So? Do you expect us to accomplish anything if we must achieve our goals in a single leap? A step is not to be derided because it is a step. Any advancements towards a hopeful goal should be congratulated.
Re:There would be more death if everyone turned aw
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
You very obviously missed the qualification in my statement. I said that said countries should take an attitude *MORE* in line with the Swiss.
I did not say perfect neutrality and self-containment should be the ideal. That is only the case if everyone in the world followed it, which of course is never going to happen.
There are instances where intervention is necessary. No one except the targeted party objected to intervening in Rwanda or in Kosovo. No one is actively pursuing attacks against nations because the UN intervened in the Rwandan genocide. What I DO advocate is a less interventionist policy, you know in the situations that create and then led to the rise of Augusto Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Pol Pot.
Re:Reason why the Swiss are #1
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Helping, or failing to hinder? Glass is half-full/half-empty here. Switzerland doesn't aid and abet terrorism, does not provide a refuge for wanted criminals, they take care of themselves and expect the rest of the world to do the same.
In truth, if some larger more influential and powerful nations *ahem* took an attitude more in line with the Swiss, there would be less conflict in this world of ours.
Yes, but the parent is referring to a person attempting to pass a $200 bill as currency and it would not be counterfeit as a $200 bill doesn't exist.
Yes, you could trade an art work of a $200 bill in trade for some services, you could also trade an art work of what looks like a $100 bill in trade for services under certain guidelines.
That does not negate the fact that passing a $200 bill as tender is fraud WHEN you misrepresent it as legal tender. Its the misrepresentation that constitutes fraud, not the fact that the object was traded for services.
No. That assumes that you like scavenging, assembling electronic equipment, and generally doing that sort of thing in your spare time.
If you're doing it INSTEAD of working then sure, the amount you make vs. the amount you gain off your find. But frankly, most of us don't seek to make money in our 'off' time and thus during those hours we can do whatever we wish and not be wasting anything.
Yeah, so vote for the other person who won't fking do that to you! Take an active role in changing your country for the better and don't settle for one of the two evils!
Despite what you may think, you do NOT have a 2 party system, its just repeated like a mantra so often that everyone thinks you do. There are other options.
Waterbill yes, but also think how much water you'd be wasting to do that? It has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is the drain which mixed with all the rest of dirty water must then be treated before being returned to the system.
It may be cliche, but there are too many places in this world that doesn't have adequate access to clean water. Heck, water use is restricted in some parts of California even during the summer!
Yeah, I do actually understand the "." vs "," systems quite well, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for a decent joke:).
Myself, I use the " " separator and "." decimal indicator as is now the standard for financial and mathematical purposes here in Canada. (Although you do see a "," crop up now and then.)
One side-note and a point of interest as expressed by a former professor of mine, was that in mathematics if a true paradox can be formulated, ie. a statement that is both true and false, then the rules/axioms that were used to formulate it are too powerful.
Like A = set of all sets that do not contain themselves. A is a paradox, because the unresolvable question is, does A contain itself? It does, and it does not.
Yes, you do need some additional concepts in order to make the null set axioms work, but they are contained within the common rules of set theory.
I guess that it quite a short responce, but I was extremely happy about the outcome of that meeting and what it would mean for our health care. We just need to make sure that its spent in the right places.
For the most part I accept your arguments, except the following.
"One post above was complaining that the Canadians don't want us (US'ians) buying their drugs since it drives up their prices, but we could just as easily make the counter argument that they should lift their price controls since we end up subsidizing their low drug prices."
Both arguments are off, the first because simply buying our drugs will not drive up prices because thats not how the price control system works. As well, what concerns most of us is that buying up our drugs has the potential of reducing the supply available to Canadians who need it. The we should ensure our citizens receive all the drugs we need before selling to other countries. This is also the exact argument against giving any of our flu vaccine to the US, and an argument that I believe is a good one.
Second, technically you do not subsidize our drug prices. If a company wishes to sell in Canada, they MUST abide by the prices that we set. In truth, the US actually drives prices in Canada up higher than they otherwise would be since Canadian price controls are set by taking the average market price of the drug across all G7 nations (at least, I believe it is G7, but it might be G10 or whatever). Thus the artificially inflated US drug price increases the average cost of the drug, and thus we must pay more.
Yup, the media certainly loves to lie, doesn't it?
What I find extremely funny, is that the US government pays more per capita to fund its public medicare program than we do to fund our entire system, and they force their citizens to pay for services on top of that.
