Now THAT is a part of the system that should be changed ASAP. And if only to give people an option.
Well, yes. But that would illustrate that the system fails, and if the failure is not headed off, people will actually die. Rather serious failure there.
An acceptable change would involve tracking how much was paid and how much consumed for government services, and, as long as you had a credit, the state would always pay for your "essential" needs -- i.e. if you paid $1,000,000 over 20 years in taxes, consumed $250,000 in services and needed $500,000 to pay for a life-saving operation, the state should pay up. This can be funded several ways: 1) the state purchases premium health insurance for those who have a large tax credit; 2) if the credit does not earn interest (which it should), it really is an interest-free loan to the state, and should be enough to carry wealth redistribution to help the destitute.
Bottom line, is that the Canadian system is far too generous to free loaders, and inefficient in terms of administrative overhead.
In the U.S.A., since health care is very much a personal responsibility, people have the opportunity to save and purchase insurance to cover medical disaster. Those that do are not at the mercy of the state.
Note though that not all of his taxes go to healthcare, they cover other things as well (e.g. Education).
No, but a quick comparison of what he paid in taxes in Canada, and what he would have paid in the U.S.A. over his life, would show that he'd have more than enough to cover the surgery that might have saved his life. Of course, he had lived to a decent age and might wanted to leave a larger inheritance, given the poor odds even with surgery, but life and death choices should be left to sound-minded individuals and not the state.
It's not only what you bring home but also what kind of assetts you have. A mortage would have to be counted AGAINST your assets, you don't own the house, so do car loans etc. etc.
So even if someone lives in a nice neighbourhood and "has" all the things they might not really "have" it at all. Just because it shines doesn't mean it is gold.
No, most homes were modestly mortgaged (not more than 75%), so asset-wise we were not rich. That was my point: middle class folks with modest assets could, nevertheless, live a comfortable life, and build equity in nice homes. The "barrier to entry" to that in Canada is far higher for the tax structure.
Oh, that's bad. Fungible loosly means interchangable: currency is fungible, for example, because one dollar bill serves its purpose as well as any other one. Houses, cars, boats, etc. are not fungible because, while they can be bartered, one instance in a class does not have the same characteristics as another.
If you say employees are "fungible resources", you are suggesting that one can do any work of another, and there is nothing to distinguish individuals. I suppose that may be true in some circumstances (garment industry sweatshops, for example), but would consider that attitude as leading toward nightmarish working conditions.
People are always going to try to take the system for a ride, if they can. Hence insurance fraud isn't really anything new.
A way to deal with this would be to make sure that such offenders are prosecuted and kicked out of the program, but should because of those bad apples the people who really need it be kicked to the curb?
That's the sensible German in you talking:-). That doesn't happen for several reasons: there are so many abusing the system that they represent a significant voting block, and get very militant, vocal, and demonstrative, when anything is threatened to be taken away.
This is gross neglicence(sp?) on the part of the doctors and as such they shouldn't be allowed to treat patients anymore. That they did that though I wouldn't necessarily blame on the systems. There have studies been done in the US that made it clear that there are doctors out there who only act on their own financial interrest as well.
From what I learned it was policy to not inform patients who had no hope of treatment in Canada, or who could not afford treatment elsewhere.
Because of the high taxes he paid over his lifetime, my father did not have the means to save up to pay for the necessary surgery in the U.S.A., and the government wasn't about to. I understand that the number of patients in similar circumstances has grown to the point where this policy has changed, but the price to the taxpayer is quite high, and the necessary procedures are not available in Canada because of the decaying level of medical technology w.r.t. the U.S.A.
The bottom line is that here was a person who had the means (monies he earned over his working career) to try to save himself from a serious life-threating condition, and was denied this so that others could have basic health care. That is the state playing God, and utterly repugnant to me.
Many faiths (I am agnostic myself, though my wife is Baha'i), encourage a 10% tithe and 10% personal saving rates, and that I could tolerate, to help my fellows. But an unbounded government "whatever it takes" attitude leads to disaster.
As for my illness, 106F fevers are nothing to sneeze at, my emergency entry workup showed I was close to death (I had neglected the condition for about ten days before deciding it was serious -- until I entered the hospital my fevers never ranged above 103F), and for the first three days was maxed out on ibuprofin and acetominephin to control the fever, as well as packed in ice a good part of the time (any more ibu or acet and my liver would start to fail), and received broad-spectrum antibiotics via I.V. Infectious disease experts were consulted, and boldily fluid and tissue samples sent to the CDC -- they didn't know WHAT the infection was (and still don't, though menengitis, denge, hanta, and ebola were quickly ruled out). I can attest that I surely felt like I was sick enough to die. I did not get the impression that the tests they did were excessive. Fortunately, Demerol controlled the pain and morphine was not necessary, though the Demerol left me with a partially paralized right leg for about 6 months (one possible side effect -- it goes away in time).
In the true sense, are they really still middle class?
I would say so -- we were at the median of the Bell curve for family income. Some had two incomes instead of our one.
A piece of the shuttle reportedly fell in Plano, TX, a suburb of Dallas (and uncomfortably close to my house in Allen, TX, which I am in the process of selling).
It turns out that it fell through the roof of a condo complex and totally destroyed the unit owned by a friend of my wife. She believes that if she were in the place at the time, she would have been killed.
They have hired a lawyer and are exploring their options -- most insurance policies don't cover falling objects from space.
Yeah, I know "friend of my wife" is rather FOAFish, and I will try to get more details (and perhaps pictures) if possible.
Lots of good points... Gee, and I started an intentional flame thread.
The point about discipline is important: in the U.S., if you are disciplined you can save the necessary funds to protect against financial disaster (i.e. loosing your job and health insurance), whereas in Canada it's moot (and you are probably taxed to the point where you can't anyway).
But, and this is a big "but", the healthcare you can get in the U.S.A is gold-plated compared to what you get in Canada: everyone gets mediocre care in Canada whereas the disciplined get top notch care in the U.S. As a disciplined I prefer the latter.
It effectively costs less in terms of earned dollars because the income tax rates (taking into account deductions not available to average Canadians, like mortgage interest and joint filing) because you have the dollars left over at the end of the day to pay any greater numberical sum (someone quoted US$2400 vs. CA$1000).
Yes, those who lack discipline or a desire to try to improve their situation will suffer for lack of a "guaranteed" safety net: they will be at the mercy of charity. I have found however, that the truely unfortunate (victims of disaster, a string of bad luck, etc.) are cared for very well by private charity -- basically, beyond meeting our own needs, most middle class Americans are extremely generous people and have the means to put that into practice. Welfare bums, are of course, hated, as the parasitic lowlife they are.
So, no, you don't have the guarantees in the U.S.A. that you have in Canada, but the quality of "non-guaranteed" service you get is much better.
Bottom line, some people prefer to take on the risk of greater responsibility for their lives, and reap the commensurate rewards. Such people, like myself, much prefer "the American way".
As for education, I find the public school infrastructure in Canada and instruction techniques bordering on what would be considered child abuse in many American public schools.
Some countries, particularly in Europe, appear to "do socialism better". Perhaps, though I remain skeptical.
Rather than beat the horse dead, I'll only respond to a few points:
I see some of your points but I also think that the balance that is struck in Canada (although not perfect) is still more preferable than what is happening in the US (or can happen there to you).
The U.S.'s biggest problems are (a) money buying power, and (b) litigation gone mad. I still prefer those problems to Canadian tax waste: I recently encountered a social worker who admitted that "80% of her clients" are quite capable of getting off welfare and getting work, but proudly milking the system, and earning more than she does!. Now, her experience may be atypical, but, geez, there's something plain wrong with that picture!
Insurance is one of those funny things, how many people would get a car insurance if they wouldn't be legally required to get one?
The first lawsuit would straighten out that thinking right quick.
I had intimate relations with both the US and the Canadian Health Care System and both worked and did what they were supposed to do, the only difference was that I was $500 out in the US for getting an X-Ray, some painkillers and a crutch while I didn't pay a dime here in Canada.
Perhaps, but that $500 is likely nothing compared to the income taxes you saved. It just looks like a lot at the time -- I've paid a few hundred dollars for kid's doctor's visits and tests on occasion that my insurance didn't cover, but was still better off at the end of the day.
Yes, the thing that happened to your Dad is a sad thing but I seriously doubt that the doctors didn't tell him what they had discovered when they were aware that there was a cure in the US.
I checked. They deliberately didn't tell him. That made me livid.
The middle class in the US is by all accounts disappearing as well, it is a sign of times that the idea always is that people should be responsible for themselves, the government in Ontario tried that too ("Let's privatise Healthcare, like the US does, see how much money we can save.") and they got their ticket, the majority of the people doesn't seem to like that kind of idea. I wonder why if the system is so utterly flawed? Fear?
