars
I actually cannot see how the author made his point based on available browser usage data. TFA uses two sources:
1. Net Applications: "So please take the NetApplications data with a grain of salt, especially as far as the market share of Internet Explorer is concerned."
2. StatCounter: " IE is listed with 40.89%, Firefox with 39.47% (the trend indicates that Firefox may jump past IE next month)..."
As much as I'd like, I cannot find the evidence on StatCounter for FF overtaking IE in Europe this month. Although the usage of FF jumps on weekends and FF may overtake IE for one day soon, it is not closer to that goal than several weeks ago: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-daily-20100701-20100803 . And the longer-term trend without weekends is even less exciting: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-weekly-200827-201031
Now, I didn't mean to disturb, please feel free to resume discussing this historical moment and its profound ramifications :o)
Adding support for Firefox was easy; just write a reasonably standards-compliant site and it looked ok in Firefox.
You overestimate the average qualification of Web developers at the time Firefox first appeared as a viable competitor. The other issue at hand was that a lot of people had existing large IE-only sites, so it wasn't a question of writing, but rather of rewriting. Which is much harder to justify.
The funny thing is that when Firefox had a similar market share to what IE6 has now, lots of sites said "screw it, this site only works in Internet Explorer". Now developers have a much harder job trying to make sites work in IE6, yet you rarely see sites just rejecting it.
Thing is, when Firefox became popular enough that it attracted attention of developers, most Firefox users also had IE around (being on Windows). So shoving "IE only" into their faces would drive some away, but most of us would just sigh and grudgingly load IE - assuming the site in question provided a service that's useful or indispensable enough (typical example being online banking).
What's worse is that most Firefox users know what is IE, and, indeed, the general concept of multiple browsers which can all be used to surf the same Web. In contrast, for many IE users, IE is the browser, and is the Internet. If you say "this site works in Firefox only", or even "this site works in IE8 only", and provide a download link, they would be profoundly confused.
Have some patience. IE6 is going to die soon enough now that even MS is trying hard to kill it. Meanwhile, non-IE browsers taken together have gotten a slice of the pie large enough that they cannot be ignored anymore, and IE9 promises to deliver a lot that is long overdue, and give the final push that is needed for HTML5 to take off rapidly - and that will be the final nail in the coffin of older IE versions.
Well, for one, I was only saying that I use it, not that anyone else should, but I'll bite. It has some nice features such as automatically downloading every link of a certain format off a page (say I wish to download 40 images from a gallery, normally I'd have to right click each and hit save as, while DTA can do it all in one click, and even rename files automatically to a set pattern as you get them), along with some other stuff like checking checksums after the download is finished. And yes, the 400% thing is talking about multi-part downloading. It will only speed up your downloads on the odd rare occasion.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Because my dog just had surgery (which included a hysterectomy, an RFID cyber-implant, and 4 baby teeth pulled) for a total cost of $200. That is what health care costs (with a reasonable markup to cover overhead and profit). With humans, I understand if people want to include some additional safeguards, so maybe multiply that cost by n (where I'm thinking of a number like two or three, not a hundred!), and that tells you the potential that a free market has to offer the problem of health care.
Likewise, I can look at the cost of a hotel room in a free market ($50-$200; I know this varies wildly depending on where it is) plus the cost of a well-trained expert (say $75/hour, except amortized across several customers, just like doctors and nurses work in real life) and that tells you what a hospital room can cost.
When you think about these numbers and compare them to what we currently pay, I wonder how people can not desperately want a free market.
You know what? I'll concede that; free markets aren't perfect. But can a market planned by government (i.e. lobbyists) have so little distortion?
Why are people upholding US health care as some kind of example of free markets? If the US had a free market for health care, we would all be bitching about how Wal-Mart surgeons are squeezing the mom'n'pops out of business. Doctors would be complaining that it's hard to repay their student loans on their $20/hour job, yet not quite impossible since, after all, the student loan is only for about $5000 * years_in_school.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I know this is a small issue, but can Slashdot please update their Firefox icon? The one they are currently using has not been in use since before version 1.0 and it has undergone at least two revisions since then See this creative brief for more. You can always root out this ridiculously old icon by the lack of outlining and gloss on the globe.
