You are labouring under the delusion that no private healthcare is available to UK citizens. Guess what? It is. In the same way that your country has govenrnment funded education and private education.
Thankyou for bringing up slavery. Abolished in Britain before the United States.
"The entire state of California is easily navigable via public transpiration." False. I have direct personal experience of this. A half hour walk to a bus stop with one bus per hour is not usable public transport. NB This is *not* from rural california but 40 min drive from Riverside. Southern California would be hell to live in without a car, more likely 2 cars if you are a family.
You appear not to know the difference between absolute monarchies and constitutional ones.
As it happens I would count myself as a republican (note the lower case r). They do function as walking tourist attractions, and also a lightning rod for nationalist zeal. It is harder to attack political opponents by wrapping yourself in the flag. The head of govt is not the head of state, so no-one can ask "why do you hate Britain?" when you criticise the government. This occurred to me in 2003 when America seemed to go a bit mad.
Roads. Public transport. Water supply. Government built the telephone networks originally in this country, then handed the network to a private monopoly in the late 80s. BT was very profitable at that time. Not sure if any advanced country has an entirely laissez faire education system? (Private primary and secondary schools have a much easier job - they cherry pick clever children and can discipline and eject the real troublemakers.)
Public service broadcasting provides much better news than conglomerates. BBC radio is vastly superior to anything on commercial radio. (It does come from an unfair charge - licence fee paid by anyone who owns a TV, regardless of how much bbc they watch or listen to.) Public libraries (now becoming less used because of the internet, of course.) Police - I think most people wouldn't want that to be a for profit enterprise.
Some people can understand that the profit motive will not lead to providing all services to all people. Talking to a libertarian is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
Name a single example where private individuals failed to step up to the plate and deal with a real problem?
I presume you are American. Your country has large numbers of people who cannot quit jobs they hate because they need health insurance from a large employer. They cannot consider working for a small business. (This is the experience of someone I know directly.) Large numbers of your population have no insurance at all. Your country won't have decent public transport because it's for teh commies. You would rather fund the arabs more than use more efficient transport. Let me guess - these are not "real problems" ?
Roads in areas without dense population in my country won't be paid for without taxpayers, people who live in rural areas of my country benefit from subsidy from the more densely populated and "profitable" areas.
Interestingly, here in civilisation people did stand on the crease and solve the problem like the brave individuals they are - they elected successive non-libertarian governments.
The Sacred Market (Blessings and Peace be upon its Holy Name and Works) is part of the mental framework that you use to justify your utter selfishness.
The goal of progressive (as opposed to regressive) taxation can be summed as up as: "You do not punish children for being born into a low income family" This is why I pay taxes that pay for compulsory education despite having no children.
You cannot see past your garden gate. Civilised people can.
Amazon "imports" DVDs from the tax haven island of Jersey to its UK customers so it can dodge VAT and be cheaper than bricks and mortar shops in Britain.
It didn't occur to me until I read about this ongoing saga that this is a worldwide policy. They see sales tax as a rule that does not apply to them. Anywhere
It seems likely that a) such large sensors will (if they ever reach any market at all) only have highly specialised camera backs which will almost certainly be specially designed for them.
One thing that occurs to me is astronomy
I will start with a style tip. Your overuse of scare quotes makes you sound like the most manipulative of gallery players. Ever thought of trying talk radio or TV punditry?
You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) empathy with sympathy.
Sun Tzu teaches us to know the enemy -
he ain't no faggy white flag waving traitor.
It doesn't matter how much you will get for the retrieved rubbish. The goal is to prevent waste going into the environment, not to make money from the detritus.
Small steps will be useful, eventually we might realise that we have been externalising our costs, completely ignoring the fact that there is nowhere to externalise to.
But the market will fix the problem only when rubbish washes on every beach including the ones near rich and powerful people's houses, or recycled becomes cheaper than new. I think neither will happen soon enough.
Perhaps, but the ETF is already unfairly high and the dude died serving his country.
Yes, early termination fees are very much a cash cow for telecomms companies.
Discounting PR (which we dare not do, of course), the cause of death is irrelevant in principle. Can you list the fees that war widows should be exempt from? Why should firefighters and coastguards and (insert your apotheosis of quiet, unassuming American fortitude here) pay more to pay for war widows discounts?
No private company in the US exists to serve the nation. They are private companies and exist to make money for the shareholders.
If they "served the nation" they would be government run, and would therefore be hated by the same people spouting unthinking righteous anger at Verizon's "unpatriotic greed".
The less PR savvy war widows out there will get nothing
To make this fair there should be a govt fund to meet such expenses as relocating to your own home town after being widowed.
How many of your tax dollars would you vote for spending on such a scheme?
It does make a change to see "Why Do You Hate America?" being used on the private sector and not on education or public sector, though.