In truth, we're doing pretty good for out healthcare system, though it is a hot topic and it behooves our nations medical workers to keep it that way. You can get any medical treatment in Canada, but our only real problem is our treatment waiting lists which need a boost. And really, we don't need to spend so much to eliminate them immediately, but a relatively modest funding boost would be enough, if spent correctly, to reverse the trend and start shrinking the lists. All we need to do is start performing more procedures than we have new cases and we'll be fine.
"because we don't have price limits, they charge us to make the money."
Guess what? They are gouging you. Free market assumes fair competition and market driven pricing. Well guess what? It isn't happening. These companies make billions every year *after* their R&D budget comes in. They make money in my country (Canada) even with our price controls, otherwise they wouldn't bother shipping drugs here in the first place. They only threaten to cut off certain pharmacies because those pharmacies are cutting into their profits by selling drugs back to the US.
Government regulation and social services are not a bad thing when it comes to public health and safety. Which is why I find it strangely contradictory that the US espouces private medical care, but publically funds police.
Definitely... I've never had him (finishing my 4th year in CS now) because I've never signed up for a section he was teaching. But I have a number of friends who were in his classes... and your assessment is bang on.
You do have a valid concern, instead of emailing them, call them.
All too often I have submitted an email similar to the one you sent, and almost everytime I will receive an auto-responce kind of mail that you got, or something completely contrary to the problem that I had.
Often it seems the person responding doesn't have a clear understanding after reading your email once, so they make a quick, bad, assumption and act on it. Of course this means the real problem is never acted upon, or the suggestion is brushed off with an invalid responce. But if you're actually talking to a real person, the chance of getting your intended message across is significantly higher.
No I don't:) but I do know that its further away than 12 parsecs. I took an astronomy course recently so I do know that it is a hell of a long way away.
Quick search on google reveals that it is 1600 ly away, or just over 444 parsecs.
Slashdot Mirror
So? Do you expect us to accomplish anything if we must achieve our goals in a single leap? A step is not to be derided because it is a step. Any advancements towards a hopeful goal should be congratulated.
You very obviously missed the qualification in my statement. I said that said countries should take an attitude *MORE* in line with the Swiss.
I did not say perfect neutrality and self-containment should be the ideal. That is only the case if everyone in the world followed it, which of course is never going to happen.
There are instances where intervention is necessary. No one except the targeted party objected to intervening in Rwanda or in Kosovo. No one is actively pursuing attacks against nations because the UN intervened in the Rwandan genocide. What I DO advocate is a less interventionist policy, you know in the situations that create and then led to the rise of Augusto Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Pol Pot.
Helping, or failing to hinder? Glass is half-full/half-empty here. Switzerland doesn't aid and abet terrorism, does not provide a refuge for wanted criminals, they take care of themselves and expect the rest of the world to do the same.
In truth, if some larger more influential and powerful nations *ahem* took an attitude more in line with the Swiss, there would be less conflict in this world of ours.
Yes, but the parent is referring to a person attempting to pass a $200 bill as currency and it would not be counterfeit as a $200 bill doesn't exist.
Yes, you could trade an art work of a $200 bill in trade for some services, you could also trade an art work of what looks like a $100 bill in trade for services under certain guidelines.
That does not negate the fact that passing a $200 bill as tender is fraud WHEN you misrepresent it as legal tender. Its the misrepresentation that constitutes fraud, not the fact that the object was traded for services.
Yes, but it is fraud if he purposely misrepresents said $200 bills as legal tender.
Or what's his name, Howard? Sorry, I used to know but I just can't bring to mind the name of the Australian Prime Minister.
No. That assumes that you like scavenging, assembling electronic equipment, and generally doing that sort of thing in your spare time.
If you're doing it INSTEAD of working then sure, the amount you make vs. the amount you gain off your find. But frankly, most of us don't seek to make money in our 'off' time and thus during those hours we can do whatever we wish and not be wasting anything.
Yes it does.
Why? Because as long as you think that way there is NO chance of changing.
Yeah, so vote for the other person who won't fking do that to you! Take an active role in changing your country for the better and don't settle for one of the two evils!
Despite what you may think, you do NOT have a 2 party system, its just repeated like a mantra so often that everyone thinks you do. There are other options.
Waterbill yes, but also think how much water you'd be wasting to do that? It has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is the drain which mixed with all the rest of dirty water must then be treated before being returned to the system.
It may be cliche, but there are too many places in this world that doesn't have adequate access to clean water. Heck, water use is restricted in some parts of California even during the summer!
Yeah, I do actually understand the "." vs "," systems quite well, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for a decent joke :).