Fear is a big motivator. And, I disagree that the U.S. middle class is disappearing. Certainly not the way the Canadian middle class has. The U.S.'s big problems are spiralling health-care costs due to what I call over-litigation.
[paraphrasing] Is it really only about money these days?
No, of course not, but it is a good objective measure of standard of living. And, using middle-class standards strikes me as fair comparison, not being overly dollar-focused.
As for Company premium healthcare, ALL the companies I worked for in Canada were offering this as well, they paid for everything that wasn't covered by OHIP and in one job they even paid 100% dental (something you don't even get in Germany).
Canadian "premium" healthcare doesn't even begin to compare to standard U.S. healthcare benefits. I got sick in Chicago, spent a week in the hospital from some unknown illness (106F fevers), three days in monitored care, had every test under the sun (several MRIs, ultrasounds, etc.) -- the bill came to US$25,000 and it didn't cost me a dime out of pocket.
Reality is that in Canada you pay one lump sum with your taxes and with that you also subsidize other people, but in the US (by
In my experience the "nickels and dimes" added up to far less than the lump sum, and the service was better. The Canadian tax-based system is plain inefficient. But, yes, one pays to a lot more suppliers in the states for various things. Paytrust be a good thing for managing things like that.
I think Quality of life is more than just how much money you have in the bank at the end of the day or how big your house is, but maybe I am still too idealistic? Maybe my views change if I have my own family and kids?
Money matters. It isn't so much as to how much is in the bank, but what one's day-to-day lifestyle is. Do you want your kids to go to a good school? Do you want to have a private community pool in a safe neighborhood for the summer? Do you want to have time to do things on the weekends and not have to mow the lawn? The HDTV and DSL might be luxeries but they were considered normal lifestyle choices by the middle class Americans we had as friends and neighbours. A pleasant and comfortable life costs money, and the "normal" standard in the U.S. is much more pleasant and comfortable than the "normal" standard in Canada.
Judging by your CV you're in your late 30's maybe when I am there I see things similar, for now though I tend to disagree.
Well, civil people can disagree. I have no problem with a friendly debate. But, I think you will find that efficient implementation of "essential" social services is almost impossible to attain in any society for very long: the administrative overhead, and monopoly nature of government service, not to mention the "freeloading" that happens, and the expense to police it (if at all) results in a horrible inefficiency. This is not an argument against taxation per se, but a discrediting of it as the means to provide some guaranteed level of properity. I have found, for example, that local taxation initiatives with results clearly visible to the taxed community work far better and far more efficiently that "one size fits all" central planning. It even accomodates some wealth redistribution without killing the "goose that lays the golden egg", vis. the "Robin Hood" school property tax redistripution in and around places like Dallas. But, by remaining fairly local, there is strong citizen pressure for efficiency and accountability -- in other words, it has to be provably better than "everyone for themselves".
Actually I did, I also lived in Europe (that's where I grew up).
I meant live in Canada and the U.S.A. and then decide. Though, your European experience may be telling: from what I've heard they actually practice socialism effectively, without the Canadian waste. Until I spend time there, I remain skeptical, though open-minded.
Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
Car insurance in the U.S.A. cost me US$100 a month for two cars and it is costimg me CA$250 for one. Oh, and one should not factor in an exchange rate for domestically available products or services -- you're paid in the currency you have expenses it, so I'd compare that as $ for $.
Ontario insurerers, it seams, have a hard time understanding the difference between "arrest" (as in, got a ticket), and "conviction" (as in, no, I fought it and won); as well as insurers paying even when one is not at fault.
Dialup and Cable. Don't know the prices for Dialup right now, but cable (with Rogers) is what? 49.95? That is roughly on par with what you would pay in the States, no?
Cable no good. I want my static IP, and can't get DSL where I am. But, to compare: Rogers HD+Internet+everying pack is CA$135 (tax included), and I paid US$125 for DSL (static IP) and HD DirectTV. The CA$135 is a budget buster, where the US$125 (call it even) wasn't because of the higher income tax here.
School Lunch: Okay, again I am probalby snobby but why not cook at home? Granted I am not a fan of eating out but quite frankly after reading "Fastfood Nation" and understanding a bit more about the US Meatindustry I don't think I would want my kids to eat at school.
Cooking at home and using a thermos takes too much time. Healthy, balanced meals cost US$25 a month. Can't beat, wat, $1.20 a day?
Size of Home: Okay I can see where that might be a factor with a family, though I have to say that living in the 'burbs around Toronto is still cheaper than the places I was living in the US (near D.C.). Dallas and Houston I think are rather funny places in the way they get developed and by my understanding your "nice neighbourhood" there can turn into a slum within a year.
That hasn't been my experience. HOA covenents can deal with that (though they can be excessive in some places).
Taxes and Gas: What can I say, I grew up in Europe, looking at my tax burden here I still have to laugh all the way to the bank every payday because of the small (compared to Germany) amount of taxes I pay here. Same goes for the gas, to be able to fill up my Mazda for 40 Bucks (with the high gas prices right now) is cheap to what I paid back in Europe (I was lucky if I got away under 100 bucks).
Granted, but it is cheaper still, relatively speaking, in the U.S.A.: US$13 to fill up my 1990 tbird vs CA$40 to fill up my 1998 Grand Am. Just because something is worse somewhere else does not mean the present situation is as good as it gets.
I'll take it you are not a fan of the "social state" that Canada is?
Oh no. I see more money paying for worse service, for the average middle-class person vs. the U.S.A. You pay for premium health care in the U.S., of course, but your lower income taxes offset that.
Well, here is a small example from a friend of mine: Her mother developed cancer, on her salary she would have never been able to afford the treatment but thanks to the Canadian Health Care System she could.
And she got Canadian-quality health care. She was lucky. My father was diagnosed with an AAA (abdominal aortic anurysm) with a 30% chance recovery rate given the surgical repair techniques available in the U.S. The Canadian doctors didn't even bother telling him. (It was found during hernia repair surgery that he had to pay for). Apparently, there were no Canadian doctors qualified to perform the surgery, so why tell him? This, of course, was a death sentence. (He died in 1999 of this, which is when I did some information seeking). Had he not been taxed as he was, he may have been able to have save enough money to risk the necessary surgery in the U.S.A. The way Canadian doctors are remunerated encourages the best to leave since there is no distinction made between more skilled and less skilled doctors -- payment is the same, i.e. based on procedure (and there are annual quotas to keep provincial budgets in line).
The mother is alive and kicking. By her own account if she would have been in the states she would have been bancrupt by it.
In the U.S.A. she would likely been able to afford health insurance (by virtue of her lower tax rate). Even bankruptcy is better than death.
As for your sons Ultrasound: You can get additional healthinsurance that would cover that, you don't really think that you got it for free in the US, did you? Your company paid for it and that's where it's it, somebody is always paying, nothings for free.
Part of my remuneration consisted of subsidized health insurance -- that is standard with most U.S. professional occupations. But I'd hardly call that "free". As for private insurance for this in Canada, it is one of the things I cannot afford for the high income taxes.
At the end you pay for the things you use, one way or the other, there are no free lunches, and why not pay it via my taxes if after that I can lean back and don't have to worry about it that much anymore?
One very important reason: payment by way of taxes involves three bad things: (a) government choice as to the service you get, (b) a monopoly provider, and (c) administrative overhead. There is serious competition in health care in the U.S. But, as much as I am morally opposed to taxation on principle, it isn't that which bothers me so much.
It's the inefficiency and poor quality of service that I get for my tax dollar. As I said in the introduction to this response, some European nations seem to be efficient at providing social services, though I can not comment from experience. But Canada certainly isn't.
The argument that we have a "kinder and gentler" society that helps the poor and disenfranchised does not wash with me any more -- not when it is at significant expense to the middle class, which should make up the vast majority of society.
Of course, socialism, at least as practiced in Canada, serves to destroy this middle class, leaving the wealthy free to leave, and ranks of the poor swelled by the economic downfall of the middle class.
The bottom line is that, in a vain attempt to "help the poor", we've swelled their ranks, and no longer have a base from which to help the truly needy. I can't even afford to donate to charity any more. In the U.S.A. I routinely give away perfectly running cars (among other donations of goods and money) because I could afford to.
lesse... on an software engineer's salary, I was able to afford:
1. a 3200 square foot home (conversion to m^3 is left as an exercize for the Canadian), with 5 bedrooms, three main living areas (family, living, and game rooms), and a three car garage;
2. two cars;
3. DSL;
4. HD Satellite TV;
5. paid lawn care;
6. hot lunches for my kid at public school;
7. busing to school if I desired it at modest cost;
8. paid pest control;
9. paid monitored alarm system;
10. the disposable income to add structured wiring to my home like this.