Plus, I think the new one looks better, anyway. :)
R.Mo
lol. I suppose you think public education is not a coercive monopoly too.
Maybe if you are a millionaire you can afford to pay twice for everything.
Pay once for healthcare in the public system.
Pay again for your own healthcare choice.
Pay once for education in the public system.
Pay again for your own educational choice.
You know what would be 'fair' to everyone. Have everyone pay taxes for healthcare and education. Just like today.
But if you choose not to use the public monopoly, you get a per capita voucher to spend wherever you want.
So somebody sooner or later will point out that we have tons to regulation in the US on healthcare, implying that this regulation is cauting the inefficiencies.
No amount of data would persuade these people because they are blinded by their ideology to the fact that before doctors and dentists were regulated, being died as a result of low standards, and a lot of times, outright fraud.
If the government runs the police, the fire service, the coast guard, the public parks, the national highways, the FDA, etc, etc.. and most people have no problem with this, then why is it that when healthcare is the subject, people start mumbling about socialism? We're not in a socialist nor capitalist economy, we've been in a mixed economy since the beginning of the modern era.
People tend to forget that in a democracy, the government is us. It is our responsibility to keep government accountable and honest, but it is also our responsibility to vote for government do its job and fulfil its duty for our benefit. They are us. Without a stable government that regulates and balances the interests of the nation, somebody will step in to fill the void, and these actors are usually less accountable than government.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Wow, that post was so full of spelling errors I hang my head in shame.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Firefox's usage share has been stagnant for about a year. Chrome's, on the other hand, has been steadily increasing. Add to this the steady (though not as fast as Chrome's) increase of Safari's usage share, and you get a pretty clear picture where IE's usage share is going. Firefox's is not increasing, though, even if it becomes the dominant browser. It will be a dominance of limited impact, as Chrome will overtake it in a year or two.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
"I was really hoping for an analogy using the metric system."
I, on the other hand, was hoping for a car analogy.
Well it happens in the US, not just in healthcare but also schools. If I choose to attend a private hospital/school instead of the public variant, I must pay EXTRA money on top of the money I paid to the Uncle Sam monopoly.
That's because you are paying for something the public services do not provide (otherwise why would you be paying for it).
The fact that a breakdown has been "imminent" for more than a decade is telling. But sure, it's not perfect, far from it. I never said it was. That doesn't make the association of publicly supported and regulated health insurance == monopoly == evil any less absurd.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
>>>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
This report has already been found to be filled with serious flaws. It has been roundly rejected by scientists, and just recently the OECD has admitted they flat out lied about the states ("errors" they called them). They also made invalid assumptions: Like only looking at government costs and not private costs (example: me paying $200 directly to my doctor) which would drive down the national average.
This is akin to those reports that keep proclaiming the "US is almost dead last in internet speeds!" when the reality is we are in second place behind the Russian Federation, and ahead of the European Union, Canada, Australia, China, et cetera. Such reports are lying with statistics. Don't cite reports where the conclusion was reached BEFORE the data was compiled.
I agree with you that US Healthcare is more expensive but as I said, it isn't that much more (1.1x) and it's preferable to having a monopoly. I'd rather have multiple choices than being forced to drive a GM Monopoly, just because it might be slightly cheaper.
.
>>>Please stop peddling this bullshit
Censorship? You wish me to be silent or else? No. You'll have to put a gun to my head if you wish to silence me, and even then I'll keep exercising my right to speak until you pull the trigger. I will not be intimidated by you, Congressmen putting me in neckholds*, men with guns standing outside my voting booth with guns**, or anybody else.