They make the comparison hard by obfuscating the cost of making and receiving calls (this rate for this number range, rate 2 for the same number range at different days or times, rate 3 for other numbers at time 1.....continue as long as you want)
If a huge and powerful company in a market with very, very few competitors is bad it more likely pays lawmakers to stop the market working properly. (More usually, pays lawmakers *not* to make the sacred and infallible market work properly).
An aside - as a filthy European socialist pig, I find it funny that you pay to receive texts in God's (and the Holy market's) favourite country.
a price of around 200 pounds due to the "travelling through London at peak times" (This would be enough for a weekend holiday from London to New York
Citation urgently needed.
£200 for a holiday to new york? It might get you a holiday to York. £200 would hardly pay for hoStel accommodation and food/drink over a 3 or 4 day trip from Britain to New York.
If you need protection from the oiks (toliets messy, drinking!!) you could pay for first class?
I myself have had very little trouble on trains in Britain recently. Most services have a quiet coach where you can't speak on a mobile phone (my particular bugbear)
You're actually more likely to have an easy time than us "aryan" types, at least in the airports, as racial profiling is pretty much illegal in the US, and the ACLU is even fighting to allow burkas for photo ID's.
I was sceptical regarding this given the tone of the rest of your comment.
It is true that the ACLU defended the woman in question (a xtian convert to islam). However there is (unsurprisingly?) slightly more to it
Their argument is that others, such as peculiar xtians who claim religous objections to photos of any kind (loonies!) and even certain random people have been granted exceptions to the requirement for photo Driver's Licences.
My own view is that no one, whatever their strange and evidenceless world views should get exceptions based on the myths they happen to believe.
Allowing you to purchase in the store, but preventing you from syncing the music or playing it on your choice of devices is an attempt to use their dominant market position in one industry to achieve dominance in another industry.
I certainly agree that Apple is trying to use its dominance to gain footholds in other industries.
However, it is false to say that you cannot sync a music file purchased from itunes to another device. ITMS files are no longer DRMd. You can use any music player or music library managing software you like. What you cannot do is use itunes to sync it.
Police and Fire services protect the community from the spread of crime and fire incidents.
If you can manage to remove your loonybin libertarian spectacles, wipe the foam from your mouth and pause to consider for a moment:
You will find that fire officers/fighters do put a very great stock in rescuing people from house and other fires. Never really heard of them preventing the spread and leaving the people inside to choke.
It would of course be next to possible to distinguish between putting out a fire because it might spread to "the community", and putting out a fire in your house because house fires are a bad thing. I suspect you probably wish fire services could only stop the spread because you see government (any larger than the minimum possible) as an intrinsic evil. "We must set the example, self-reliance is the only way, etc.etc."
Regarding possible taxation of things that are bad for you; you are following a fairly typical libertarian fundamentalist tactic - wilfully conflating banning things and putting taxes on them.
Studying the edge cases reveals a lot more about the underlying dynamics of a system than studying its average cases.
I still fail to see how an assertion like the above is relevant to social science research. I suggest it is very likely to be wrong.
This study appears to show that exposure to attractive potential reproductive mates is related to later reduced performance in cognitive tests. The study freely admits that their subjects were heterosexual males, and presumably lots of 1st yr students fulfilling their lab subject requirement.
Is this something that's related to sexual orientation? That's an obvious first question I have to these results -- and it's a legitimate question, since a lot of medical literature was done on male college students
I see no problem or connection to your example. You have no evidence that the study assumes uniformity across sexual orientations. In fact they specifically state the subjects were male heterosexuals, thus I infer that they believe this may be only reproducible in a similar group of subjects.
Anyway, if we were seeking to do research on what conditions would be good for the general population, the heterosexuals in the cohort should outnumber the homosexuals by roughly nine-to-one.
A study like this is not a bad place to start.
The first question that occurs to me is will it be found to occur in female students?
Next, will this result be found again in tests done on larger cohorts?
It doesn't. The claim was about "males", not "heterosexual males"
Yes indeed the slashdot headline was misleading. I bet the abstract makes clear who the subjects were.
They're using what should be exploratory research to create social and medical policy
And you are grossly exaggerating. Who on slashdot creates social policy?
Regarding dinner table conversation on the subject of single sex education, the story-with-no-evidence you always hear in Britain is that "boys do better in mixed classes, girls better in single sex" with the vague explanation of boys hogging teacher time/the apparatus etc.
Healthy people account for roughly 90% of the population... So do normal people... And studying either doesn't tell us a whole lot. -_- Studying the edge cases reveals a lot more about the underlying dynamics of a system than studying its average cases.
That sounds to me like the kind of thing that's true of aircraft performance, not human mate choice or preference.
How exactly could the average performance on tests by homosexual subjects tell us about the 90% heterosexual population??
Slashdot Mirror
You are labouring under the delusion that no private healthcare is available to UK citizens.