Back in Canada, again on a competetive salary doing the same thing, I can barely afford a home 1/2-2/3 the size, my kid can't get a hot lunch in school, barely afford one car (insurance and fuel), and I can barely afford dialup and cable, and certainly not "perks" like paid lawn care, pest control, monitored alarm, etc.
-- this in comparing Dallas to the 'burbs around Toronto.
I won't even get into the far superior health care we had in the U.S. (i.e. biweekly ultrasound monitoring of my son's inflamed intestines while the problem was being treated; better prenatal care for my wife so she would not miscarry yet again).
The big factors affecting it are:
1. ability to split income with a non-working spouse, i.e. "filing jointly" -- traditional families get blasted tax-wise in Canada;
2. deductability of mortgage interest.
"Back home" I see more $$$ going into taxes supposedly to provide ubiquitious "social services", but I obtained far better services in those areas at a lower fraction of my income in the U.S. -- this on what were generally considered middle class wages (one professional supporting a family of four).
Jefferson said "Those that exchange essential liberty for security deserve neither".
Well, if someone wants to make that trade, I don't think it's my place to stop them. But, in Canada, we have a somewhat different situation that can be sumerized thus:
Those that exchange the essential liberties of others for the illusion of their own security deserve the festering rot of Dante's ninth level of Hell, for they hath betrayed their fellows' lives.
Before commenting, please live in both countries for a number of years, and then spout off. Each has its faults, and some doozies, to be sure, but, if I had the chance, I'd trade my Canadian citizenship for American any day -- for all it's arrogance and faults it gets some very basic things right. The spirit of liberty hasn't yet been snuffed out.
If Canada had thought crime, my impressions on my return (seeing that things were far worse than I remembered when I left), would certainly count as high treason.
Credit Check (they claim that it is due to the chance of getting a corporate credit card)
AVOID THESE LIKE THE PLAGUE!
I once worked for a company (and not a small, "having financial trouble" outfit -- well, not while I worked there -- either) that issued corporate AMEX cards to everyone. They made you accept joint responsibility for the cards on the grounds that you had to be responsible for sundry charges that were not work related, and encouraged use of the cards for personal use (I think they got a commission kickback). Sounded fair, right?
Wrong! The problem was that they would bill travel-related expenses to your travel for them on your card, making you jointly responsible for expenses they initiate.
Try getting approval for a bunch of air fare and hotel stays pre-booked before an extended trip for "the man" on your expense report on your return when your signing authority (i.e. manager) is on a 5 week vacation, and Amex demands payment.
Fortunately, fronting the substantian sum for a month was not a financial problem for me (and preserving my credit rating is important), but both Amex and I were not amused -- why sympathizing with my position, they were correct that I was jointly responsible with my employer for the bill, due "on receipt".
The fact that I live in an "employment at will" state doesnt help either.. means i can be fired any time for any thing.
Well, not quite. There are a few forms of illegal discrimination at the U.S. federal level (I assume you mean U.S. state). You can't be legally fired for the colour of your skin, but you can be legally fired for the colour of your eyes.
In my case, in Illinois, I was caught between the "H1Bs can't work more than 40 hours a week" immigration restriction, and "we can fire you if you don't" "at will" employment climate. The impasse led to my leaving (when I expressed this dissatisfaction most vocally) and taking a job elsewhere, having to abandon a Labor Certification already received, and Green Card in progress. The ultimate chain of events led to my having to return to my native Canada, with my American son. Our U.S. middle class lifestyle has been reduced to a Canadian middle class lifestyle -- fairly close to U.S. borderline poverty.
So, while things like agreeing to something you don't think will be a problem for you, even though you object to the invasion of privacy in principle, might seem a minor suspention of principles at the moment, that choice may come back to haunt you.
yamla posteth: "...Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu... is good enough for me."
Oh yeah. That is one book that separates the C++ hard-core hackers from the wannabes.
The hard-code programmer will read that book and smile.
The wannabe will run away, crying for mother.
Best US$40 I spent recently. If you're serious about advanced C++ (and I don't use the word advanced lightly -- templates form much of the foundation of what he does, and, are not represented as an "advanced" technique in and of themselves, for example), I recommend it highly. The introductory section on "Techniques" alone is worth the price of the book -- it will leave you smacking your head thinking, "What a cool language hack!"
As an appetizer, his discussion of type traits helps answer the age old question of what to do when you need to abstract semantics, and/or deal with the fact that you have a particularly efficient implementation of a given interface for restricted semantics on a given platform, and still want to write portable code that accomodates it.
I hear that compilers secretly refer to Alexandrescu as the Marquis de Sade.
Of course, this has other undersirable consequences, but I could find nothing in your list of requirements that covered preserving the life of the hiccup victim.
black humour, n.: a form of humour that pokes fun at sad, or otherwise undesired occurances (i.e. "NASA: Need Another Seven Astronauts," and "You can always count on NASA to put on a great fireworks show.")
Since the short jumps were not as capable as long jumps, you moved subroutines around to best position the size of the jumps (or calls) -- often could save a few bytes just by reordering portions of the code.
Yup, yup.:-)
Sometimes you'd get lucky and a whole bunch of long branches (calls) would cascade down to short ones by reordering.
IIRC, there was also an "ultra short" relative addressing mode, limited to 5 bits or so where the offset was part of the instruction. Maybe I'm thinking of a different CPU.
I took a 3rd year undergrad course in microprocessor operating systems in the spring of 1982. Trouble was that the course required a working hard disk driver for the new 10 Mb drive connected to a TSC Flex/09 system... and there was none -- the course was slated to be cancelled for lack of this to "explore". Well, I needed that course to graduate with honours in 1982. Prof agreed to give me an "A+" if I wrote the driver in time for the course to start (i.e. over the Christmas holidays) (well, pro forma I had to do some course work so we agreed I'd write two term papers on uP topics of my choosing as well). Long story short: I wrote the driver, the course was not cancelled, I got my A+, and graduated with honours (missed graduating summa cum laude by 0.3 fscking % over 3 years, though).
...complete with SEX, and BRA instructions (Sign EXtend, and BRanch Always -- of course, in the interest of an orthogonal instruction set you had LBRA (Long BRanch Always), as well as BRN, and LBRN (... BRanch Never) -- rather goofy NOPs really, but great for timing loops. Oh yeah, there was also a JMP (JuMP) instruction, if ya dina' mind the 'bsolute addressin'.
I once hacked together a "multi-line BBS expansion board for an Apple ][" that was 6809 based in 17 chips: 6809, 6883 DRAM controller (two banks of 32K), 2 64Kx4 DRAM chips, a 32K EPROM, three PALs (mostly address decoding), 4 2681 DUARTS (one on the Apple side of the bus, one on the 6809 side for a serial link between them, leaving a spare serial port on the apple side and five for modems on the 6809 side, and buffering chips for a fully independent backplane (separate from the Apple bus).
Coded the whole damn thing in assembler too.
Man, those days were fun! I think I still have that board (wire-wrapped, of course) for posterity. I remember the 6502 had this wierd read after write which didn't jive well with the 2681, so I had to disable odd address reads in the memory space of the card from the Apple side.
we can not sacrifice the truth of the law because it suits us to do harm to someone that does "evil", because the definition of evil is so easily changed and you may soon find that people find your practices evil and that you will find yourself behind bars
Yes, of course. But, "the law" is subject to interpretation all the time, with regard to determining things like what a "reasonable person" would think. That's what judges are for.
Of course, it's risky placing significant wealth at risk over what some judge would consider what a "reasonable person" would think. That's why we have contracts... to spell things out ever so precisely, carefully, dotting the t's and crossing the i's, or, er, whatever.
But, it is impractical to write contracts for everything. When I buy a chocolate bar at a convenience store, I do not draw up a contract with the store owner over the price, have both of us sign it, pay, take the bar, and leave. I drop the appropriate amount of money on the counter, note that he acknowledges this, take the bar and leave. It would do him no good to charge me with theft because the chocolate bar listed at $1.00 was really offered at $1.25. I acted as a reasonable person, and, for the amount of the cost of a chocolate bar, I am willing to risk that a judge would agree. Even if he didn't, I'd doubt that a criminal charge of theft would stick.
I would love to see the licence requirements of these Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logos. Then I will believe what you said, but unlike truth, what you said is merely assumed truth untill you supply us with real facts. Like what CDs have copyrights and this logo, and supply us with the ability to read the license bound by these logos.
Fair enough.
I don't have the license text handy, but I do have references to published accounts of Philips being upset about copyprotected CDs not being CDs and threats to disallow permission of the logo on such disks. Sorry, best I could find on short notice.