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60oNUoHBYM
** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
** "You got my back?" - clearly this guy was scared
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Why Obama's DOJ didn't prosecute these people is a mystery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It depends on who you are asking. If you ask the programmer if the site works on IE6, he will say it does. If you ask the designer, or CEO if it works on IE6, he will say no, because some element on the page is off by 1 pixel.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This comparison isn't like for like.
"By all metrics, the US healthcare system is delivering comparable medical outcomes to other industrialized nations at about 2 times the cost."
The UK system uses collective bargaining (the NHS areas collectively) to purchase lower cost drugs. That is illegal in the US.
The NHS bill then includes many drugs subsidised and sold at the price of a prescription... about £6, I believe. US patients' insurance often does not cover drugs, or all drugs, and those drugs are more expensive than the UK due to that big-pharma favouring ban on collective bargaining.
Factoring in US patients' drug bills the UK savings are greater than 2 times.
>>>these people seem to have no problem with the vast amounts of money the US Government spends on a socialised military.
Yes we do. I was just watching Congressman Paul say, "Having 500 bases around the world is ridiculous. We should close them all except the ones located on our own soil, for self-defense." I agree with him, as do most Tea Partiers, if you had bothered to REALLY listen instead of making unfounded assumptions.
Oh and another thing: We don't have a problem with legitimate constitutional functions, like having a Navy to defend the coastlines. But I can lay my hand on no portion of the US Constitution that authorizes a government-run health system. Per the 9th and 10th amendment Rights, such a power is reserved to the Member States, just like over in the EU.
If you want to create a US-run health system, then follow the proper procedure and amend the USC to give Congress that power.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>we have tons to regulation in the US on healthcare, implying that this regulation is cauting the inefficiencies.
I don't have a problem with regulation - so long as it's useful and doesn't create a Housing Boom (followed by a crash) as happened with the 1997 "you must loan to poor people" regulation. That was the root cause of the financial collapse from 2007 to 2009.
I have a problem with my neighbor smoking most of his life, developing cancer around age 60, buying a new pair of lungs, and then sucking money out of my wallet to pay the ~$100,000 bill. That makes essentially a slave - working for somebody else's enrichment, rather than my own. I'm sorry my neighbor got sick but he created the problem himself, and he should fix it himself with his own money.
I also have a problem when the US ignores our 9th and 10th amendment rights. If the power to create a government-run health system exists, it is reserved to the Member States, just like over in the EU. I have no objections that Massachusetts created such a system. That's perfectly legitimate.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You also failed to factor-in the UK citizens pay about 70% tax burden, while the US tax burden 40%. I recently spoke to a UK transplant, and she told me that's the principal reason she and her husband moved to the US - to keep more of the money they sweated to earn.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Comcast has a monopoly.
Don't you think they are evil? Why? Simply because they are bad? No. Because you (an american citizen) doesn't have any other choice. Lack of choice is what makes that situation evil.
Also if the US private/insurance-based health system is nor perfect, but neither is Germany's public system, why do we want to import an system that is still imperfect? That's simply trading a pile of crap for a pile of manure.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>I guess they still make profit so this means that they mark their prices up by >1000% to someone who walks in w/o insurance.
You're guessing wrong. A lot of doctors are quitting the profession specifically because they are *losing* money due to underpaying insurance and/or government insurance administrators. Those that manage to survive are doing so off the backs of their richer patients. The profit from the rich helps subsidize those $50 bloodwork tests that actually cost $100 to do.
.
>>>where there is real competition?
I don't know where you live but where I'm at there are ~10 different hospitals choose from. 30 if I expand my search to the next closest cities. There's as much competition in health as there is for grocery stores. I think the system works just fine. ----- In fact on my last visit I told the doctor that I didn't think it was necessary to come to his office a second time in two weeks, since all he did was look at me. He agreed that he didn't really do anything so I paid nothing. He knew that if he said "no" he'd probably lose a customer.
.
>>>Is there a complicity between health care providers and the insurance sector?
