Well, obviously. No system in the world can offer every possible treatment to anyone who might want it - to do so would take unlimited resources, which nobody has. And that includes the USA - it's just your insurance company that makes the choice (or if you're rich you can pay for yourself, but you can do that here too).
The major difference is that it's essentialy impossible for UK citizens to be uninsured - so no refusal of cover for "pre existing conditions", no trying to wriggle out of payment for treatment and no bankruptcy due to medical bills.
However, I think the most telling information about the NHS is that private insurance *is* available in the UK, but few people bother with it (under 10%, and mostly through employers).
And the relevance of that is? The most amazing care in the world is of no consequence if you can't afford it. I can't see how a system optimized for the super-rich can be considered the best for a society as a whole. A better measure would be where someone on an average income would be best served, or someone with no income.
They could bribe or coerce your ISP through physical voilence, for example.
Your argument seems to be that copyright is invalid because it's hard to defend. If a thief succeeds in stealing some of my physical property, does that mean it's now his as he's now the one who is capable of physically protecting it?
Defining the concept of ownership is non-trival also - what fundamentally determines who ones what? Property obtained in a legal trade may be one way, but you could apply the same question to the original property holders before the trade, and so on recursively. The rules determining what can be considered physical property are also not fundamental - it used to be legitimate for people to be property, now it is not.
As it happens, I don't agree with all of copyright law, but I don't agree that it wouldn't exist in some mythical "pure" capitalism, as both intellectual and physical property need government backing to be practical concepts.
Yes, it's not exactly the same. However in both cases there is an extensive reliance on a government to enforce laws.
As a practical matter, you can defend your own physical property more easily than intellectual property, that is true. But it's not absolute - without a government protecting it, you would ultimately be at the mercy of a stronger group than you. The situation would degenerate into "who's strongest wins". Similarly, a powerful company could send private enforcers to handle their copyright matters, without the need to go through the government. It's more difficult than guarding a physical item in your possession, but by no means impossible.
You see trade in most societies, but I would dispute that this is the defining feature of capitalism. Historically, power and influence have had more to do with other factors - consider feudalism. Capitalism as the dominant power structure is relatively new, and was only possible thanks to governments (who have the ultimate power in the monopoly of legitimate physical force) backing it.
"Government free" capitalism would also make physical property obsolete. Without government to enforce property and contract law, capitalism is not possible.
Capitalism is just a system which involves private entities exploiting their wealth (capital) to generate more wealth (profit), by means of trade. Nothing about that is incompatible with copyright - in fact copyright is a very valuable thing for capitalists, as it gives them something more that they can own and use to make profit.
In most markets you dont need a phone for DSL. You can get a dry loop.
But what is the actual cost saving? The tendency is now for DSLAMs to also contain equipment for handling voice, so providing the service should cost little extra, as there's very little extra to maintain. Most of the fixed charge historically associated with landlines was for maintenance of the lines, exchanges etc., which is still needed for DSL.
That poster doesn't even make sense.
What has Obama got to do with the Joker? Nothing
What has the Joker got to do with Socialism? Nothing.
What does Obama have to do with Socialism? Nothing, by any reasonable definition of the term.
It's as if someone just splattered their incoherent thoughts onto a page.
Open circuit they may produce 12 kV. But they're capable of supplying very little current, so you certainly didn't get a sustained 12 kV across your body. It might be more accurate to say "12000 volts will kill you unless the source's internal resistance is very high", but "high voltage is dangerous" is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, obviously. No system in the world can offer every possible treatment to anyone who might want it - to do so would take unlimited resources, which nobody has. And that includes the USA - it's just your insurance company that makes the choice (or if you're rich you can pay for yourself, but you can do that here too).
The major difference is that it's essentialy impossible for UK citizens to be uninsured - so no refusal of cover for "pre existing conditions", no trying to wriggle out of payment for treatment and no bankruptcy due to medical bills.
However, I think the most telling information about the NHS is that private insurance *is* available in the UK, but few people bother with it (under 10%, and mostly through employers).
Works fine from where I'm sitting (UK). Always been able to access it, never had treatment refused. The same is true for everyone else in my family.
And the relevance of that is? The most amazing care in the world is of no consequence if you can't afford it. I can't see how a system optimized for the super-rich can be considered the best for a society as a whole. A better measure would be where someone on an average income would be best served, or someone with no income.
They could bribe or coerce your ISP through physical voilence, for example.
Your argument seems to be that copyright is invalid because it's hard to defend. If a thief succeeds in stealing some of my physical property, does that mean it's now his as he's now the one who is capable of physically protecting it?
Defining the concept of ownership is non-trival also - what fundamentally determines who ones what? Property obtained in a legal trade may be one way, but you could apply the same question to the original property holders before the trade, and so on recursively. The rules determining what can be considered physical property are also not fundamental - it used to be legitimate for people to be property, now it is not.
As it happens, I don't agree with all of copyright law, but I don't agree that it wouldn't exist in some mythical "pure" capitalism, as both intellectual and physical property need government backing to be practical concepts.
Yes, it's not exactly the same. However in both cases there is an extensive reliance on a government to enforce laws.
As a practical matter, you can defend your own physical property more easily than intellectual property, that is true. But it's not absolute - without a government protecting it, you would ultimately be at the mercy of a stronger group than you. The situation would degenerate into "who's strongest wins". Similarly, a powerful company could send private enforcers to handle their copyright matters, without the need to go through the government. It's more difficult than guarding a physical item in your possession, but by no means impossible.
You see trade in most societies, but I would dispute that this is the defining feature of capitalism. Historically, power and influence have had more to do with other factors - consider feudalism. Capitalism as the dominant power structure is relatively new, and was only possible thanks to governments (who have the ultimate power in the monopoly of legitimate physical force) backing it.
"Government free" capitalism would also make physical property obsolete. Without government to enforce property and contract law, capitalism is not possible. Capitalism is just a system which involves private entities exploiting their wealth (capital) to generate more wealth (profit), by means of trade. Nothing about that is incompatible with copyright - in fact copyright is a very valuable thing for capitalists, as it gives them something more that they can own and use to make profit.
In most markets you dont need a phone for DSL. You can get a dry loop.
But what is the actual cost saving? The tendency is now for DSLAMs to also contain equipment for handling voice, so providing the service should cost little extra, as there's very little extra to maintain. Most of the fixed charge historically associated with landlines was for maintenance of the lines, exchanges etc., which is still needed for DSL.
That poster doesn't even make sense. What has Obama got to do with the Joker? Nothing What has the Joker got to do with Socialism? Nothing. What does Obama have to do with Socialism? Nothing, by any reasonable definition of the term. It's as if someone just splattered their incoherent thoughts onto a page.
If you measured the potential of the spark plug cable when you were being shocked by it, you will *not* measure 12 kV (between it and ground).
Open circuit they may produce 12 kV. But they're capable of supplying very little current, so you certainly didn't get a sustained 12 kV across your body. It might be more accurate to say "12000 volts will kill you unless the source's internal resistance is very high", but "high voltage is dangerous" is a pretty good rule of thumb.
You assume that the only reason to learn something is to make money with it. Which is a rather depressing worldview, really.