First, look here. Yeah, it's in German, but there was a whole Slasdot writeup and comentary on it here.
As for what CDs have the logo, gee, I don't know of any that don't have it, though I have hears rumours of producers of copyprotected "CD's" being willing to drop the logo and rely on recognition of "flat, shiny disks with music" as "CDs".
How exactly is it fraud, Fraud would imply that somewhere on the label it said "This is a regular CD" or something to that extent, because you assume a CD is a regular CD does not make it fraud if it isn't.
Good question. There are two answers.
First, the Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logo (used under license) is an indication of complience to certain standards that do not support such crippled disks. To use that logo on a crippled disk is (a) a violation of the logo license (according to Philips, at least), and (b) fraud.
This leads to the second answer. You may be asking, "Yes, but how exactly is it deceitful?". The consumer did not contract as to what that logo meant, so why should the supplied be held to that standard? The law generally deals with what "a reasonable person" would understand, in the absence of a specific agreement (contract). After years of purchasing unencumbered CDs, a "reasonable person" would assume that something that looks like a CD, is labeled as a CD, is sold as a CD, is, in fact, a CD, as he understands it, i.e. unencumbered. The logo, in fact, is meant to butress this understanding. Selling a crippled CD without labelling to indicate that it is crippled is fraud, pure and simple. Even if the "CD/compacd disk" logo were missing, you could probably argue sucessfully that it is fraud, simply because "a reasonable person" will presume a shiny flat disk with music on it is a CD, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise.
The danger, though, is that "a reasonable person" may not know just how encumbered or unencumbered certain future media are, and so will will be oblivious to the fact that his fair use rights are eroded further and further over time. CDs just came at a juncture where digital copying was still difficult enough that digital piracy wasn't a big issue, so little protection. DAT decks, if you recall, had to have SCMS: Serial Copy Managament System, which permitted only one copy from a digital source -- the watermarking alternative pushed by the RIAA in Congress stalled DAT introduction in th U.S. to the point that consumer DAT technology was stillborn.
Your friend is right in that new legislation requiring particular labeling is unjustified force, and thus not appealing to a libertarian.
You are right in that this fraud must be prevented.
All that this requires is existing fraud legislation be brought to bear against these bogus CDs -- libertarians do support opposing the initiatiation of force or fraud.
Now, while legislation can provide safety from fraud allegations to those who would peddle such defective product, clearly marked, it should not require such marking. Here's why: this would lead to government "testing" of CDs to see if they were crippled and in need of such a mark, which costs the producer of the clean CD, harming them economically. Such people do not need such testing -- they know their CDs are clean, and need not fear fraud suits from their customers.
Having a copy to keep, or watching it once on PPV for the same price... Hmm, that's a tough one.
I vote for watching it once on PPV for the same price...
... because it's the same as having a copy to keep, no? I mean that's how I get the copy to keep, no?
Surely we shouldn't have to suffer with the physical bulk of VHS tapes or DVD disks if we have other ways of backing up the entertainment data for which we have paid for the right to view.
Heck, you want me to deal with a bulky tape or DVD, particularly one encumbered by some silly anti-piracy measure? Offer it at a far LOWER PRICE than something streamed that I can archive for my own future use in the manner in which I desire. I guess if the DVD or VHS tape is already so unencumbered, I might pay a small premium over the PPV broadcast, just for the media, but really, I don't want all that bulk, and I can't see how anyone else would: VHS tapes and DVDs should really be interchange media and that's about it, not used for personal entertainment content storage.
The only reason the VHS tape or DVD is more desirable than a PPV broadcast (which really is pre-paid VOD since the "per view" part really is a joke), is because of the artificial encumberances put on PPV broadcasts making it difficult to record them for those that don't know how (i.e. most people).
There are stores that sell bottled water where you bring your own bottle (well multi-gallon plastic container), and will sell you the bottle too, if you don't have one. Your first purchase include the bottle and subsequent purchases are refils, until the bottle becomes too old or scuzzy (NO! Not THAT SCSI) to use. Entertainment content should be sold the same way, perhaps custom encrypted to limited playback devices to keep the DRM-folks happy, but that's about it.
Sigh. I guess the world really is fucked, and not in a good way.
If there is a serious, deliberate, and successful attempt to mislead someone into what the terms of a contract means, the contract is very rarely valid.
Indeed.
While IANALANHTNO (I Am Not A Lawyer And Never Hope To Need One) one of the most important aspects of a contract (written or verbal, express or implied) is that there be a meeting of minds, i.e. all parties agreeing to what the contract means. Deceptive practices remove this and the issue reduces to "without a meeting of minds it's as if there NEVER was a contract at all."
You want 1+ GB files in your email inbox?!? FTP isn't a great option either.
1 GB isn't a lot if you're expecting it. Alternately, a pointer to a location to suck the file from would work.
Yep, they're so proprietary, that I can connect my ReplayTV to my PC using DVArchive
I was referring to the schedule data, not the DV interface.
Um, one of the three virtues of a programmer (according to the Great Wall) is laziness.. reuse the code, or at least use what is useful and given to you (or the functionality provided by your purchase).
Reverse engineering a schedule data format isn't my idea of fun... and, in the U.S., would likely violate the DMCA.
[re C-band] There's probably not a big enough market for this yet.
Right, so make it easy for me to provide C-band schedules if I'm interested.
Either give me a video recorder, or a schedule service, or both, but in a way that I can provide my own schedule data.
The present situation is like a VCR with VCR+ but only partial VCR+ numbers listed, so you can't record anything without a VCR+ number.
Me: Gimme a box that take RF in, a spec of what to tune, and when, and MPEG2 over IP over Cat5e out.
Okay, here's a ReplayTV with DVArchive on another PC on your LAN (streaming MPEG-2 back and forth)
Fine. That takes care of the MPEG-2 A/V stream, but still falls short on exposing the "record in the future" interface. Frustrating, because it is SO close.
Just pay for the lifetime service, and you won't ever be nagged again.
And if you go bankrupt? Or terminate the service? I'd happily pay for the "lifetime service" IF the service protocol were provided to me so I could scrape tvguide.com and generate my own "local service".
Second, "strong experienced based opinions" is crap
I take exception to this. After all, that is supposed to be the basis of "experience" for which it is worth paying a premium. Maybe they don't pay for experience anymore, though (sure looks that way sometimes).
Yes, things change, and in this industry at a sometimes-painful rate. However, a good problem solver (and a SysAdmin better be one when "strange, impossible" things happen) should be able to look at a problem or requirement, weigh the available options, and choose the best one.
While the options available may change, when the problem or requirement falls into a catagory that is not materially affected by new technology, experience is gold. This does not meen that conventional wisdom shouldn't be challenged when a better idea seams appropriate (and, if it isn't, it should be possible to show why), but it shouldn't be totally ignored either. The good SysAdmin will choose wisely.
From a developer's perspective, I have encountered SysAdmin "control freaks" that got in the way of me doing my job (as in, "I don't care if the product your department is developing is Linux-based, you must run Windows," where the real issue was integration with LAN-resources). I have also encountered those who did things differently than I would, but with damn good reason, usually because any perceived extra "bang" I might get would not justify the complexity "buck" he or she would have to face, and add overhead overall.
The best SysAdmins provide a service, make sure it is available, support it, and will bend somewhat to accomodate slightly different or unusual needs, with commensurately less support (i.e. "yes, you can connect that Linux box to the 'net, just don't do...., and don't expect support beyond IP assignment, NFS filesystem exports, server identifications (DNS, NTP, etc.)).
Sheesh, you can have recordings in your inbox. Select what you want to record, and they'll come in your "inbox". You'd have to do something like that from what you describe anyway.
No. Inbox, as in the same place email goes:/var/spool/mail/ME -- a single ingress point for distribution. That way it matters not if the video comes locally, from a friend, or somewhere on the net. O.K. So, a url to the video instead, and an ftp server.
What does "kinda klunky still" mean? It's video streaming.
Yeah, in a proprietary format to propriatary boxes. And if they all break, what then?
"Tell me how to tell the box what to record and let mo choose the service that will I can subscribe to to get that information in the necessary format to seamlessly integrate with the recorder."
Okay, I'll tell you: you subscribe to their service and they'll give you all of that information seemlessly.
No, they don't -- they give it to the box seamlessly. What if I want to provide my own source of program schedule, like from a source, that their service does not cover? C-band satellite, anyone?
Don't like that option? Want it from a third party? Do you think there's a big enough market for a third party to care about making a compatible guide to download?
Er, TV Guide?
Even if there was, what's wrong with subscribing through the same company from whom you bought the PVR?
They may not provide programming information for the sources I'm interested in.
That is mindless, "nothing will come between me and my free speech/anti-DRM rights" thinking.