I agree. "yes". So stop buying insurance and just pay cash. Or switch to catastrophic insurance for emergencies (like cancer), and pay cash for everything else. You don't have to participate in the collusion. ----- Well... that is until Congress started fining us $950 for not having insurance. Now there's collusion between our Congress and the Insurance sector. Wonderful. I'll be glad when we get rid of Bush and his Corporate Sellouts called the Republicans.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I never said you should import anything; I certainly never said you should copy Germany's system and I don't really think anybody else is suggesting that, either. Though I'm not aware of a perfect system, so trying to implement that and only that might be futile. I don't have any real insights into the US health system drama, whenever I've looked all the arguments sounded as if they were coming from a different planet.
I'd be willing to trade a pile of manure for a smaller one.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Because the public service is a building to is slowly crumbling to the ground, or ridden with drugs, and yet I still am expected to pay for that POS.
Yes. That's so that when you aren't rich enough to pay out of pocket for your health care, you can actually get treatment instead of being left in the street to die.
If you don't use a service, you should not have to pay for it.
Ah. You're one of those guys who thinks the police shouldn't investigate a crime unless the victim pays up front. I imagine you'd have an awesome time in Somalia.
Which you do, thanks to the free market.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Good luck on getting any claims on that catastrophic insurance paid.
Yeah, that's a problem. But the government's collusion comes with strings attached that benefit the public. Less than liberals like me wanted, but better than an unregulated insurance industry.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you believe that was the root cause of the crash, then you are severely undereducated about the crash.
The root problem was excess capital from the previous bubbles (tech especially) that had nowhere to go... it went into real estate, and there we finally bled off the excess capital (painfully). This was compounded by the relaxing of regulation of the banking and financial insurance industries, coupled with a systemic issue of poor risk evaluation on derivatives.
Your "you must loan to poor people" regulation is a red herring.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Bewarre dodgy comparisons: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/17/we-need-to-be-careful-when-comparing-us-and-uk-cancer-care/
Lawyers are the ones who primarily benefit from lawsuit, not consumers.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well, according to the mod, all taxes go on things that personally benefit every individual tax payer, and Microsoft are the Government. My bad. Thanks for correcting my obvious errors.
I didn't say anything about socialism. All I did was..
BTW, I know it was a trivial tpying eror (I sometimes make some doozies) so I'm not giving you shit about it, but out of such things sometime come wonderful serendipitous inventions. I just wanted to tell you that I loved "being died." Like "misunderestimate," that one is worth keeping and nurturing.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My tax burden is not that high, and the UK's GDP per-capita spending on healthcare is half of what it is in the US, so my taxes are spent more efficiently (you pay twice the rate for your healthcare in money spent by government, and *then* you pay your insurance premiums).
While our taxes are comparitively higher in some areas (gasoline, diesel for one), we do not have to spend income on private healthcare (unless we really want to - there are plenty of healthcare providers here if you don't want to use the NHS, ie, choice is very high).
The real benefit to the NHS is that if you are poor, your tax burden does actually fall, unlike the US where the cost of healthcare remains pretty much fixed (give or take some of the government assistance). Even with government assistance in the US, if you are poor and you get sick or require frequent prescriptions, you are paying a large portion of your income relative to a rich person.
So, the UK transplant may like the fact that it seems she is paying less, but I will wager that it comes out even when she factors in the required healthcare costs, especially if either her or her husband require any regular medication.
The UK is no magical paradise, but it is one of the many countries in the world that has adopted universal healthcare and it works. The US is the outlier, as the only developed nation without it, and even with the insurance premiums paid by its citizens, it still spends twice the GDP per capita than any other nation on healthcare.
You're getting screwed.
Yes, like the road system, and the fire service, and the military.
You can choose never to drive on the roads if you walk everywhere, but your taxes still pay for them since the society you live in requires certain things (like the ability for trucks to deliver things to the town you live in).
You may not directly consume the services you pay for with your "monopoly" taxes, but you surely are not foolish enough to think that no government is a better option, or a government that cannot levy taxes. Part of being in a society is that you can do a lot that helps everyone for a little input from the individual.
