This would pretty much destroy any specialists in the U.S. as they would be paid a pittance and they'd move elsewhere. Where would they go? The UK (NHS is just as fucked up)? Australia (same healthcare as Canada)? I've heard this arguement before from my wife, who is a Dr - but guess what? She's not going anywhere because 1) there aren't many English-speaking options that are better - and that's what most US doctors speak, and 2) her family is here just like the other doctors. There won't be a "mass exodus". Now time for some stats:
16% of our GDP is spent on healthcare (should be 11%, like the UK or Canada)
31% of healthcare budget is spent on administrative costs (as opposed to 16% in Canada. Could be waaaay lower with use of technology and insurance reform - the second REQUIRES governent intervention)
84% of US citizens are covered by health insurance (should be 100%, again, like in the UK, Canada, Australia - just about every first world nation)
I've lived in Australia, Canada and the US - and have experienced first-hand all of their healthcare systems. Australia was - hands down - the best. I got the care I needed and paid nothing. Emergency room visit? US$45!! US emergency room visit for same problem? US$450. All of that went to insurance. PRIVATE insurance, mind you.
Besides empty rhetoric, what experience do you have? What stats do you have to back up that it could be worse? What good and practical reasons would you have for denying 16% of fellow US citizens basic healthcare? If the Canadian system sucks because it is "socialized" then why do they spend less on healthcare and yet insure a higher percentage of their people? If we could lower the administrative costs through insurance reform and a national databank of healthcare information, we could insure the remaining 16% with no other changes whatsoever. That doesn't even scratch the surface of reducing fraud (The state of Tennesee loses 54M a year in drug fraud (BCBSTN) - a simple webpage where nurses could share information cut that in half in a single year). Guess who had to push BlueCross to do it? That's right... the government. Because BlueCross was making money off of the fraud! All they had to do was charge higher premiums to everyone to cover the cost, and write it off. Fuck your broken system.
Don't fault this diatribe for being about one single sentence in your argument... the fact that you spout such nonsense without knowing the facts throws all of your conclusions in a suspicious light.
What i really liked in Vista was the combined search/run-field in the startmenu. But i can live happily without it when the rest of my system behaves. Not to sound like a Mac fan-boy, but I just got my first Mac ever 3 weeks ago. The behavior you described sounds like Quicksilver, plain and simple, and it is a huge productivity boost for me... lets see what I say after loading 100 applications on it!
There is no difference in censoring by electronic means, and censoring because people are afraid. When people's searches can be used in a court of law - that leads to self-censorship by fear.
Good point... I should have posted the previous sentence of the second report:
Overall, use of Linux in the IT environment has increased from 27 percent of respondents in 2004 to 36 percent of respondents in 2006.
Let me quote two Gartner studies:
IT services for open-source software represent 1.2% or $2.3 billion of the addressable 2006 North American IT services market. - Report Highlight for Dataquest Insight: Open-Source Software IT Services, North America, 2005-2010
Across all organizations, one-fifth say they use OSS. As few as 17 percent of midsize and large respondent organizations say they use OSS, and 28 percent of organizations of 500 to 2,499 employees claim they use OSS. - User Survey Report: Open-Source and Linux Software Support Services, North America, 2006
OSS services account for 1.2% of the IT budget, yet 20% of larger companies use OSS? So worst case, if less than 6% of the average company's software is OSS, then MS/NV are correct. If greater than 6% is OSS, then they are obviously wrong - due to OSS's relatively small market share.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Windows actually does this too... it has for years.
16% of our GDP is spent on healthcare (should be 11%, like the UK or Canada)
31% of healthcare budget is spent on administrative costs (as opposed to 16% in Canada. Could be waaaay lower with use of technology and insurance reform - the second REQUIRES governent intervention)
84% of US citizens are covered by health insurance (should be 100%, again, like in the UK, Canada, Australia - just about every first world nation)
I've lived in Australia, Canada and the US - and have experienced first-hand all of their healthcare systems. Australia was - hands down - the best. I got the care I needed and paid nothing. Emergency room visit? US$45!! US emergency room visit for same problem? US$450. All of that went to insurance. PRIVATE insurance, mind you.
Besides empty rhetoric, what experience do you have? What stats do you have to back up that it could be worse? What good and practical reasons would you have for denying 16% of fellow US citizens basic healthcare? If the Canadian system sucks because it is "socialized" then why do they spend less on healthcare and yet insure a higher percentage of their people? If we could lower the administrative costs through insurance reform and a national databank of healthcare information, we could insure the remaining 16% with no other changes whatsoever. That doesn't even scratch the surface of reducing fraud (The state of Tennesee loses 54M a year in drug fraud (BCBSTN) - a simple webpage where nurses could share information cut that in half in a single year). Guess who had to push BlueCross to do it? That's right... the government. Because BlueCross was making money off of the fraud! All they had to do was charge higher premiums to everyone to cover the cost, and write it off. Fuck your broken system.
Don't fault this diatribe for being about one single sentence in your argument... the fact that you spout such nonsense without knowing the facts throws all of your conclusions in a suspicious light.
Do you have a PPT of the article?
9.1%? Man, I feel screwed. Where I lived in Missouri charged 8.973% (don't ask) and sales tax on top of it!
There is no difference in censoring by electronic means, and censoring because people are afraid. When people's searches can be used in a court of law - that leads to self-censorship by fear.
What has the world come to! You spammers should all be ashamed of yourselves!!
... where all of your wildest dreams will come true!!
Visit http://www.whorapedia.com/
...in America, you can use the internet however you like, right? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/15/145221 4
Oh right - because he invented the internet... hahaha... good one, jackass
Sorry, correction: If less than 6% out of the 20% of companies who already use it are OSS...
IT services for open-source software represent 1.2% or $2.3 billion of the addressable 2006 North American IT services market. - Report Highlight for Dataquest Insight: Open-Source Software IT Services, North America, 2005-2010
Across all organizations, one-fifth say they use OSS. As few as 17 percent of midsize and large respondent organizations say they use OSS, and 28 percent of organizations of 500 to 2,499 employees claim they use OSS. - User Survey Report: Open-Source and Linux Software Support Services, North America, 2006
OSS services account for 1.2% of the IT budget, yet 20% of larger companies use OSS? So worst case, if less than 6% of the average company's software is OSS, then MS/NV are correct. If greater than 6% is OSS, then they are obviously wrong - due to OSS's relatively small market share.
Hey, that's nothing. At least it's not as inflamitory as what Dawkin's regaled of a former New Scientist editor:
"Our philosophy at New Scientist is this: Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off."