...as the Katz that cannot see. He writes "Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors." 1. The site makes no pretence of being a full or comprehensive view of censorship around the world. 2. The site is a US project based on the web. It is not surprising that many examples of US censorship are submitted 3. Even a moment's cursory attention or thought (we could only wish for such a thing) would have led our dear scribbler to the blindingly obvious fact that the US doesn't even get *close* to the top of the censorship list when the following countries and regimes are/have been around: Syria Afghanistan China the USSR Zimbabwe Each of these regimes has/had engaged in systematic and comprehensive efforts to control free speech. The scale of these efforts far outweigh anything seen in the US. Buying a copy of the Talmud in Syria, or hardcore porn in Afghanistan, or looking at a anti-government Tibetan website in China, or reading the Koran in the USSR or listening to the BBC in Zimbabwe--these are all illegal acts. *This* is the sort of censorship that should terrify us.
Sorry to rain on your parade matey, but the tax you're charged doesn't even begin to approach the externalised costs of car usage: NHS, police etc etc. Cars costs us all a bloody fortune.
Buses suffer all of the problems that you mention. But light rail is not a panacea. Buses provide much more thorough coverage than cars (ie they can get you nearer to where you want to go). The best future lies in integrated transport systems that take account and advantage of the peculiar advantages and problems of each type of transport.
No, he was saying that if you could ensure that the true costs of *both* mass transit *and* private cars fell directly on the users, then the former would be cheaper than the latter. He's right, too. And while your personal preference for not living in cities is reasonable and well-argued, with populations becoming increasingly urbanised, it is sensible to look at solutions that meet the needs of cities as well as countryside.
If you're rich, it might be through hard work but it's certainly not through brains. How does a shift from taxing petrol to taxing road use place an increased burden on poor people? What is the basis for suggesting that there will be a disproportionate shift in the burden of taxation? A very large number of poor people in Britain do not have access to cars anyway (startling but true), which makes your entire point moot.
If apple employs people whose reading and comprehension skills are this poor, then they haven't a hope. Go back and check. The poster said Unix. Not Linux. Unix.
Your points are interesting and well-made. I would add a caveat though: google works best with precision. News sites, of course, inform you about what you don't know (with varying degrees of success).
And if he couldn't? You know, because he'd paid for his wife's cancer treatment last year and that ate up his entire life savings? Oh wait, that's not an issue because he should be paying into an insurance fund, right? And if the insurer won't cover the treatment? What then?
Re:The American system is socialized, just less.
on
Movie Review: John Q
·
· Score: 1
Now for a bit of context: the Kaiser study was commissioned by the British (guns and prisons) government. The same government that is attempting some commercialise some health provision in the UK. The study was roundly condemned as being hopelessly flawed. Another study commissioned by the very same government and available at http://www.treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legis lation/wanless/consult_wanless_index.cfm
reviewed the evidence and found that the UK has the most efficient and equitable system in the world. The problems it faces derive from the fact that we Brits are cheap bastards who won't pay adequately for our health care. If we were prepared to pay, say, 10% of GDP for healthcare (ie about 2/3rds what Americans pay in their oh-so-competitive and efficient system) we'd get a system that wasn't just equitable and efficient but also free of queues.
BTW, your statement about government-run systems incentivising over-use is darkly ironic to anyone with even the smallest knowledge of the history of US health systems. For your information, fee-for-service died out in the past 20 years because it was driving usage levels up -- providers were incentivised to provide more. Counter-detailing and PBMs were introduced to tackle those issues in drug dispensing. It's not worked yet.
It's funny that I see this complaint again and again, but I never see anyone who thinks they're worse off being rich. No-one ever says, "I'm so sick of paying a higher proportion of taxes than poor people that I'm going to talk to my employer and have my wages cut!" I wish someone would have the courage of their convictions....
The fact that they don't is a recognition that in fact, it is better, even with a higher tax take, to be rich than to be poor. You pay more income tax because you can afford more. You don't have to worry about paying for your food, shelter and clothing. These do not consume 90% or more of your income.
