Because the problem in both cases is not PAYING for these things, it is in the COST for these things. Changing who pays does not address the problem. As a matter of fact, as the government has picked up ever more of the cost of both healthcare and education, the cost has risen ever more rapidly.
Actually, they do NOT need to increase the student-to-faculty ratio. They need to increase the student-to-staff (in particular administrators) ratio. The problem at many schools is that they have too high of a ratio of administrators-to-students. Increased faculty-to-student ratios add value to students (there is probably a point at which the added cost greatly exceeds the added value, but few colleges or universities, if any, have gone past that point). Increased faculty-to-student ratios never decrease value to students. On the other hand, once the number of administrators exceeds some number, each additional administrator reduces the value of the experience to the student (this principle applies in many other businesses as well, once the number of managers exceeds a certain number, each new manager decreases the value received by the customer).
If the teacher had sent the student to the principal's office and the principal had called the cops to confirm that it was not a bomb, I would have little problem with this story.
However, both the school and the cops went overboard on this. Unless facts come out that contradict what is in this story (which is not outside of the bounds of possibility) their reaction was completely overblown, and in my mind more criminal than anything the student did. We do need to watch to see if this account is missing key facts or not (such as whether, perhaps, the student, or someone else from his family, had a history with the police that might explain their reaction as something other than anti-Muslim bias).
Or, more likely, they will lose business from customers who decide the new cost is too high for the service delivered and will just do without that service.
Interestingly enough, one of the men who wrote that phrase vetoed such bills by saying that he did see any where in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to pass them.
There is a difference between a rare snowfall causing chaos and the chaos of an entire winter of record level snowfalls. I just love how the true believers are perfectly OK with calling a theory that is completely unfalsifiable "scientific".
It is clear from that article, which was published in 2000, that the scientist proponents of AGW being quoted were saying that global warming would mean that Britain would get little to no snow for the indefinite future, so little snow that what little did fall would cause chaos.
No, it did not strip the statement of context. The actual original quote, from an article titled "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", was "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." The entire article, from the year 2000, quotes various authorities who all agree that milder winters are here to stay while explaining the consequences of those milder winters.
And even if we take your quote as what he meant, he was completely wrong. Snow has not become a rare event for British children.
The thing is, the scientists were telling us that hurricanes were going to get worse, that children in Britain would never see snow, and a bunch of other predictions that that have not come true.
There are many errors in your post which are beyond a discussion on the Internet. It is worth noting that the New Testament is the best documented ancient document we currently possess. Other documents of similar antiquity have a greater gap between their time of original writing and the currently oldest existing xopy of them. There are other factors involved which indicate that your knowledge of the methods of identifying the accuracy of ancient documents is limited.
Perhaps, I chose the words poorly. Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven. Christians do not claim that those who wrote the Bible were copying from documents they received from heaven.
There are those who claim that those who wrote the Bible were merely copying words dictated to them by God. They are a minority.
Um, no. No portion of the Old Testament was an oral tradition at the time of Jesus. As a matter of fact, the New Testament tells us that Jesus read from the book of Isaiah. There are manuscripts which are copies of various Old Testament books which still exist today which were written before Jesus.
Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed. The claim has always been that various men, at various times, actually wrote the contents of the Bible. The closest it comes to claiming the "received already written", is the tablets containing the Ten Commandments which Moses received from God, and then promptly shattered. We are told that the stone tablets he presented to the Israelites were carved by Moses, but these were merely quoted/paraphrased as part of other documents which were written and later included in the Bible.
There is an interesting disconnect in that article. At the beginning of it, it talks about a drop in the total number of hives from the 1940s to "today" (2012, it amounts to a 50% drop). Then it talks about the fact that we appear to be losing 33% of our hives over each winter. How can that be if there was only a 50% drop total from the 1940s to now?
The answer being that beekeepers replace the majority (if not all) of those lost hives each summer. If you want to track this you need to look at how many hives we lose year to year, not from September to May. I want to know how many fewer hives there were last May, not how many fewer than last September.
I was not sure where to put this, so I chose here. All of the problems in Vietnam resulted from the fact that the decision had been made to fight the Soviet Union in a series of proxy wars designed to cost them more than they could afford. That decision in itself was a good one, the dangers of fighting the Soviet Union directly were too great to risk. The problem was that the decision makers in Washington did not fight in Vietnam with the intention of winning that engagement. They decided to continue that proxy war indefinitely. If they had fought Vietnam with the intention of winning, it would likely have been over in 1968 or sooner. This strategy was complicated by their belief that they could control what information about the war came out (causing them to think they could lie about what was going on and not get caught).
But he is not trying to prevent people with physical access to the car from messing with it. He is suggesting that we should prevent people WITHOUT physical access to the car from being able to hack it. The only way to solve the problem of people with physical access to the car being able to hack it is to either not put computer chips in the car, or make those chips completely read only (which has its own problems).
