Just like healthcare there or in Canada, the people are paying for it, just in different ways than we do in America
Yes. Bear in mind though, that they don't have the enormous overhead of profit on top of it. Also, the extra overhead of administration in the US healthcare system (employing all those people to check and try to invalidate every claim you make) has to be paid for too. Add to that the way that it's only profitable to provide a service for some people (healthy/live in cities) and not to others (unhealthy, live in countryside), so the service is not equally accessible for all.
Check this graph to see what I mean. Healthcare spend per capita in the US is way above any other industrialised nation and you still have 1/6 of your population uninsured.
Whether you like Michael Moore or not, you need to watch Sicko just to see the UK/French reaction to the idea that people should pay for their healthcare, ask someone for approval evey time they want to go to a doctor, or be refused treatment. Laughter. The US capitalist healthcare system is a failure in every way compared to the European model because some things don't suit a private enterprise approach. I think the internet fibre network pretty clearly falls into this category too.
One could look at this situation and say, "If you don't want Google taking pictures of your house, build a ten-foot wall in your front yard."
I asked my Father once why people used to have big hedges, but they don't nowadays. He said that when he was a kid in the 50s, net curtains were not available as the technology for fine nylon mesh had only recently been invented and was very expensive. Everyone had a 6 foot hedge so that they could leave the curtains open for light and have privacy from the street. Once net curtains came along, the hedges came down. You're always free to grow a new one if it really bothers you:)
They don't care about being spied on, they find the idea that any pleb with an Internet connection can look at their house without their knowledge distasteful.
Reminds me of a website I heard about once, which apparently showed pictures of amateur porn with the people blacked out, just so the guy could slag off their interior design. I can well imagine that the thought of the plebs mocking the outside of their houses as well as the inside might tip these middle england Daily Mail secret swinger types over the edge.
the Google camera that drove past my house was 3m off the road (notice that it's on a pole on top of a car). So it sees over the fence and right into my daughter's bedroom. A person on the road with a ladder and a camera perving into windows and posting the results on the Internet would have been arrested.
Your neighbours' bedrooms are also at that height. Are they invading your privacy? Also, looking at streetview, the windows of my house can certainly not be seen through. The inside of rooms apear dark in the daytime (when all streetview pictures are taken), even with the lights on. Not quite the same as a creep with a zoom lens taking photos at night. Anyway, why do you think we have net curtains?
The winner you pick would have to be a crazy fringe candidate, though. The crazier the better. So that *no one* would think for a second that the election was valid.
Uhhh... hasn't that already happened a few years back?
Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.
Or their rigid beliefs have prevented them from ever properly refelcting on their own mortality, so its all hitting home at once with full force.
I'm going to add 'serenity in the face of one's own mortality' to my list of things that religion promises on the surface, but in reality often acts against (other highlights being moral behaviour, spiritual growth and knowledge of ultimate reality).
Unfortunately, you are. The relevant legislation is in-loco parentis which means that teachers are acting as stand-in parents for the duration of the time the students are with them, right up to age 18.
It does seem silly, especially as I have to fill in risk assessment forms for my 16-18 year old students who are going to a revision conference where they will be 'crossing roads' (might not look) and 'taking the bus alone' (may get lost). I seriously have to write that down.
However, I would tend to view publicly available CIA documents which make China, Russia and other assorted communists look bad as having questionable neutrality.
Surprised to find you're reduced to using Slashdot to spread your message. What happened to the clearly more efficient (for you) method of direct revelation?
Don't all experiments, because of their own nature, demonstrate nothing more than correlation?
No. Properly designed experiments control all avariables except one, which they alter. You then look at the effect on other variables, knowing that any changes must be the result of the one thing that was allowed to vary.
In practice, this is hard to achieve in wider society, but the study here did do it quite well.
However, the question is not 'does the violent content cause violence?', but 'does sitting alone for 6 solid hours, with lots of excitement, frustration and adrenaline building up in your system make you a bit itchy for a fight?'. Gaming does one thing very well - it takes away social contact whilst increasing concentration (like TV), so a far better experiment would be to get previously non-gaming people to spend hours on Half Life 2 and see how it alters their mood and aggression levels compared to people watching TV alone and people having a chat in a restaurant. I think the results would be a lot more interesting.
I would tend to think of that headline as having it backwards. Kids who bully often have issues at home that make them angry and unable to feel for or relate to others.
The US doesn't do that because we understand that you can't have the other nine rights in the bill of rights if you don't have any way to protect them.
This implies that all countries without widespread gun ownership lack those rights. Not really true. It's also shocking that you imply that gun violence is the only possible means to 'protect them', particularly when you go on to mention Gandhi.
Gandhi said that of all the acts of the British, disarming an entire nation would go down among their blackest.