It's a very exciting view of economics that you have, suffering only the tiny flaw of being hopelessly simplistic and therefore dreadfully wrong. The market for healthcare is different from other markets: no-one wants to be treated the way they might want a DVD player -- they need to be treated because they are sick. Consumers generally can't switch health providers, especially for the most serious conditions -- they frequently can't even choose them in the first place -- and they may have great difficulty switching payers, due to exclusion clauses, company tie-ins and the like. Where's the competitive pressure there?
As opposed to all those countries around the world with for-profit health systems, which are, ummm, in a disastrous state as well. The problem with healthcare is that it costs more to provide than people are willing to pay, and this is true whether the payment method is fee-for-service, insurance or general taxation. The key advantage for fee-for-service is that companies get in less trouble than governments for raising prices. But they are under no obligation to provide any particular service, so you're SOL if what you suffer from won't make them a profit. Just ask leishmaniasis sufferers.
One comment: you said "the extra money in the US system goes into much faster response time to help people". You need to qualify that statement: it goes into faster responses for insured people. And there are 40m who aren't insured.
You're missing the point of the word "need". What people worry about is that commercial services are always optional--the provider may choose not to supply a particular procedure. What if it turns out that some forms of treatment are simply not profitable? Decent companies will not provide the service. But people may still need it. That is the issue. Economics is a bit more nuanced than "all bow down to the profit motive", especially health economics, where such concepts as asymmetric information, insured risk and "lemons" are critical.
Let's just re-examine point 2, shall we? You're objecting because his proposal puts emotional pressure onto her? You do realise what marriages are about, don't you? As in, "emotion" and "love"?
Only on Slashdot...
Looks like it could really be you. In which case, from all the way over in England, mazel tov and congratulations! May you have a long and joyful life together. My wife and I married on February 18th 2001, and we've never been so happy.
[Sigh] I hoped, rather stupidly and forlornly, that it would be obvious that I suggested reading a popular science book because the original poster -- probably you -- clearly knew nothing about the subject of evolution, and would benefit from an easy introduction. I even went so far as suggesting a book written by an author who writes for a broadly literate audience prepared to think critically and comfortable with a wide range of references both from within and without science. That was a compliment that was clearly wasted on you and the original poster (on the off-chance you are two different people). Prof Gould is, of course, a professional in the field of evolutionary science, and his academic research is the basis for his popular writing. Now, go curl up with your copy of "The Bell Curve". I'm sure that's the kind of populism you enjoy.
Devolution is a (rarely used) biological term for a process of degeneration. However, evolution is not teleological and so cannot be thought of as progressing or regressing. And devolution is not the opposite of evolution, so you are correct in spirit if not in detail.
Yes, yes, fascists made use of evolutionary theory to support their arguments. And Hitler was a vegetarian. And Wagner loved classical music. And Torquemada was a God-fearing Christian, as of course were a significant majority of the German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russians who between them committed millions of antisemitic acts in the first half of the 20th century. You'll bite yourself on the ass if you use that line of reasoning. There are a long list of reasons for the lethal efficiency of the Shoah, including mechanisation, the developments of lethal methods that took place in WWI, the efficiency of German bureaucracy, the visceral hatred of Jews common in many European countries, the development of industrial methods and the rise of large industrial companies, hyper-inflationary economic collapse and the consequent search for a scapegoat, and the excellence of German built railways. Darwinism is a long way down the list. Please, go read "The Last of the Just" and stop co-opting Jewish suffering to your petty cause.
Do you enjoy parading the fact that you're a dopy twat in public? If you had actually read one or two popular science books on the subject of evolution, such as "Wonderful Life" by Stephen Jay Gould, you'd realise that evolution is not the same as progress. You'd also know that there can be selective pressures for constancy and simplicity as well as change and complexity. But don't worry about it, you carry on using your mis-understanding of science to support your nasty little ideological leanings. It'll probably make you feel better.
Slashdot Mirror
Horses for courses. A SkyTran solution operating at 150mph as an intra-urban taxi service? I don't think so.
It is not to protect the President per se. It is to protect the *office* of the President.
Untwist your knickers, clean your specs and re-read my post. You'll find that we're all singing from the same songsheet.