People who buy a Swiss watch are not buying it to tell the time. They are buying it as a subtle way of telling people that they are rich enough to afford spending money on something just for appearance. Of course "wearables" are taking some of the air out of that market, a significant percentage (probably the majority) of the people buying "wearables" are doing so for the same reason.
No, I have experience working with small businesses which were unable to compete because they could not afford to pay someone to fill out the paperwork necessary to comply with regulations. It costs money to comply with regulations...even when those regulations only insist that a company follow practices it would have followed any way because once there are regulations you have to DOCUMENT that you have followed them.
As to anti competitive practices those that are not a result of government regulation or only possible in the presence of government regulation, will be fixed by a free market in due time.
Of course there is another mistake you make, since you think that government regulation is by definition a good thing, you believe that those who wish to see government regulations minimized want to see all government regulations and laws eliminated.
Somehow you seem to think that people are evil when they run private corporations and good when they work for government bureaucracies.
Your example countries have MUCH smaller populations AND I am not convinced that they truly are less corrupt. Perhaps it is just the value of corrupting the government is less.
More importantly, you and I disagree on one basic point. You believe that regulations allow small companies to compete with large companies. I believe that it is regulations which allow large companies to suppress competition from small companies. In addition, you believe that the words "law" and "regulation" are interchangeable, which allows you to suggest that those who want limited government regulation are anarchists.
We have too many regulations now and you want more. You live in a fantasy world where it is possible to have regulations which are free from regulatory capture. The very fact that we need regulations of any sort demonstrates that this is the case. The largest enemy of getting "strong effective regulations, free from bad regulations created by regulatory capture..." is human nature/
However, even if it were possible to have such regulations regulations always favor larger, established businesses. A larger business can more easily absorb the cost of complying with the paperwork necessary to demonstrate that one is in compliance with the law, which is why, big business always comes around to supporting more regulation in their industry.
I would love to solve the problem. Our discussion suffers from the fact that you think that the symptoms are the problem and that they can be solved by making the real problem worse.
Well, first, I am not arguing for no regulation. I am arguing for LESS regulation. My question is, do you really believe that the little guy has a chance with the level of rules that are currently in place?
Even if the regulations were not corrupt, complying with them costs money which can more easily be adsorbed by the large, established players.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the way they named the ENTIRE state after a subgroup of that tribe?
What they ought to do is just rename the team the "Fighting Dakotans", since the NCAA has already ruled that they can continue to use the word Dakota.
Because the problem in both cases is not PAYING for these things, it is in the COST for these things. Changing who pays does not address the problem. As a matter of fact, as the government has picked up ever more of the cost of both healthcare and education, the cost has risen ever more rapidly.
Actually, they do NOT need to increase the student-to-faculty ratio. They need to increase the student-to-staff (in particular administrators) ratio. The problem at many schools is that they have too high of a ratio of administrators-to-students. Increased faculty-to-student ratios add value to students (there is probably a point at which the added cost greatly exceeds the added value, but few colleges or universities, if any, have gone past that point). Increased faculty-to-student ratios never decrease value to students. On the other hand, once the number of administrators exceeds some number, each additional administrator reduces the value of the experience to the student (this principle applies in many other businesses as well, once the number of managers exceeds a certain number, each new manager decreases the value received by the customer).
If the teacher had sent the student to the principal's office and the principal had called the cops to confirm that it was not a bomb, I would have little problem with this story. However, both the school and the cops went overboard on this. Unless facts come out that contradict what is in this story (which is not outside of the bounds of possibility) their reaction was completely overblown, and in my mind more criminal than anything the student did. We do need to watch to see if this account is missing key facts or not (such as whether, perhaps, the student, or someone else from his family, had a history with the police that might explain their reaction as something other than anti-Muslim bias).
Or, more likely, they will lose business from customers who decide the new cost is too high for the service delivered and will just do without that service.
Interestingly enough, one of the men who wrote that phrase vetoed such bills by saying that he did see any where in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to pass them.
There is a difference between a rare snowfall causing chaos and the chaos of an entire winter of record level snowfalls. I just love how the true believers are perfectly OK with calling a theory that is completely unfalsifiable "scientific". It is clear from that article, which was published in 2000, that the scientist proponents of AGW being quoted were saying that global warming would mean that Britain would get little to no snow for the indefinite future, so little snow that what little did fall would cause chaos.
The evidence I have seen suggests that you are wrong.
No, it did not strip the statement of context. The actual original quote, from an article titled "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", was "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." The entire article, from the year 2000, quotes various authorities who all agree that milder winters are here to stay while explaining the consequences of those milder winters. And even if we take your quote as what he meant, he was completely wrong. Snow has not become a rare event for British children.
The thing is, the scientists were telling us that hurricanes were going to get worse, that children in Britain would never see snow, and a bunch of other predictions that that have not come true.