Of course, Gandhi said a lot of other stuff, much of which boils down to 'you don't need guns to beat the British, in fact they make things worse'. Coupled with the fact that he actually did beat the British using non-violent civil disobedience, this shows that there certainly are other ways to protect your rights, but they require a lot more personal commitment and community spirit than having a gun by the bed.
do you really trust your government to be in charge of all the guns?
No. But I trust everyone else a lot less.
And the day I do, you might as well shoot me because I have turned off my fucking brain.
http://www.iphonealley.com/tips has a lot of them, but the example given above by jabithew is a good one - a couple of taps and everything is exactly where you need it to be for the next logical task.
Searching on google maps brings up a load of pins with results. Tapping on one shows a screen ready to take you to whichever task you next need e.g. email this location to someone, look at the homepage for the cinema you just found, call them, add the address to your contacts etc.
Other phones will do all this, but not with such effortless simplicity. Which is why I love it.
What's interesting is that many 'governments' are made up of people - like you and me
Er... no.
'You and me' are not currently in political office or trying to be. This is for a reason, i.e. we don't care enough about getting power to make a serious attempt. Those who do, are by definition different to the rest of us.
This gets interesting when you realise that there is a stable prevalence of about 1% for clinical psychopaths in any population and that being able to not give a shit about [torture/mass unemployment/civillian casualties/back stabbing your colleagues/puppies dying] (delete as applicable) is pretty much a job requirement for many political figures. Put simply, you will likely find a larger proportion of psychopathic individuals as you move higher up any command heirarchy. This why surveillance society is a bad idea - the people in charge are less likely to have a moral conscience than the rest of us.
See this film if you need further information/spine chills.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like healthcare there or in Canada, the people are paying for it, just in different ways than we do in America
Yes. Bear in mind though, that they don't have the enormous overhead of profit on top of it. Also, the extra overhead of administration in the US healthcare system (employing all those people to check and try to invalidate every claim you make) has to be paid for too. Add to that the way that it's only profitable to provide a service for some people (healthy/live in cities) and not to others (unhealthy, live in countryside), so the service is not equally accessible for all.
Check this graph to see what I mean. Healthcare spend per capita in the US is way above any other industrialised nation and you still have 1/6 of your population uninsured.
Whether you like Michael Moore or not, you need to watch Sicko just to see the UK/French reaction to the idea that people should pay for their healthcare, ask someone for approval evey time they want to go to a doctor, or be refused treatment. Laughter. The US capitalist healthcare system is a failure in every way compared to the European model because some things don't suit a private enterprise approach. I think the internet fibre network pretty clearly falls into this category too.
One could look at this situation and say, "If you don't want Google taking pictures of your house, build a ten-foot wall in your front yard."
I asked my Father once why people used to have big hedges, but they don't nowadays. He said that when he was a kid in the 50s, net curtains were not available as the technology for fine nylon mesh had only recently been invented and was very expensive. Everyone had a 6 foot hedge so that they could leave the curtains open for light and have privacy from the street. Once net curtains came along, the hedges came down. You're always free to grow a new one if it really bothers you :)
They don't care about being spied on, they find the idea that any pleb with an Internet connection can look at their house without their knowledge distasteful.
Reminds me of a website I heard about once, which apparently showed pictures of amateur porn with the people blacked out, just so the guy could slag off their interior design. I can well imagine that the thought of the plebs mocking the outside of their houses as well as the inside might tip these middle england Daily Mail secret swinger types over the edge.
the Google camera that drove past my house was 3m off the road (notice that it's on a pole on top of a car). So it sees over the fence and right into my daughter's bedroom. A person on the road with a ladder and a camera perving into windows and posting the results on the Internet would have been arrested.
Your neighbours' bedrooms are also at that height. Are they invading your privacy? Also, looking at streetview, the windows of my house can certainly not be seen through. The inside of rooms apear dark in the daytime (when all streetview pictures are taken), even with the lights on. Not quite the same as a creep with a zoom lens taking photos at night. Anyway, why do you think we have net curtains?
The winner you pick would have to be a crazy fringe candidate, though. The crazier the better. So that *no one* would think for a second that the election was valid.
Uhhh... hasn't that already happened a few years back?
TFA indicates that they have a mirror at the library of Alexandria.
You mean the site of possibly the most catastrophic series of data-loss incidents in recorded history?
Who's idea was that?
Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.
Or their rigid beliefs have prevented them from ever properly refelcting on their own mortality, so its all hitting home at once with full force.
I'm going to add 'serenity in the face of one's own mortality' to my list of things that religion promises on the surface, but in reality often acts against (other highlights being moral behaviour, spiritual growth and knowledge of ultimate reality).
The Chinese and Russians are every bit as barbaric as Americans.