...as the Katz that cannot see.
He writes "Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors."
1. The site makes no pretence of being a full or comprehensive view of censorship around the world.
2. The site is a US project based on the web. It is not surprising that many examples of US censorship are submitted
3. Even a moment's cursory attention or thought (we could only wish for such a thing) would have led our dear scribbler to the blindingly obvious fact that the US doesn't even get *close* to the top of the censorship list when the following countries and regimes are/have been around:
Syria
Afghanistan
China
the USSR
Zimbabwe
Each of these regimes has/had engaged in systematic and comprehensive efforts to control free speech. The scale of these efforts far outweigh anything seen in the US. Buying a copy of the Talmud in Syria, or hardcore porn in Afghanistan, or looking at a anti-government Tibetan website in China, or reading the Koran in the USSR or listening to the BBC in Zimbabwe--these are all illegal acts. *This* is the sort of censorship that should terrify us.
Sorry to rain on your parade matey, but the tax you're charged doesn't even begin to approach the externalised costs of car usage: NHS, police etc etc. Cars costs us all a bloody fortune.
Buses suffer all of the problems that you mention. But light rail is not a panacea. Buses provide much more thorough coverage than cars (ie they can get you nearer to where you want to go). The best future lies in integrated transport systems that take account and advantage of the peculiar advantages and problems of each type of transport.
No, he was saying that if you could ensure that the true costs of *both* mass transit *and* private cars fell directly on the users, then the former would be cheaper than the latter. He's right, too. And while your personal preference for not living in cities is reasonable and well-argued, with populations becoming increasingly urbanised, it is sensible to look at solutions that meet the needs of cities as well as countryside.
If you're rich, it might be through hard work but it's certainly not through brains. How does a shift from taxing petrol to taxing road use place an increased burden on poor people? What is the basis for suggesting that there will be a disproportionate shift in the burden of taxation? A very large number of poor people in Britain do not have access to cars anyway (startling but true), which makes your entire point moot.
If apple employs people whose reading and comprehension skills are this poor, then they haven't a hope. Go back and check. The poster said Unix. Not Linux. Unix.
Your points are interesting and well-made. I would add a caveat though: google works best with precision. News sites, of course, inform you about what you don't know (with varying degrees of success).
And if he couldn't? You know, because he'd paid for his wife's cancer treatment last year and that ate up his entire life savings? Oh wait, that's not an issue because he should be paying into an insurance fund, right? And if the insurer won't cover the treatment? What then?
Now for a bit of context: the Kaiser study was commissioned by the British (guns and prisons) government. The same government that is attempting some commercialise some health provision in the UK. The study was roundly condemned as being hopelessly flawed. Another study commissioned by the very same government and available at http://www.treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legis lation/wanless/consult_wanless_index.cfm
reviewed the evidence and found that the UK has the most efficient and equitable system in the world. The problems it faces derive from the fact that we Brits are cheap bastards who won't pay adequately for our health care. If we were prepared to pay, say, 10% of GDP for healthcare (ie about 2/3rds what Americans pay in their oh-so-competitive and efficient system) we'd get a system that wasn't just equitable and efficient but also free of queues.
BTW, your statement about government-run systems incentivising over-use is darkly ironic to anyone with even the smallest knowledge of the history of US health systems. For your information, fee-for-service died out in the past 20 years because it was driving usage levels up -- providers were incentivised to provide more. Counter-detailing and PBMs were introduced to tackle those issues in drug dispensing. It's not worked yet.
It's funny that I see this complaint again and again, but I never see anyone who thinks they're worse off being rich. No-one ever says, "I'm so sick of paying a higher proportion of taxes than poor people that I'm going to talk to my employer and have my wages cut!" I wish someone would have the courage of their convictions....
The fact that they don't is a recognition that in fact, it is better, even with a higher tax take, to be rich than to be poor. You pay more income tax because you can afford more. You don't have to worry about paying for your food, shelter and clothing. These do not consume 90% or more of your income.