Hardly, there are serious technical deficiencies with a closed system.
Ever hear the coding mantra, "Do one thing well". Gimme a box that take RF in, a spec of what to tune, and when, and MPEG2 over IP over Cat5e out.
As others have mentioned, one can do this with a PC, and an appropriate video card (and I have considered this), but I'd really like tighter intergration of the TV to MPEG2 over IP thing (think multicast on the home LAN instead of all that RG-6/U cable).
Let me get this straight.. you want one option of pricing instead of two? You can have your "unbundled" price... 400 bucks.
No, I want the unbundled option as primary. If you wanna flog a service to me too, that's fine. As long as I'm not forced into subscribing to it, or getting nagged when I don't.
If I were a PVR manufacturer, you're the type of consumer I could care less whether I pleased.. because it's just not possible.
It certainly IS possible, because people do roll their own. Perhaps the reason that PVRs haven't taken off is because they're too much like the kitchen sink: an integrated unit that in inflexible and does nothing well.
Er, you don't understand (thought that may be my fault). TV input should be DVI, or at the very least component video. I have no intention of losing even DTV 480p quality by RF-modulating it. Distribution to set-top boxes would be via Cat5e not RG-6/U.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes. But that would illustrate that the system fails, and if the failure is not headed off, people will actually die. Rather serious failure there.
An acceptable change would involve tracking how much was paid and how much consumed for government services, and, as long as you had a credit, the state would always pay for your "essential" needs -- i.e. if you paid $1,000,000 over 20 years in taxes, consumed $250,000 in services and needed $500,000 to pay for a life-saving operation, the state should pay up. This can be funded several ways: 1) the state purchases premium health insurance for those who have a large tax credit; 2) if the credit does not earn interest (which it should), it really is an interest-free loan to the state, and should be enough to carry wealth redistribution to help the destitute.
Bottom line, is that the Canadian system is far too generous to free loaders, and inefficient in terms of administrative overhead.
In the U.S.A., since health care is very much a personal responsibility, people have the opportunity to save and purchase insurance to cover medical disaster. Those that do are not at the mercy of the state.
Note though that not all of his taxes go to healthcare, they cover other things as well (e.g. Education).
No, but a quick comparison of what he paid in taxes in Canada, and what he would have paid in the U.S.A. over his life, would show that he'd have more than enough to cover the surgery that might have saved his life. Of course, he had lived to a decent age and might wanted to leave a larger inheritance, given the poor odds even with surgery, but life and death choices should be left to sound-minded individuals and not the state.
It's not only what you bring home but also what kind of assetts you have. A mortage would have to be counted AGAINST your assets, you don't own the house, so do car loans etc. etc.
So even if someone lives in a nice neighbourhood and "has" all the things they might not really "have" it at all. Just because it shines doesn't mean it is gold.
No, most homes were modestly mortgaged (not more than 75%), so asset-wise we were not rich. That was my point: middle class folks with modest assets could, nevertheless, live a comfortable life, and build equity in nice homes. The "barrier to entry" to that in Canada is far higher for the tax structure.
If you say employees are "fungible resources", you are suggesting that one can do any work of another, and there is nothing to distinguish individuals. I suppose that may be true in some circumstances (garment industry sweatshops, for example), but would consider that attitude as leading toward nightmarish working conditions.
Plague, n.: See avoid.
A way to deal with this would be to make sure that such offenders are prosecuted and kicked out of the program, but should because of those bad apples the people who really need it be kicked to the curb?
That's the sensible German in you talking :-). That doesn't happen for several reasons: there are so many abusing the system that they represent a significant voting block, and get very militant, vocal, and demonstrative, when anything is threatened to be taken away.
This is gross neglicence(sp?) on the part of the doctors and as such they shouldn't be allowed to treat patients anymore. That they did that though I wouldn't necessarily blame on the systems. There have studies been done in the US that made it clear that there are doctors out there who only act on their own financial interrest as well.
From what I learned it was policy to not inform patients who had no hope of treatment in Canada, or who could not afford treatment elsewhere.
Because of the high taxes he paid over his lifetime, my father did not have the means to save up to pay for the necessary surgery in the U.S.A., and the government wasn't about to. I understand that the number of patients in similar circumstances has grown to the point where this policy has changed, but the price to the taxpayer is quite high, and the necessary procedures are not available in Canada because of the decaying level of medical technology w.r.t. the U.S.A.
The bottom line is that here was a person who had the means (monies he earned over his working career) to try to save himself from a serious life-threating condition, and was denied this so that others could have basic health care. That is the state playing God, and utterly repugnant to me.
Many faiths (I am agnostic myself, though my wife is Baha'i), encourage a 10% tithe and 10% personal saving rates, and that I could tolerate, to help my fellows. But an unbounded government "whatever it takes" attitude leads to disaster.
As for my illness, 106F fevers are nothing to sneeze at, my emergency entry workup showed I was close to death (I had neglected the condition for about ten days before deciding it was serious -- until I entered the hospital my fevers never ranged above 103F), and for the first three days was maxed out on ibuprofin and acetominephin to control the fever, as well as packed in ice a good part of the time (any more ibu or acet and my liver would start to fail), and received broad-spectrum antibiotics via I.V. Infectious disease experts were consulted, and boldily fluid and tissue samples sent to the CDC -- they didn't know WHAT the infection was (and still don't, though menengitis, denge, hanta, and ebola were quickly ruled out). I can attest that I surely felt like I was sick enough to die. I did not get the impression that the tests they did were excessive. Fortunately, Demerol controlled the pain and morphine was not necessary, though the Demerol left me with a partially paralized right leg for about 6 months (one possible side effect -- it goes away in time).
In the true sense, are they really still middle class?
I would say so -- we were at the median of the Bell curve for family income. Some had two incomes instead of our one.
It turns out that it fell through the roof of a condo complex and totally destroyed the unit owned by a friend of my wife. She believes that if she were in the place at the time, she would have been killed.
They have hired a lawyer and are exploring their options -- most insurance policies don't cover falling objects from space.
Yeah, I know "friend of my wife" is rather FOAFish, and I will try to get more details (and perhaps pictures) if possible.
The point about discipline is important: in the U.S., if you are disciplined you can save the necessary funds to protect against financial disaster (i.e. loosing your job and health insurance), whereas in Canada it's moot (and you are probably taxed to the point where you can't anyway).
But, and this is a big "but", the healthcare you can get in the U.S.A is gold-plated compared to what you get in Canada: everyone gets mediocre care in Canada whereas the disciplined get top notch care in the U.S. As a disciplined I prefer the latter.
It effectively costs less in terms of earned dollars because the income tax rates (taking into account deductions not available to average Canadians, like mortgage interest and joint filing) because you have the dollars left over at the end of the day to pay any greater numberical sum (someone quoted US$2400 vs. CA$1000).
Yes, those who lack discipline or a desire to try to improve their situation will suffer for lack of a "guaranteed" safety net: they will be at the mercy of charity. I have found however, that the truely unfortunate (victims of disaster, a string of bad luck, etc.) are cared for very well by private charity -- basically, beyond meeting our own needs, most middle class Americans are extremely generous people and have the means to put that into practice. Welfare bums, are of course, hated, as the parasitic lowlife they are. So, no, you don't have the guarantees in the U.S.A. that you have in Canada, but the quality of "non-guaranteed" service you get is much better.
Bottom line, some people prefer to take on the risk of greater responsibility for their lives, and reap the commensurate rewards. Such people, like myself, much prefer "the American way".
As for education, I find the public school infrastructure in Canada and instruction techniques bordering on what would be considered child abuse in many American public schools.
Some countries, particularly in Europe, appear to "do socialism better". Perhaps, though I remain skeptical.
I see some of your points but I also think that the balance that is struck in Canada (although not perfect) is still more preferable than what is happening in the US (or can happen there to you).
The U.S.'s biggest problems are (a) money buying power, and (b) litigation gone mad. I still prefer those problems to Canadian tax waste: I recently encountered a social worker who admitted that "80% of her clients" are quite capable of getting off welfare and getting work, but proudly milking the system, and earning more than she does!. Now, her experience may be atypical, but, geez, there's something plain wrong with that picture!
Insurance is one of those funny things, how many people would get a car insurance if they wouldn't be legally required to get one?
The first lawsuit would straighten out that thinking right quick.
I had intimate relations with both the US and the Canadian Health Care System and both worked and did what they were supposed to do, the only difference was that I was $500 out in the US for getting an X-Ray, some painkillers and a crutch while I didn't pay a dime here in Canada.
Perhaps, but that $500 is likely nothing compared to the income taxes you saved. It just looks like a lot at the time -- I've paid a few hundred dollars for kid's doctor's visits and tests on occasion that my insurance didn't cover, but was still better off at the end of the day.