You can try to be isolationist if you like and live off the grid because you don't want a "monopoly" taking your money, but then don't complain to me when you can't get mail delivered to you, can't get food delivered to where you live, or electricity, or water, or education for your children. If your house catches fire, don't complain when the fire department doesn't show up to put it out, on the road that the state built, using water piped there via state-owned water pipes. Don't complain when then police don't attempt to recover your stolen car and instead tell the local private security firm you hired to look after your local community to do it.
A nation of 260 million individuals who solely looked out for number 1 would very quickly descend into chaos.
Also, your attempt to draw literal parallels between a monopoly position of a company and that of a tax is just amusing. The concepts are different, and you are being deliberately disingenuous. If you are genuinely serious, then I just feel sorry for you.
Two words - Citation Needed..
Outside of right-wing circles, I have never heard of any discussion of the serious flaws in the OECD methodology. It is widely accepted that the US spend roughly 16% of GDP on healthcare and almost all other industrialized countries spend significantly less.
From the data available, if you look at just Medicare and Medicaid spending in the US, those programs alone would be able to pay for universal coverage in many countries with the same or better medical outcomes.
Or are you just arguing on ideology alone? If you decide to disregard good data and make decisions based on your beliefs and not on reality, there is nothing me or anyone else can say to make you change your mind. A closed mind is in effect a dead mind.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
We settled this question in the civil war once before. Is this where you are taking us?
The problem with the right-wing movement in the past decade is belief does not match up with reality.
Government may not be 100% efficient, nor is the free market. The idea is to make government work better (ie. smaller in some areas, more efficient in others). Instead of generalisations about government==tyranny and rejecting government, wouldn't your time be much better spent on how to influence government policies and legislation for the better?
If you feel that individuals don't have this power, think about where it all went. I would much rather have a government that I have some influence over by representation than have the same essential services (eg. defence, law, infrastructure) provided by a corporation that is completely opaque and driven by the profit motive.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
It wasn't a red herring, it was the "deflection". The right-wing media needed somebody to blame and with that they can paint the lenders as the victims.
In fact, these lenders know full well what they were getting into. The problem was that they were able to bundle these mortgages up and sell it on to unsuspecting investors. The returns on these products looked good with apparently low risk. But because these products are so complex, those models were proven to be made in fantasy la-la land and broke down when the housing boom started to collapse.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
First, ask yourself why is it so cheap to provide healthcare to your dog, but not for people.
1. The amount of regulation.
2. The amount of sophistication in procedures.
3. Liability in civil law.
4. Liability in criminal law.
5. Market forces, ie. people tend not let the vet put their mothers to sleep if they have a "incurable" ailment.
Most people in the industrialized world tend to expect a minimal standard of care which is unfortunately very high as people tend to not want to die. To provide this, there is a substantial amount of overhead that we have no way to get rid of at the moment.
BTW, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and not data. However, in your case it's not even an anecdote since you're comparing apples to pineapples.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
The top tax rate in the UK used to be 40%, but now there is an additional 50% rate band thanks to the bailout of the banks. You will need to make over 150K GBP or roughly 225K USD to get hit by this new tax band.
Taxation is unitary in the UK and you will not need to pay any state or municipal tax on income. There is an additional National Insurance contribution for social security benefits. A person earning an average wage will pay roughly a combined 25% of income tax + NI.
Not bad at all really.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Most people in the UK have a GP (ie. a family doctor) which is paid for by the NHS and those with health insurance (many large employers provide this) go private only on specialist procedures.
In fact, usually the same surgeons performs the same surgery in the same hospital with the same staff. It's just that they get a better room and get to jump the queue. Instead of being paid by the government, these procedure are reimbursed by the insurance companies. This "dual" system has the side effect of making private medical insurance extremely affordable, but insurance companies still do it, as there is some money to be made.