It's a very exciting view of economics that you have, suffering only the tiny flaw of being hopelessly simplistic and therefore dreadfully wrong. The market for healthcare is different from other markets: no-one wants to be treated the way they might want a DVD player -- they need to be treated because they are sick. Consumers generally can't switch health providers, especially for the most serious conditions -- they frequently can't even choose them in the first place -- and they may have great difficulty switching payers, due to exclusion clauses, company tie-ins and the like. Where's the competitive pressure there?
As opposed to all those countries around the world with for-profit health systems, which are, ummm, in a disastrous state as well. The problem with healthcare is that it costs more to provide than people are willing to pay, and this is true whether the payment method is fee-for-service, insurance or general taxation. The key advantage for fee-for-service is that companies get in less trouble than governments for raising prices. But they are under no obligation to provide any particular service, so you're SOL if what you suffer from won't make them a profit. Just ask leishmaniasis sufferers.
One comment: you said "the extra money in the US system goes into much faster response time to help people". You need to qualify that statement: it goes into faster responses for insured people. And there are 40m who aren't insured.
You're missing the point of the word "need". What people worry about is that commercial services are always optional--the provider may choose not to supply a particular procedure. What if it turns out that some forms of treatment are simply not profitable? Decent companies will not provide the service. But people may still need it. That is the issue. Economics is a bit more nuanced than "all bow down to the profit motive", especially health economics, where such concepts as asymmetric information, insured risk and "lemons" are critical.
Let's just re-examine point 2, shall we? You're objecting because his proposal puts emotional pressure onto her? You do realise what marriages are about, don't you? As in, "emotion" and "love"?
Only on Slashdot...
Looks like it could really be you. In which case, from all the way over in England, mazel tov and congratulations! May you have a long and joyful life together. My wife and I married on February 18th 2001, and we've never been so happy.
Good luck!
m l
Here's a couple of sites that might come in handy:
A guide to buying engagement rings:
http://www.boodleanddunthorne.com/leap/index.ht
And a look at one of the world's best jewellers:
http://www.graff-uk.com/
[Disclaimer: I got my wife's engagement ring at Graff]
[Sigh] I hoped, rather stupidly and forlornly, that it would be obvious that I suggested reading a popular science book because the original poster -- probably you -- clearly knew nothing about the subject of evolution, and would benefit from an easy introduction. I even went so far as suggesting a book written by an author who writes for a broadly literate audience prepared to think critically and comfortable with a wide range of references both from within and without science. That was a compliment that was clearly wasted on you and the original poster (on the off-chance you are two different people). Prof Gould is, of course, a professional in the field of evolutionary science, and his academic research is the basis for his popular writing. Now, go curl up with your copy of "The Bell Curve". I'm sure that's the kind of populism you enjoy.
Devolution is a (rarely used) biological term for a process of degeneration. However, evolution is not teleological and so cannot be thought of as progressing or regressing. And devolution is not the opposite of evolution, so you are correct in spirit if not in detail.
Yes, yes, fascists made use of evolutionary theory to support their arguments. And Hitler was a vegetarian. And Wagner loved classical music. And Torquemada was a God-fearing Christian, as of course were a significant majority of the German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russians who between them committed millions of antisemitic acts in the first half of the 20th century. You'll bite yourself on the ass if you use that line of reasoning. There are a long list of reasons for the lethal efficiency of the Shoah, including mechanisation, the developments of lethal methods that took place in WWI, the efficiency of German bureaucracy, the visceral hatred of Jews common in many European countries, the development of industrial methods and the rise of large industrial companies, hyper-inflationary economic collapse and the consequent search for a scapegoat, and the excellence of German built railways. Darwinism is a long way down the list. Please, go read "The Last of the Just" and stop co-opting Jewish suffering to your petty cause.
Do you enjoy parading the fact that you're a dopy twat in public? If you had actually read one or two popular science books on the subject of evolution, such as "Wonderful Life" by Stephen Jay Gould, you'd realise that evolution is not the same as progress. You'd also know that there can be selective pressures for constancy and simplicity as well as change and complexity. But don't worry about it, you carry on using your mis-understanding of science to support your nasty little ideological leanings. It'll probably make you feel better.
...to think that some people say Macs are just toys!