Yes, the thing that happened to your Dad is a sad thing but I seriously doubt that the doctors didn't tell him what they had discovered when they were aware that there was a cure in the US.
I checked. They deliberately didn't tell him. That made me livid.
The middle class in the US is by all accounts disappearing as well, it is a sign of times that the idea always is that people should be responsible for themselves, the government in Ontario tried that too ("Let's privatise Healthcare, like the US does, see how much money we can save.") and they got their ticket, the majority of the people doesn't seem to like that kind of idea. I wonder why if the system is so utterly flawed? Fear?
Fear is a big motivator. And, I disagree that the U.S. middle class is disappearing. Certainly not the way the Canadian middle class has. The U.S.'s big problems are spiralling health-care costs due to what I call over-litigation.
[paraphrasing] Is it really only about money these days?
No, of course not, but it is a good objective measure of standard of living. And, using middle-class standards strikes me as fair comparison, not being overly dollar-focused.
As for Company premium healthcare, ALL the companies I worked for in Canada were offering this as well, they paid for everything that wasn't covered by OHIP and in one job they even paid 100% dental (something you don't even get in Germany).
Canadian "premium" healthcare doesn't even begin to compare to standard U.S. healthcare benefits. I got sick in Chicago, spent a week in the hospital from some unknown illness (106F fevers), three days in monitored care, had every test under the sun (several MRIs, ultrasounds, etc.) -- the bill came to US$25,000 and it didn't cost me a dime out of pocket.
Reality is that in Canada you pay one lump sum with your taxes and with that you also subsidize other people, but in the US (by
In my experience the "nickels and dimes" added up to far less than the lump sum, and the service was better. The Canadian tax-based system is plain inefficient. But, yes, one pays to a lot more suppliers in the states for various things. Paytrust be a good thing for managing things like that.
I think Quality of life is more than just how much money you have in the bank at the end of the day or how big your house is, but maybe I am still too idealistic? Maybe my views change if I have my own family and kids?
Money matters. It isn't so much as to how much is in the bank, but what one's day-to-day lifestyle is. Do you want your kids to go to a good school? Do you want to have a private community pool in a safe neighborhood for the summer? Do you want to have time to do things on the weekends and not have to mow the lawn? The HDTV and DSL might be luxeries but they were considered normal lifestyle choices by the middle class Americans we had as friends and neighbours. A pleasant and comfortable life costs money, and the "normal" standard in the U.S. is much more pleasant and comfortable than the "normal" standard in Canada.
Judging by your CV you're in your late 30's maybe when I am there I see things similar, for now though I tend to disagree.
Well, civil people can disagree. I have no problem with a friendly debate. But, I think you will find that efficient implementation of "essential" social services is almost impossible to attain in any society for very long: the administrative overhead, and monopoly nature of government service, not to mention the "freeloading" that happens, and the expense to police it (if at all) results in a horrible inefficiency. This is not an argument against taxation per se, but a discrediting of it as the means to provide some guaranteed level of properity. I have found, for example, that local taxation initiatives with results clearly visible to the taxed community work far better and far more efficiently that "one size fits all" central planning. It even accomodates some wealth redistribution without killing the "goose that lays the golden egg", vis. the "Robin Hood" school property tax redistripution in and around places like Dallas. But, by remaining fairly local, there is strong citizen pressure for efficiency and accountability -- in other words, it has to be provably better than "everyone for themselves".
I meant live in Canada and the U.S.A. and then decide. Though, your European experience may be telling: from what I've heard they actually practice socialism effectively, without the Canadian waste. Until I spend time there, I remain skeptical, though open-minded.
Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
Car insurance in the U.S.A. cost me US$100 a month for two cars and it is costimg me CA$250 for one. Oh, and one should not factor in an exchange rate for domestically available products or services -- you're paid in the currency you have expenses it, so I'd compare that as $ for $. Ontario insurerers, it seams, have a hard time understanding the difference between "arrest" (as in, got a ticket), and "conviction" (as in, no, I fought it and won); as well as insurers paying even when one is not at fault.
Dialup and Cable. Don't know the prices for Dialup right now, but cable (with Rogers) is what? 49.95? That is roughly on par with what you would pay in the States, no?
Cable no good. I want my static IP, and can't get DSL where I am. But, to compare: Rogers HD+Internet+everying pack is CA$135 (tax included), and I paid US$125 for DSL (static IP) and HD DirectTV. The CA$135 is a budget buster, where the US$125 (call it even) wasn't because of the higher income tax here.
School Lunch: Okay, again I am probalby snobby but why not cook at home? Granted I am not a fan of eating out but quite frankly after reading "Fastfood Nation" and understanding a bit more about the US Meatindustry I don't think I would want my kids to eat at school.
Cooking at home and using a thermos takes too much time. Healthy, balanced meals cost US$25 a month. Can't beat, wat, $1.20 a day?
Size of Home: Okay I can see where that might be a factor with a family, though I have to say that living in the 'burbs around Toronto is still cheaper than the places I was living in the US (near D.C.). Dallas and Houston I think are rather funny places in the way they get developed and by my understanding your "nice neighbourhood" there can turn into a slum within a year.
That hasn't been my experience. HOA covenents can deal with that (though they can be excessive in some places).
Taxes and Gas: What can I say, I grew up in Europe, looking at my tax burden here I still have to laugh all the way to the bank every payday because of the small (compared to Germany) amount of taxes I pay here. Same goes for the gas, to be able to fill up my Mazda for 40 Bucks (with the high gas prices right now) is cheap to what I paid back in Europe (I was lucky if I got away under 100 bucks).
Granted, but it is cheaper still, relatively speaking, in the U.S.A.: US$13 to fill up my 1990 tbird vs CA$40 to fill up my 1998 Grand Am. Just because something is worse somewhere else does not mean the present situation is as good as it gets.
I'll take it you are not a fan of the "social state" that Canada is?
Oh no. I see more money paying for worse service, for the average middle-class person vs. the U.S.A. You pay for premium health care in the U.S., of course, but your lower income taxes offset that.
Well, here is a small example from a friend of mine: Her mother developed cancer, on her salary she would have never been able to afford the treatment but thanks to the Canadian Health Care System she could.
And she got Canadian-quality health care. She was lucky. My father was diagnosed with an AAA (abdominal aortic anurysm) with a 30% chance recovery rate given the surgical repair techniques available in the U.S. The Canadian doctors didn't even bother telling him. (It was found during hernia repair surgery that he had to pay for). Apparently, there were no Canadian doctors qualified to perform the surgery, so why tell him? This, of course, was a death sentence. (He died in 1999 of this, which is when I did some information seeking). Had he not been taxed as he was, he may have been able to have save enough money to risk the necessary surgery in the U.S.A. The way Canadian doctors are remunerated encourages the best to leave since there is no distinction made between more skilled and less skilled doctors -- payment is the same, i.e. based on procedure (and there are annual quotas to keep provincial budgets in line).
The mother is alive and kicking. By her own account if she would have been in the states she would have been bancrupt by it.
In the U.S.A. she would likely been able to afford health insurance (by virtue of her lower tax rate). Even bankruptcy is better than death.
As for your sons Ultrasound: You can get additional healthinsurance that would cover that, you don't really think that you got it for free in the US, did you? Your company paid for it and that's where it's it, somebody is always paying, nothings for free.
Part of my remuneration consisted of subsidized health insurance -- that is standard with most U.S. professional occupations. But I'd hardly call that "free". As for private insurance for this in Canada, it is one of the things I cannot afford for the high income taxes.
At the end you pay for the things you use, one way or the other, there are no free lunches, and why not pay it via my taxes if after that I can lean back and don't have to worry about it that much anymore?
One very important reason: payment by way of taxes involves three bad things: (a) government choice as to the service you get, (b) a monopoly provider, and (c) administrative overhead. There is serious competition in health care in the U.S. But, as much as I am morally opposed to taxation on principle, it isn't that which bothers me so much.
It's the inefficiency and poor quality of service that I get for my tax dollar. As I said in the introduction to this response, some European nations seem to be efficient at providing social services, though I can not comment from experience. But Canada certainly isn't.
The argument that we have a "kinder and gentler" society that helps the poor and disenfranchised does not wash with me any more -- not when it is at significant expense to the middle class, which should make up the vast majority of society.
Of course, socialism, at least as practiced in Canada, serves to destroy this middle class, leaving the wealthy free to leave, and ranks of the poor swelled by the economic downfall of the middle class.
The bottom line is that, in a vain attempt to "help the poor", we've swelled their ranks, and no longer have a base from which to help the truly needy. I can't even afford to donate to charity any more. In the U.S.A. I routinely give away perfectly running cars (among other donations of goods and money) because I could afford to.