Some providers have completely private facilities for everything, from frontline services to specialist procedures (eg. BUPA). However, this is uncommon and only a relatively small proportion of the population are enrolled in these plans. The reason? NHS care is very well regarded by the British and is found to be generally good despite the problems with some parts of the system. Any political party that campaigns on breaking up the NHS is in effect committing political suicide. The British would rather give up tea as the national drink than to give up their healthcare system.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
The fact that a breakdown has been "imminent" for more than a decade is telling.
Yes I know, and I partly quoted it for ironic value. But the reason, the system keeps dragging on and on without falling apart is, it is financed by the state. The state helps the public health care system with tax money and in turn amasses more and more debts. But the ridiculus amount of national debt in all the countries is a completely different matter. I don't think the system is inherently flawed. It is just not working right now. The recently elected secretary of health went imho in the right direction by attempting to reduce the costs of pharmaceutical products. I am not sure how good it will work, but it is a start.
Congratulations, you have a choice of health care in the United Kingdom. Here in the United States, out government healthcare system is monopoly healthcare. See, if you had actually read any of the two thousand page law passed in America, you would have read that the United States government is going to give people the "option" of accepting government health care, or else "fining" us for not accepting it (practically speaking, the government would never be able to provide funding for it unless they take money from everyone to pay for it - this must either be done through a medical care tax or a fine - but it is not a choice). Basically, either way, the American public will have to pay into the government health care system. If you have to buy it, you would be silly to not use it. So, after a time, the vast majority of people are going to use the government health care system. This in turn is going to cause a shift in the insurance industry from private health insurance to private health supplemental insurance. So because of market forces there eventually won't even be private insurance available, because there will be no demand.
So, moral of the story? America is not the United Kingdom. Government healthcare is not equivalent in all countries in all the world. Your health care system is not going to be anything like ours, so your anecdotal comments of what you have in the United Kingdom are irrelevant in discussing the American government health care. Of course, I can't really blame you for not reading the bill. After all, neither did our Congress nor our President. The only slight bit of peace I have is knowing I didn't vote for those idiots. Sure, it doesn't change the situation, but it makes me feel better.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
Indeed - and it's also funny that these people seem to have no problem with the vast amounts of money the US Government spends on a socialised military.
Screw that, if the free market is so great then why did we just bail out all the banks. I thought the free market meant that businesses were allowed to fail, not come begging for tax dollars when they lost shit loads of cash on dodgy investments in overvalued property.
I dont read
You know what would be 'fair' to everyone. Have everyone pay taxes for healthcare and education. Just like today.
But if you choose not to use the public monopoly, you get a per capita voucher to spend wherever you want.
The new conservative government we have in the UK is looking at bringing in exactly the system you describe for education.
With regard to Healthcare though it is a little more complex as you will always be entitled to treatment under the state system, whereas private health insurers may well hike your premiums astronomically or simply refuse to cover you if you become seriously ill with something that requires long term treatment.
You should certainly be able to get money off you private health insurance or individual treatments but having that final fall back for if all else fails does have a monetary value. It is also worth remembering that private health insurance in Britain never covers certain medical treatments like childbirth which the person has a say in whether they need. Far fewer people use private clinics as they have to cough up the cash even if they have private emergency cover.
My main point though is simple and still stands, a public health care system is certainly not a monopoly. You can always use private healthcare if you are willing to pay. What it does do though is force private insurers to keep their premiums low since they are competing with a free system. That is certainly not a free market, but since I do not work for a private health care insurer I only gain from this so thoroughly support it :)
I dont read
Or even put IE6 on a terminal server and publish it with Remote Desktop / VNC / whatever. Don't let a handful of apps block the rest of your corporate upgrade schedule (AFAIK you can't get IE6 on Windows 7), but keep it available until you can wean off it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you have to buy it, you would be silly to not use it. So, after a time, the vast majority of people are going to use the government health care system. This in turn is going to cause a shift in the insurance industry from private health insurance to private health supplemental insurance. So because of market forces there eventually won't even be private insurance available, because there will be no demand.