Guess what? It is.
In the same way that your country has govenrnment funded education and private education.
Thankyou for bringing up slavery. Abolished in Britain before the United States.
"The entire state of California is easily navigable via public transpiration."
False. I have direct personal experience of this. A half hour walk to a bus stop with one bus per hour is not usable public transport. NB This is *not* from rural california but 40 min drive from Riverside. Southern California would be hell to live in without a car, more likely 2 cars if you are a family.
You appear not to know the difference between absolute monarchies and constitutional ones.
As it happens I would count myself as a republican (note the lower case r).
They do function as walking tourist attractions, and also a lightning rod for nationalist zeal. It is harder to attack political opponents by wrapping yourself in the flag. The head of govt is not the head of state, so no-one can ask "why do you hate Britain?" when you criticise the government. This occurred to me in 2003 when America seemed to go a bit mad.
Roads.
Public transport.
Water supply.
Government built the telephone networks originally in this country, then handed the network to a private monopoly in the late 80s. BT was very profitable at that time.
Not sure if any advanced country has an entirely laissez faire education system? (Private primary and secondary schools have a much easier job - they cherry pick clever children and can discipline and eject the real troublemakers.)
Public service broadcasting provides much better news than conglomerates.
BBC radio is vastly superior to anything on commercial radio. (It does come from an unfair charge - licence fee paid by anyone who owns a TV, regardless of how much bbc they watch or listen to.)
Public libraries (now becoming less used because of the internet, of course.)
Police - I think most people wouldn't want that to be a for profit enterprise.
Some people can understand that the profit motive will not lead to providing all services to all people. Talking to a libertarian is like talking to a religious fundamentalist.
I presume you are American.
Your country has large numbers of people who cannot quit jobs they hate because they need health insurance from a large employer. They cannot consider working for a small business. (This is the experience of someone I know directly.)
Large numbers of your population have no insurance at all.
Your country won't have decent public transport because it's for teh commies. You would rather fund the arabs more than use more efficient transport.
Let me guess - these are not "real problems" ?
Roads in areas without dense population in my country won't be paid for without taxpayers, people who live in rural areas of my country benefit from subsidy from the more densely populated and "profitable" areas.
Interestingly, here in civilisation people did stand on the crease and solve the problem like the brave individuals they are - they elected successive non-libertarian governments.
The Sacred Market (Blessings and Peace be upon its Holy Name and Works) is part of the mental framework that you use to justify your utter selfishness.
I have sympathy with the view that it should be like that so we are aware how much tax we are actually paying.
The goal of progressive (as opposed to regressive) taxation can be summed as up as:
"You do not punish children for being born into a low income family"
This is why I pay taxes that pay for compulsory education despite having no children.
You cannot see past your garden gate. Civilised people can.
Amazon "imports" DVDs from the tax haven island of Jersey to its UK customers so it can dodge VAT and be cheaper than bricks and mortar shops in Britain.
It didn't occur to me until I read about this ongoing saga that this is a worldwide policy.
They see sales tax as a rule that does not apply to them. Anywhere
"Electric Cars are for teh Faggz."
These tactics work, fast car marketing is aimed at men thinking with their testes.
An understandable mistake, but still a mistake. Not all victims on 11th September 2001 were US citizens. The vast majority were, but not all.
It seems likely that a) such large sensors will (if they ever reach any market at all) only have highly specialised camera backs which will almost certainly be specially designed for them. One thing that occurs to me is astronomy
Nikon d3s (35mm size sensor) can currently do up to 102400 ISO and produce usable images.
Can anyone tell me why this wouldn't be used with an electronic shutter if ultra high speed photography was the goal?
my guess is this can be overcome by using an electronic shutter? i.e turning off the sensor
I will start with a style tip. Your overuse of scare quotes makes you sound like the most manipulative of gallery players. Ever thought of trying talk radio or TV punditry?
You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) empathy with sympathy.
Sun Tzu teaches us to know the enemy - he ain't no faggy white flag waving traitor.
It doesn't matter how much you will get for the retrieved rubbish. The goal is to prevent waste going into the environment, not to make money from the detritus.
Small steps will be useful, eventually we might realise that we have been externalising our costs, completely ignoring the fact that there is nowhere to externalise to.
The Holy Market is of little use here, we know in advance that plastic and other non biodegradable waste is a serious problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
But the market will fix the problem only when rubbish washes on every beach including the ones near rich and powerful people's houses, or recycled becomes cheaper than new. I think neither will happen soon enough.
Perhaps, but the ETF is already unfairly high and the dude died serving his country.
Yes, early termination fees are very much a cash cow for telecomms companies.
Discounting PR (which we dare not do, of course), the cause of death is irrelevant in principle. Can you list the fees that war widows should be exempt from? Why should firefighters and coastguards and (insert your apotheosis of quiet, unassuming American fortitude here) pay more to pay for war widows discounts?