Probably true, but they don't as a rule export it.
The main difference between terrorists and the U.S. military is terrorists fight smart (and dirty)
Really?
Who modded this funny? Does anyone seriously think this won't happen again?
Age 16-18 you are not "under their care".
Unfortunately, you are. The relevant legislation is in-loco parentis which means that teachers are acting as stand-in parents for the duration of the time the students are with them, right up to age 18.
It does seem silly, especially as I have to fill in risk assessment forms for my 16-18 year old students who are going to a revision conference where they will be 'crossing roads' (might not look) and 'taking the bus alone' (may get lost). I seriously have to write that down.
Good luck getting your boiler fixed buddy.
I've found the fastest way through the Great Firewall of China to be Mongolosploit. It may take somem time but it's persistent.
Mao says it can't be done, but Genghis Khan!
Interesting stuff.
However, I would tend to view publicly available CIA documents which make China, Russia and other assorted communists look bad as having questionable neutrality.
How long before their "laws" say that our guns have to make a "bang" sound?
I think they're more likely to say it should go 'click'.
Surprised to find you're reduced to using Slashdot to spread your message. What happened to the clearly more efficient (for you) method of direct revelation?
Still wondering about why you don't prevent bad things from happening if you are in fact the loving god you claim to be. - Heathens
LOL! Just when I need mod points...
Double Dutch?
Don't all experiments, because of their own nature, demonstrate nothing more than correlation?
No. Properly designed experiments control all avariables except one, which they alter. You then look at the effect on other variables, knowing that any changes must be the result of the one thing that was allowed to vary. In practice, this is hard to achieve in wider society, but the study here did do it quite well.
However, the question is not 'does the violent content cause violence?', but 'does sitting alone for 6 solid hours, with lots of excitement, frustration and adrenaline building up in your system make you a bit itchy for a fight?'. Gaming does one thing very well - it takes away social contact whilst increasing concentration (like TV), so a far better experiment would be to get previously non-gaming people to spend hours on Half Life 2 and see how it alters their mood and aggression levels compared to people watching TV alone and people having a chat in a restaurant. I think the results would be a lot more interesting.
I would tend to think of that headline as having it backwards. Kids who bully often have issues at home that make them angry and unable to feel for or relate to others.
The US doesn't do that because we understand that you can't have the other nine rights in the bill of rights if you don't have any way to protect them.
This implies that all countries without widespread gun ownership lack those rights. Not really true. It's also shocking that you imply that gun violence is the only possible means to 'protect them', particularly when you go on to mention Gandhi.
Gandhi said that of all the acts of the British, disarming an entire nation would go down among their blackest.
Of course, Gandhi said a lot of other stuff, much of which boils down to 'you don't need guns to beat the British, in fact they make things worse'. Coupled with the fact that he actually did beat the British using non-violent civil disobedience, this shows that there certainly are other ways to protect your rights, but they require a lot more personal commitment and community spirit than having a gun by the bed.
do you really trust your government to be in charge of all the guns?
No. But I trust everyone else a lot less.
And the day I do, you might as well shoot me because I have turned off my fucking brain.
I'm British, so I have no gun. See? It works!
You don't have Whirlpool fanboys or people who endless post on the Internet on the virtues of push fit versus compression joints.
Welcome to the internet. Please be sure to familiarise yourself with the safety information provided before posting such a silly idea again.
Don't subduction zones tend to have volcanoes?
http://www.iphonealley.com/tips has a lot of them, but the example given above by jabithew is a good one - a couple of taps and everything is exactly where you need it to be for the next logical task.
Searching on google maps brings up a load of pins with results. Tapping on one shows a screen ready to take you to whichever task you next need e.g. email this location to someone, look at the homepage for the cinema you just found, call them, add the address to your contacts etc.
Other phones will do all this, but not with such effortless simplicity. Which is why I love it.
however all have made some use of undoubted terrorist tactics (i.e. bombs targeted against civilians without the sanction of a state party)
Since when did it stop being terrorism when sanctioned by a state?
What's interesting is that many 'governments' are made up of people - like you and me
Er... no.
'You and me' are not currently in political office or trying to be. This is for a reason, i.e. we don't care enough about getting power to make a serious attempt. Those who do, are by definition different to the rest of us.
This gets interesting when you realise that there is a stable prevalence of about 1% for clinical psychopaths in any population and that being able to not give a shit about [torture/mass unemployment/civillian casualties/back stabbing your colleagues/puppies dying] (delete as applicable) is pretty much a job requirement for many political figures. Put simply, you will likely find a larger proportion of psychopathic individuals as you move higher up any command heirarchy. This why surveillance society is a bad idea - the people in charge are less likely to have a moral conscience than the rest of us.
See this film if you need further information/spine chills.