Myself, I use the " " separator and "." decimal indicator as is now the standard for financial and mathematical purposes here in Canada. (Although you do see a "," crop up now and then.)
One side-note and a point of interest as expressed by a former professor of mine, was that in mathematics if a true paradox can be formulated, ie. a statement that is both true and false, then the rules/axioms that were used to formulate it are too powerful.
Like A = set of all sets that do not contain themselves. A is a paradox, because the unresolvable question is, does A contain itself? It does, and it does not.
Yes, you do need some additional concepts in order to make the null set axioms work, but they are contained within the common rules of set theory.
Whew, thats a relief... I didn't think they needed 5 significant digits to express a 2 digit integer value.
In that case, I believe it consists of :
{} = 0
{{}} = 1
As pure mathematicians like to claim, all of mathematics is derived from the empty set.
(Note, above {} is the empty set, and {{}} is the set containing the empty set)
See, whenever I get 1=0 in a math proof, my answer is always :
;).
"Therefore contra. QED"
Regardless of whether I specified my proof as such in the beginning or not
Yup.
I guess that it quite a short responce, but I was extremely happy about the outcome of that meeting and what it would mean for our health care. We just need to make sure that its spent in the right places.
For the most part I accept your arguments, except the following.
"One post above was complaining that the Canadians don't want us (US'ians) buying their drugs since it drives up their prices, but we could just as easily make the counter argument that they should lift their price controls since we end up subsidizing their low drug prices."
Both arguments are off, the first because simply buying our drugs will not drive up prices because thats not how the price control system works. As well, what concerns most of us is that buying up our drugs has the potential of reducing the supply available to Canadians who need it. The we should ensure our citizens receive all the drugs we need before selling to other countries. This is also the exact argument against giving any of our flu vaccine to the US, and an argument that I believe is a good one.
Second, technically you do not subsidize our drug prices. If a company wishes to sell in Canada, they MUST abide by the prices that we set. In truth, the US actually drives prices in Canada up higher than they otherwise would be since Canadian price controls are set by taking the average market price of the drug across all G7 nations (at least, I believe it is G7, but it might be G10 or whatever). Thus the artificially inflated US drug price increases the average cost of the drug, and thus we must pay more.
Yup, the media certainly loves to lie, doesn't it?
What I find extremely funny, is that the US government pays more per capita to fund its public medicare program than we do to fund our entire system, and they force their citizens to pay for services on top of that.
In truth, we're doing pretty good for out healthcare system, though it is a hot topic and it behooves our nations medical workers to keep it that way. You can get any medical treatment in Canada, but our only real problem is our treatment waiting lists which need a boost. And really, we don't need to spend so much to eliminate them immediately, but a relatively modest funding boost would be enough, if spent correctly, to reverse the trend and start shrinking the lists. All we need to do is start performing more procedures than we have new cases and we'll be fine.
"because we don't have price limits, they charge us to make the money."
Guess what? They are gouging you. Free market assumes fair competition and market driven pricing. Well guess what? It isn't happening. These companies make billions every year *after* their R&D budget comes in. They make money in my country (Canada) even with our price controls, otherwise they wouldn't bother shipping drugs here in the first place. They only threaten to cut off certain pharmacies because those pharmacies are cutting into their profits by selling drugs back to the US.
Government regulation and social services are not a bad thing when it comes to public health and safety. Which is why I find it strangely contradictory that the US espouces private medical care, but publically funds police.
Definitely... I've never had him (finishing my 4th year in CS now) because I've never signed up for a section he was teaching. But I have a number of friends who were in his classes... and your assessment is bang on.
Oh yeah? Well I bet they'll both charge double what they're currently charging and we'll see whose right!
You do have a valid concern, instead of emailing them, call them.
All too often I have submitted an email similar to the one you sent, and almost everytime I will receive an auto-responce kind of mail that you got, or something completely contrary to the problem that I had.
Often it seems the person responding doesn't have a clear understanding after reading your email once, so they make a quick, bad, assumption and act on it. Of course this means the real problem is never acted upon, or the suggestion is brushed off with an invalid responce. But if you're actually talking to a real person, the chance of getting your intended message across is significantly higher.
Which you will be later able to search through quickly and efficiently in a convenient online format.
"Mr. Burns, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Watch out! Someone is bringing out the tough questions!
No I don't :) but I do know that its further away than 12 parsecs. I took an astronomy course recently so I do know that it is a hell of a long way away.
Quick search on google reveals that it is 1600 ly away, or just over 444 parsecs.