1. a 3200 square foot home (conversion to m^3 is left as an exercize for the Canadian), with 5 bedrooms, three main living areas (family, living, and game rooms), and a three car garage;
2. two cars;
3. DSL;
4. HD Satellite TV;
5. paid lawn care;
6. hot lunches for my kid at public school;
7. busing to school if I desired it at modest cost;
8. paid pest control;
9. paid monitored alarm system;
10. the disposable income to add structured wiring to my home like this.
Back in Canada, again on a competetive salary doing the same thing, I can barely afford a home 1/2-2/3 the size, my kid can't get a hot lunch in school, barely afford one car (insurance and fuel), and I can barely afford dialup and cable, and certainly not "perks" like paid lawn care, pest control, monitored alarm, etc.
-- this in comparing Dallas to the 'burbs around Toronto.
I won't even get into the far superior health care we had in the U.S. (i.e. biweekly ultrasound monitoring of my son's inflamed intestines while the problem was being treated; better prenatal care for my wife so she would not miscarry yet again).
The big factors affecting it are:
1. ability to split income with a non-working spouse, i.e. "filing jointly" -- traditional families get blasted tax-wise in Canada;
2. deductability of mortgage interest.
"Back home" I see more $$$ going into taxes supposedly to provide ubiquitious "social services", but I obtained far better services in those areas at a lower fraction of my income in the U.S. -- this on what were generally considered middle class wages (one professional supporting a family of four).
Jefferson said "Those that exchange essential liberty for security deserve neither".
Well, if someone wants to make that trade, I don't think it's my place to stop them. But, in Canada, we have a somewhat different situation that can be sumerized thus:
Those that exchange the essential liberties of others for the illusion of their own security deserve the festering rot of Dante's ninth level of Hell, for they hath betrayed their fellows' lives.
Before commenting, please live in both countries for a number of years, and then spout off. Each has its faults, and some doozies, to be sure, but, if I had the chance, I'd trade my Canadian citizenship for American any day -- for all it's arrogance and faults it gets some very basic things right. The spirit of liberty hasn't yet been snuffed out.
If Canada had thought crime, my impressions on my return (seeing that things were far worse than I remembered when I left), would certainly count as high treason.
AVOID THESE LIKE THE PLAGUE!
I once worked for a company (and not a small, "having financial trouble" outfit -- well, not while I worked there -- either) that issued corporate AMEX cards to everyone. They made you accept joint responsibility for the cards on the grounds that you had to be responsible for sundry charges that were not work related, and encouraged use of the cards for personal use (I think they got a commission kickback). Sounded fair, right?
Wrong! The problem was that they would bill travel-related expenses to your travel for them on your card, making you jointly responsible for expenses they initiate.
Try getting approval for a bunch of air fare and hotel stays pre-booked before an extended trip for "the man" on your expense report on your return when your signing authority (i.e. manager) is on a 5 week vacation, and Amex demands payment.
Fortunately, fronting the substantian sum for a month was not a financial problem for me (and preserving my credit rating is important), but both Amex and I were not amused -- why sympathizing with my position, they were correct that I was jointly responsible with my employer for the bill, due "on receipt".
The fact that I live in an "employment at will" state doesnt help either.. means i can be fired any time for any thing.
Well, not quite. There are a few forms of illegal discrimination at the U.S. federal level (I assume you mean U.S. state). You can't be legally fired for the colour of your skin, but you can be legally fired for the colour of your eyes.
In my case, in Illinois, I was caught between the "H1Bs can't work more than 40 hours a week" immigration restriction, and "we can fire you if you don't" "at will" employment climate. The impasse led to my leaving (when I expressed this dissatisfaction most vocally) and taking a job elsewhere, having to abandon a Labor Certification already received, and Green Card in progress. The ultimate chain of events led to my having to return to my native Canada, with my American son. Our U.S. middle class lifestyle has been reduced to a Canadian middle class lifestyle -- fairly close to U.S. borderline poverty.
So, while things like agreeing to something you don't think will be a problem for you, even though you object to the invasion of privacy in principle, might seem a minor suspention of principles at the moment, that choice may come back to haunt you.
Well, duh! Nothing other than copious parenthesis will satisfy a Lithper so far gone as ye :-)
Oh yeah. That is one book that separates the C++ hard-core hackers from the wannabes.
The hard-code programmer will read that book and smile.
The wannabe will run away, crying for mother.
Best US$40 I spent recently. If you're serious about advanced C++ (and I don't use the word advanced lightly -- templates form much of the foundation of what he does, and, are not represented as an "advanced" technique in and of themselves, for example), I recommend it highly. The introductory section on "Techniques" alone is worth the price of the book -- it will leave you smacking your head thinking, "What a cool language hack!"
As an appetizer, his discussion of type traits helps answer the age old question of what to do when you need to abstract semantics, and/or deal with the fact that you have a particularly efficient implementation of a given interface for restricted semantics on a given platform, and still want to write portable code that accomodates it.
I hear that compilers secretly refer to Alexandrescu as the Marquis de Sade.
A bullet to the back of the head usually works.
Of course, this has other undersirable consequences, but I could find nothing in your list of requirements that covered preserving the life of the hiccup victim.
black humour, n.: a form of humour that pokes fun at sad, or otherwise undesired occurances (i.e. "NASA: Need Another Seven Astronauts," and "You can always count on NASA to put on a great fireworks show.")
Yup, yup. :-)
Sometimes you'd get lucky and a whole bunch of long branches (calls) would cascade down to short ones by reordering.
IIRC, there was also an "ultra short" relative addressing mode, limited to 5 bits or so where the offset was part of the instruction. Maybe I'm thinking of a different CPU.
I took a 3rd year undergrad course in microprocessor operating systems in the spring of 1982. Trouble was that the course required a working hard disk driver for the new 10 Mb drive connected to a TSC Flex/09 system... and there was none -- the course was slated to be cancelled for lack of this to "explore". Well, I needed that course to graduate with honours in 1982. Prof agreed to give me an "A+" if I wrote the driver in time for the course to start (i.e. over the Christmas holidays) (well, pro forma I had to do some course work so we agreed I'd write two term papers on uP topics of my choosing as well). Long story short: I wrote the driver, the course was not cancelled, I got my A+, and graduated with honours (missed graduating summa cum laude by 0.3 fscking % over 3 years, though).
I once hacked together a "multi-line BBS expansion board for an Apple ][" that was 6809 based in 17 chips: 6809, 6883 DRAM controller (two banks of 32K), 2 64Kx4 DRAM chips, a 32K EPROM, three PALs (mostly address decoding), 4 2681 DUARTS (one on the Apple side of the bus, one on the 6809 side for a serial link between them, leaving a spare serial port on the apple side and five for modems on the 6809 side, and buffering chips for a fully independent backplane (separate from the Apple bus).
Coded the whole damn thing in assembler too.
Man, those days were fun! I think I still have that board (wire-wrapped, of course) for posterity. I remember the 6502 had this wierd read after write which didn't jive well with the 2681, so I had to disable odd address reads in the memory space of the card from the Apple side.
Your response is better than mine -- damn that I can't use my mod points to mod you up.
Yes, of course. But, "the law" is subject to interpretation all the time, with regard to determining things like what a "reasonable person" would think. That's what judges are for.
Of course, it's risky placing significant wealth at risk over what some judge would consider what a "reasonable person" would think. That's why we have contracts... to spell things out ever so precisely, carefully, dotting the t's and crossing the i's, or, er, whatever.
But, it is impractical to write contracts for everything. When I buy a chocolate bar at a convenience store, I do not draw up a contract with the store owner over the price, have both of us sign it, pay, take the bar, and leave. I drop the appropriate amount of money on the counter, note that he acknowledges this, take the bar and leave. It would do him no good to charge me with theft because the chocolate bar listed at $1.00 was really offered at $1.25. I acted as a reasonable person, and, for the amount of the cost of a chocolate bar, I am willing to risk that a judge would agree. Even if he didn't, I'd doubt that a criminal charge of theft would stick.
Fair enough.
I don't have the license text handy, but I do have references to published accounts of Philips being upset about copyprotected CDs not being CDs and threats to disallow permission of the logo on such disks. Sorry, best I could find on short notice.
First, look here. Yeah, it's in German, but there was a whole Slasdot writeup and comentary on it here.
As for what CDs have the logo, gee, I don't know of any that don't have it, though I have hears rumours of producers of copyprotected "CD's" being willing to drop the logo and rely on recognition of "flat, shiny disks with music" as "CDs".
Good question. There are two answers.
First, the Philips/Sony "CD/CompactDisk" logo (used under license) is an indication of complience to certain standards that do not support such crippled disks. To use that logo on a crippled disk is (a) a violation of the logo license (according to Philips, at least), and (b) fraud.