This is all speculation. The truth is that many people will always buy private health insurance so when they are ill they actually get to recover in a nice hospital with their own room. In the case of non-emergency health issues, you also get treated instantly in a private hospital but that is not guaranteed under the NHS.
So, moral of the story? America is not the United Kingdom. Government healthcare is not equivalent in all countries in all the world. Your health care system is not going to be anything like ours, so your anecdotal comments of what you have in the United Kingdom are irrelevant in discussing the American government health care.
Your right, but the comment I replied to did not say anything about being specific to the US health system. It was talking about all private health care since he was replying to a post saying "many parts of the world have universal healthcare".
I saw a large amount of republican bullshit being spouted about our health system and it is obvious that many people in the US believed it despite a large percentage being pure fiction. I did talk about the US media for this reason since that is where I saw this poorly sourced drivel being broadcast.
I have never tried to talk about the US healthcare system since I have never used it yet. If I do I will most likely have decent cover anyway since I have damn good travel insurance for when I go overseas anyway.
My main complaint about the UK system is that it does not require this and will cover foreign citizens over here who need emergency treatment.
I dont read
>> A lot of doctors are quitting the profession specifically because they are *losing* money due to underpaying insurance
You are confusing things there - the doctor has nothing to do with how much I pay for bloodwork, it's between me and the company doing the analysis. ...$20. And I am not speaking about third world countries ( Hungary ).
Second thing is, I had the chance to compare prices between continents. The $50 bloodwork billed $500 can be done with profit for
>>>I don't know where you live but where I'm at there are ~10 different hospitals choose from. 30 if I expand my search to the next closest cities. There's as much competition in health as there is for grocery stores. I think the system works just fine.
That is why the US spends almost 2x as much per capita on health care than any other country and has a terrible life expectancy. ;)
Also, choice does not mean that there is competition. Just look at broadband internet
>>>So stop buying insurance and just pay cash
I cannot because once I'd become uninsured, I'd be overbilled into oblivion for the simplest thing. This is the problem I have been speaking about, hope you'll get it this time.
Really, selling online I've noticed that Europeans are terrible consumers. They don't listen well to our support staff, they immediately charge back if the service is not up to par, etc. etc. It's a hell dealing with Europeans.
If you're looking to make money, honestly, invest in US consumers first. Much easier to part them from their money and to convince them not to cancel/buy more.
Maybe this is related to the fact that the European Union has per-capita GDP of $32,600 (#42 in the world), while the United States has per-capita GDP of $46,400 (#11 in the world). As people get richer, it's less and less worthwhile to spend time being picky about what you buy. I bet Europeans are a heck of a lot less picky than Middle Easterners, say.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Yes you gain as you apparently support the monopoly public system.
Just because you can choose something else, does not make the primary system not a monopoly.
What distinguishes an abusive monopoly is its actions make it really really really inconvenient to choose an alternative.
So Microsoft threatening to cut off PC distributors from special pricing if they install firefox... that is an abusive monopoly.
Microsoft making it hard on 3rd party companies by not exposing their interfaces... that is abuse of monopoly.
The monopoly government system taking money from all of us... even those of us who do not wish to use it... is an abusive monopoly.
It makes it really really really improbable that the average person will pay twice and thus actually use the other service.
Those of us who wish to have choice and control over our medical affairs lose out.
Which I see does not include you... and that is fine.
If you're happy with the bureaucrats and government 'panels' making your healthcare choices... wonderful. It's a load off your back.
Just give those of us the equivalent per capita spending... and let me spend it how I want. I do not wish to use the states services.
Keep a certain amount of emergency room procedures as that in uncontrollable.
unlike you, I do not see private insurance as a benefit to evil corporations. Choice in my hands is my own power. It empowers the citizen.
Most of the western world will find out soon enough the dangers of government monopolies. Europe is already finding out and those paid from the public's taxes are not going to want to cut back.
In any case, I digress... at least marx and the rest could admit their goals.
Modern socialists sit around pretending like they aren't hurting anyone else.
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.