No private company in the US exists to serve the nation. They are private companies and exist to make money for the shareholders.
If they "served the nation" they would be government run, and would therefore be hated by the same people spouting unthinking righteous anger at Verizon's "unpatriotic greed".
The less PR savvy war widows out there will get nothing
To make this fair there should be a govt fund to meet such expenses as relocating to your own home town after being widowed.
How many of your tax dollars would you vote for spending on such a scheme?
It does make a change to see "Why Do You Hate America?" being used on the private sector and not on education or public sector, though.
They make the comparison hard by obfuscating the cost of making and receiving calls (this rate for this number range, rate 2 for the same number range at different days or times, rate 3 for other numbers at time 1 .....continue as long as you want)
If a huge and powerful company in a market with very, very few competitors is bad it more likely pays lawmakers to stop the market working properly. (More usually, pays lawmakers *not* to make the sacred and infallible market work properly).
An aside - as a filthy European socialist pig, I find it funny that you pay to receive texts in God's (and the Holy market's) favourite country.
Citation urgently needed. £200 for a holiday to new york? It might get you a holiday to York. £200 would hardly pay for hoStel accommodation and food/drink over a 3 or 4 day trip from Britain to New York.
If you need protection from the oiks (toliets messy, drinking!!) you could pay for first class? I myself have had very little trouble on trains in Britain recently. Most services have a quiet coach where you can't speak on a mobile phone (my particular bugbear)
I was sceptical regarding this given the tone of the rest of your comment.
It is true that the ACLU defended the woman in question (a xtian convert to islam). However there is (unsurprisingly?) slightly more to it
Their argument is that others, such as peculiar xtians who claim religous objections to photos of any kind (loonies!) and even certain random people have been granted exceptions to the requirement for photo Driver's Licences.
My own view is that no one, whatever their strange and evidenceless world views should get exceptions based on the myths they happen to believe.
I certainly agree that Apple is trying to use its dominance to gain footholds in other industries.
However, it is false to say that you cannot sync a music file purchased from itunes to another device. ITMS files are no longer DRMd. You can use any music player or music library managing software you like. What you cannot do is use itunes to sync it.
Small distinctions like this are worth noting
BBC, NHK, CBC, ABC (Aus) TVNZ and the rest are, after all, just a hair's breadth from North Korean telly, aren't they?
Turn on NPR. Radio for grown-ups, (or as close as you get in America.;-))
You really are missing the joys of BBC Radio 4.
If you can manage to remove your loonybin libertarian spectacles, wipe the foam from your mouth and pause to consider for a moment:
You will find that fire officers/fighters do put a very great stock in rescuing people from house and other fires. Never really heard of them preventing the spread and leaving the people inside to choke.
It would of course be next to possible to distinguish between putting out a fire because it might spread to "the community", and putting out a fire in your house because house fires are a bad thing. I suspect you probably wish fire services could only stop the spread because you see government (any larger than the minimum possible) as an intrinsic evil. "We must set the example, self-reliance is the only way, etc.etc."
Regarding possible taxation of things that are bad for you; you are following a fairly typical libertarian fundamentalist tactic - wilfully conflating banning things and putting taxes on them.
The meaning (dictionary or genuine everyday usage by most people) has nothing whatever to do with "grammar".
I think you mean "semantic".
Well, apparently they did look in female students and did not find the same reduction in memory test performance.
I still fail to see how an assertion like the above is relevant to social science research. I suggest it is very likely to be wrong.
This study appears to show that exposure to attractive potential reproductive mates is related to later reduced performance in cognitive tests. The study freely admits that their subjects were heterosexual males, and presumably lots of 1st yr students fulfilling their lab subject requirement.
I see no problem or connection to your example. You have no evidence that the study assumes uniformity across sexual orientations. In fact they specifically state the subjects were male heterosexuals, thus I infer that they believe this may be only reproducible in a similar group of subjects.
Anyway, if we were seeking to do research on what conditions would be good for the general population, the heterosexuals in the cohort should outnumber the homosexuals by roughly nine-to-one. A study like this is not a bad place to start.
The first question that occurs to me is will it be found to occur in female students? Next, will this result be found again in tests done on larger cohorts?
Yes indeed the slashdot headline was misleading. I bet the abstract makes clear who the subjects were.
And you are grossly exaggerating. Who on slashdot creates social policy?
Regarding dinner table conversation on the subject of single sex education, the story-with-no-evidence you always hear in Britain is that "boys do better in mixed classes, girls better in single sex" with the vague explanation of boys hogging teacher time/the apparatus etc.
That sounds to me like the kind of thing that's true of aircraft performance, not human mate choice or preference.
How exactly could the average performance on tests by homosexual subjects tell us about the 90% heterosexual population??