There are many errors in your post which are beyond a discussion on the Internet. It is worth noting that the New Testament is the best documented ancient document we currently possess. Other documents of similar antiquity have a greater gap between their time of original writing and the currently oldest existing xopy of them. There are other factors involved which indicate that your knowledge of the methods of identifying the accuracy of ancient documents is limited.
Perhaps, I chose the words poorly. Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven. Christians do not claim that those who wrote the Bible were copying from documents they received from heaven.
There are those who claim that those who wrote the Bible were merely copying words dictated to them by God. They are a minority.
Um, no. No portion of the Old Testament was an oral tradition at the time of Jesus. As a matter of fact, the New Testament tells us that Jesus read from the book of Isaiah. There are manuscripts which are copies of various Old Testament books which still exist today which were written before Jesus.
Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed. The claim has always been that various men, at various times, actually wrote the contents of the Bible. The closest it comes to claiming the "received already written", is the tablets containing the Ten Commandments which Moses received from God, and then promptly shattered. We are told that the stone tablets he presented to the Israelites were carved by Moses, but these were merely quoted/paraphrased as part of other documents which were written and later included in the Bible.
There is an interesting disconnect in that article. At the beginning of it, it talks about a drop in the total number of hives from the 1940s to "today" (2012, it amounts to a 50% drop). Then it talks about the fact that we appear to be losing 33% of our hives over each winter. How can that be if there was only a 50% drop total from the 1940s to now?
The answer being that beekeepers replace the majority (if not all) of those lost hives each summer. If you want to track this you need to look at how many hives we lose year to year, not from September to May. I want to know how many fewer hives there were last May, not how many fewer than last September.
I was not sure where to put this, so I chose here. All of the problems in Vietnam resulted from the fact that the decision had been made to fight the Soviet Union in a series of proxy wars designed to cost them more than they could afford. That decision in itself was a good one, the dangers of fighting the Soviet Union directly were too great to risk. The problem was that the decision makers in Washington did not fight in Vietnam with the intention of winning that engagement. They decided to continue that proxy war indefinitely. If they had fought Vietnam with the intention of winning, it would likely have been over in 1968 or sooner. This strategy was complicated by their belief that they could control what information about the war came out (causing them to think they could lie about what was going on and not get caught).
But he is not trying to prevent people with physical access to the car from messing with it. He is suggesting that we should prevent people WITHOUT physical access to the car from being able to hack it. The only way to solve the problem of people with physical access to the car being able to hack it is to either not put computer chips in the car, or make those chips completely read only (which has its own problems).
The problem you experienced was not with the electronic "stethoscope". the problem was with the electronic sphygmomanomter.
People who buy a Swiss watch are not buying it to tell the time. They are buying it as a subtle way of telling people that they are rich enough to afford spending money on something just for appearance. Of course "wearables" are taking some of the air out of that market, a significant percentage (probably the majority) of the people buying "wearables" are doing so for the same reason.
No, I have experience working with small businesses which were unable to compete because they could not afford to pay someone to fill out the paperwork necessary to comply with regulations. It costs money to comply with regulations...even when those regulations only insist that a company follow practices it would have followed any way because once there are regulations you have to DOCUMENT that you have followed them.
As to anti competitive practices those that are not a result of government regulation or only possible in the presence of government regulation, will be fixed by a free market in due time.
Of course there is another mistake you make, since you think that government regulation is by definition a good thing, you believe that those who wish to see government regulations minimized want to see all government regulations and laws eliminated.
Somehow you seem to think that people are evil when they run private corporations and good when they work for government bureaucracies.
Your example countries have MUCH smaller populations AND I am not convinced that they truly are less corrupt. Perhaps it is just the value of corrupting the government is less.
More importantly, you and I disagree on one basic point. You believe that regulations allow small companies to compete with large companies. I believe that it is regulations which allow large companies to suppress competition from small companies. In addition, you believe that the words "law" and "regulation" are interchangeable, which allows you to suggest that those who want limited government regulation are anarchists.
We have too many regulations now and you want more. You live in a fantasy world where it is possible to have regulations which are free from regulatory capture. The very fact that we need regulations of any sort demonstrates that this is the case. The largest enemy of getting "strong effective regulations, free from bad regulations created by regulatory capture..." is human nature/
However, even if it were possible to have such regulations regulations always favor larger, established businesses. A larger business can more easily absorb the cost of complying with the paperwork necessary to demonstrate that one is in compliance with the law, which is why, big business always comes around to supporting more regulation in their industry.
I would love to solve the problem. Our discussion suffers from the fact that you think that the symptoms are the problem and that they can be solved by making the real problem worse.
Well, first, I am not arguing for no regulation. I am arguing for LESS regulation. My question is, do you really believe that the little guy has a chance with the level of rules that are currently in place? Even if the regulations were not corrupt, complying with them costs money which can more easily be adsorbed by the large, established players.
You are correct, but a newly elected President can only do so much. Don't hold Obama's failure to collapse the economy against him, He tried.