This leads to the second answer. You may be asking, "Yes, but how exactly is it deceitful?". The consumer did not contract as to what that logo meant, so why should the supplied be held to that standard? The law generally deals with what "a reasonable person" would understand, in the absence of a specific agreement (contract). After years of purchasing unencumbered CDs, a "reasonable person" would assume that something that looks like a CD, is labeled as a CD, is sold as a CD, is, in fact, a CD, as he understands it, i.e. unencumbered. The logo, in fact, is meant to butress this understanding. Selling a crippled CD without labelling to indicate that it is crippled is fraud, pure and simple. Even if the "CD/compacd disk" logo were missing, you could probably argue sucessfully that it is fraud, simply because "a reasonable person" will presume a shiny flat disk with music on it is a CD, in the absence of anything to suggest otherwise.
The danger, though, is that "a reasonable person" may not know just how encumbered or unencumbered certain future media are, and so will will be oblivious to the fact that his fair use rights are eroded further and further over time. CDs just came at a juncture where digital copying was still difficult enough that digital piracy wasn't a big issue, so little protection. DAT decks, if you recall, had to have SCMS: Serial Copy Managament System, which permitted only one copy from a digital source -- the watermarking alternative pushed by the RIAA in Congress stalled DAT introduction in th U.S. to the point that consumer DAT technology was stillborn.
You are right in that this fraud must be prevented.
All that this requires is existing fraud legislation be brought to bear against these bogus CDs -- libertarians do support opposing the initiatiation of force or fraud.
Now, while legislation can provide safety from fraud allegations to those who would peddle such defective product, clearly marked, it should not require such marking. Here's why: this would lead to government "testing" of CDs to see if they were crippled and in need of such a mark, which costs the producer of the clean CD, harming them economically. Such people do not need such testing -- they know their CDs are clean, and need not fear fraud suits from their customers.
I vote for watching it once on PPV for the same price...
Surely we shouldn't have to suffer with the physical bulk of VHS tapes or DVD disks if we have other ways of backing up the entertainment data for which we have paid for the right to view.
Heck, you want me to deal with a bulky tape or DVD, particularly one encumbered by some silly anti-piracy measure? Offer it at a far LOWER PRICE than something streamed that I can archive for my own future use in the manner in which I desire. I guess if the DVD or VHS tape is already so unencumbered, I might pay a small premium over the PPV broadcast, just for the media, but really, I don't want all that bulk, and I can't see how anyone else would: VHS tapes and DVDs should really be interchange media and that's about it, not used for personal entertainment content storage.
The only reason the VHS tape or DVD is more desirable than a PPV broadcast (which really is pre-paid VOD since the "per view" part really is a joke), is because of the artificial encumberances put on PPV broadcasts making it difficult to record them for those that don't know how (i.e. most people).
There are stores that sell bottled water where you bring your own bottle (well multi-gallon plastic container), and will sell you the bottle too, if you don't have one. Your first purchase include the bottle and subsequent purchases are refils, until the bottle becomes too old or scuzzy (NO! Not THAT SCSI) to use. Entertainment content should be sold the same way, perhaps custom encrypted to limited playback devices to keep the DRM-folks happy, but that's about it.
Sigh. I guess the world really is fucked, and not in a good way.
Indeed.
While IANALANHTNO (I Am Not A Lawyer And Never Hope To Need One) one of the most important aspects of a contract (written or verbal, express or implied) is that there be a meeting of minds, i.e. all parties agreeing to what the contract means. Deceptive practices remove this and the issue reduces to "without a meeting of minds it's as if there NEVER was a contract at all."
1 GB isn't a lot if you're expecting it. Alternately, a pointer to a location to suck the file from would work.
Yep, they're so proprietary, that I can connect my ReplayTV to my PC using DVArchive
I was referring to the schedule data, not the DV interface.
Um, one of the three virtues of a programmer (according to the Great Wall) is laziness.. reuse the code, or at least use what is useful and given to you (or the functionality provided by your purchase).
Reverse engineering a schedule data format isn't my idea of fun... and, in the U.S., would likely violate the DMCA.
[re C-band] There's probably not a big enough market for this yet.
Right, so make it easy for me to provide C-band schedules if I'm interested.
Either give me a video recorder, or a schedule service, or both, but in a way that I can provide my own schedule data.
The present situation is like a VCR with VCR+ but only partial VCR+ numbers listed, so you can't record anything without a VCR+ number.
Me: Gimme a box that take RF in, a spec of what to tune, and when, and MPEG2 over IP over Cat5e out.
Okay, here's a ReplayTV with DVArchive on another PC on your LAN (streaming MPEG-2 back and forth)
Fine. That takes care of the MPEG-2 A/V stream, but still falls short on exposing the "record in the future" interface. Frustrating, because it is SO close.
Just pay for the lifetime service, and you won't ever be nagged again.
And if you go bankrupt? Or terminate the service? I'd happily pay for the "lifetime service" IF the service protocol were provided to me so I could scrape tvguide.com and generate my own "local service".
I take exception to this. After all, that is supposed to be the basis of "experience" for which it is worth paying a premium. Maybe they don't pay for experience anymore, though (sure looks that way sometimes).
Yes, things change, and in this industry at a sometimes-painful rate. However, a good problem solver (and a SysAdmin better be one when "strange, impossible" things happen) should be able to look at a problem or requirement, weigh the available options, and choose the best one.
While the options available may change, when the problem or requirement falls into a catagory that is not materially affected by new technology, experience is gold. This does not meen that conventional wisdom shouldn't be challenged when a better idea seams appropriate (and, if it isn't, it should be possible to show why), but it shouldn't be totally ignored either. The good SysAdmin will choose wisely.
From a developer's perspective, I have encountered SysAdmin "control freaks" that got in the way of me doing my job (as in, "I don't care if the product your department is developing is Linux-based, you must run Windows," where the real issue was integration with LAN-resources). I have also encountered those who did things differently than I would, but with damn good reason, usually because any perceived extra "bang" I might get would not justify the complexity "buck" he or she would have to face, and add overhead overall.
The best SysAdmins provide a service, make sure it is available, support it, and will bend somewhat to accomodate slightly different or unusual needs, with commensurately less support (i.e. "yes, you can connect that Linux box to the 'net, just don't do ...., and don't expect support beyond IP assignment, NFS filesystem exports, server identifications (DNS, NTP, etc.)).
No. Inbox, as in the same place email goes: /var/spool/mail/ME -- a single ingress point for distribution. That way it matters not if the video comes locally, from a friend, or somewhere on the net. O.K. So, a url to the video instead, and an ftp server.
What does "kinda klunky still" mean? It's video streaming.
Yeah, in a proprietary format to propriatary boxes. And if they all break, what then?
"Tell me how to tell the box what to record and let mo choose the service that will I can subscribe to to get that information in the necessary format to seamlessly integrate with the recorder."
Okay, I'll tell you: you subscribe to their service and they'll give you all of that information seemlessly.
No, they don't -- they give it to the box seamlessly. What if I want to provide my own source of program schedule, like from a source, that their service does not cover? C-band satellite, anyone?
Don't like that option? Want it from a third party? Do you think there's a big enough market for a third party to care about making a compatible guide to download?
Er, TV Guide?
Even if there was, what's wrong with subscribing through the same company from whom you bought the PVR?
They may not provide programming information for the sources I'm interested in.
That is mindless, "nothing will come between me and my free speech/anti-DRM rights" thinking.
Hardly, there are serious technical deficiencies with a closed system.
Ever hear the coding mantra, "Do one thing well". Gimme a box that take RF in, a spec of what to tune, and when, and MPEG2 over IP over Cat5e out.
As others have mentioned, one can do this with a PC, and an appropriate video card (and I have considered this), but I'd really like tighter intergration of the TV to MPEG2 over IP thing (think multicast on the home LAN instead of all that RG-6/U cable).
Let me get this straight.. you want one option of pricing instead of two? You can have your "unbundled" price... 400 bucks.
No, I want the unbundled option as primary. If you wanna flog a service to me too, that's fine. As long as I'm not forced into subscribing to it, or getting nagged when I don't.
If I were a PVR manufacturer, you're the type of consumer I could care less whether I pleased.. because it's just not possible.
It certainly IS possible, because people do roll their own. Perhaps the reason that PVRs haven't taken off is because they're too much like the kitchen sink: an integrated unit that in inflexible and does nothing well.
Er, you don't understand (thought that may be my fault). TV input should be DVI, or at the very least component video. I have no intention of losing even DTV 480p quality by RF-modulating it. Distribution to set-top boxes would be via Cat5e not RG-6/U.