Directing growth is a necessary goal of government when economic crises threaten to pull a country apart. A country that is economically disintegrating will also politically disintegrate eventually. Economic policy is, and has always been, a major function of government since the dawn of the modern era.
The problem with the EU was arguably by design and the intention of the elite in Europe all along (for a more integrated Europe). It is well known that monetary union will amplify economic disparities within the union. The US, for example, has to make transfer payment through federal fiscal policy that redistributes wealth from the stronger economies of New York, Texas and California, etc. to states that are financially weak, such as Kentucky and Mississippi. The steps they are taking now to create a Eurozone budget approval mechanism is just the first step in integrating economic and fiscal policy (and hence more sovereignty ceeded to Brussels). There was no way to sell this to the electorate, so this has to be in in a roundabout way. Isn't politics exciting.
Your third point that the US contributes a disproportionate amount to medical breakthrough and innovation is a often repeated lie. There has been a proportionate number of breakthroughs and medical innovation from institutions and organizations outside of the US. Besides, even if it were true that the US produces more medical innovation disproportionately (which it does not), it is not a justification for the poor healthcare value for money that is being burdened upon Americans.
Google products (mostly services) represents a completely different paradigm to Microsoft products (mostly software), call it post-desktop or whatever, but it's not even fully-realized yet. It's a bit pre-mature to compare them to Microsoft.
It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.
Forgot to answer your other question. The amount of waiting for GP consultations is honestly down to your medical centre or surgery (doctors office, usually staffed by a few GPs). Two of my previous GP practices (I moved around a bit) had walk-in sessions to see a GP everyday so you are almost certain to see a GP on the same day, which was great, and if you wanted to see your dedicated GP, you just had to check her walk-in schedule. Those that require appointments usually take urgent matters on the same day, and book you in depending on workload and whether you want to see your dedicated GP or not. In my experience, this was usually in 1-2 days. The most I have waited on to see a doctor for a minor ailment was 5 days, which I found acceptable. On the other hand, some surgeries are terrible at schedeling consultations, especially some of the bigger ones, which means it's probably a good idea to change to another surgery who will give you a good service (In the UK, the GPs are usually private practices that are paid by the NHS through a contract framework and you can choose your GP yourself).
First of all, I lived in the US, the UK and Canada, each for a significant amount of time, so I have first hand experience with all three medical systems, as well as some experience with the medical systems of other countries as I have worked or stayed in a number of places for shorter periods.
Now back to your question. All important surgery in the UK is prioritized. If you want anedoctal evidence, my sister-in-law who is a university student in the UK fell on her face (which is quite terrible for a girl) not-too-long-ago requiring in 13 stitches in total. Due to the location of injury (very close to her eye), the A&E (ER) doctor in the hospital where she was taken from immediately referred her to a plastic surgeon who is a specialist in these proceedures to minimize the risk to her sight (and her face). She was taken by ambulance to the other hospital and had surgery performed. This process took in total 6 hours. She stayed in hospital for the night and went back several times to the specialist to check up on her progress and to ensure that any scarring is kept to a minimum.
The UK does not have a perfect medical system, but IMHO it is very good, especially considering you don't usually have to pay anything out of pocket (The whole NHS system is paid for out of general taxation). If you are not happy with the care, there are a variety of options available. You can top-up your NHS coverage with private insurance that pays for proceedures which do have a waiting list (like hip replacements) and specialists while still using the NHS for frontline care, or you can go private completely and buy insurance that covers everything, including GP (family doctor) visits. Counter-intuitively, this nationalized system also created a very competitive market for health insurance as private insurance is basically a "luxury". You can buy personal coverage for a family of four for 30 GBP (~45 USD) for basic cover, to roughly 100 GBP (~150 USD) for fully comprehensive cover which is roughly 1/10 the cost compared to the average in the US.
Fiscal policy is one way to direct growth in the economy. Infrastructure projects, especially, provide the most bang for the buck in terms of value for money. The only problem is that infrastructure tend to require maintenance which means future funding is in essence commited. Social programs are also useful to ensure what is most fairly termed as equality of opportunity, to help alieviate the inherent unfairness of wealth distribution. It is not fair, as a matter of fact, to deny opportunity of advancement due to ones situation at birth. This is why we spend money on things like education so that we have a more inclusive society where advancement is based on merit, and not solely on whether you have the means to pay for advancement.
Monetary policy is another way to direct growth although it tends to result in bubbles when the interest rates are very low levels to spur investments mainly fueled by debt. When money is essentially cheap, banks and investers tend to do stupid things with all this surplus cash flowing around - like making mortgages to people who they know can't afford it (and then selling the mortgages off at a profit to relieve themselves of any risk), or private equity making leveraged buyouts incurring a large debt on the target company which brings on unsustainable interest payments when the money markets dry up.
Back to fiscal policy, the problem with the US is not that it is spending too much (compared to other advanced economies). It is mosty because public spending in the US is notoriously poor value. For example, the US spends ~8% of GDP on just Medicare and Medicaid, covering only a small proportion of the population. In total the US spends nearly 16% of GDP on heathcare. The UK for example, spends only 8% on its healthcare system that covers everybody, at all ages.
Unless the deadline for implementing the directive has passed and the infringing party is associated with the public sector. Or if the directive was implemented (transposed) incorrectly. In which case the doctrine of direct effect would apply.
The only problem with your theory is that those that are jumping ship to chrome is likely already using Google search.
The real reason that Google pushes chrome is to ensure that they can drive the direction of web standards. In other words, chrome gives them a large say in how the web moves forward.
What people tend to forget is that Google isn't a software company. They are a company that indexes and provides access to information, which currently is funded by ad-sales, but is not limited to this business model. Everything that Google does is towards this goal.
What happens when both end-points are behind a hide-NAT?...... Many-to-one NAT by nature breaks the bi-directional model of TCP and UDP communications. You can workaround it by using dynamic port mappings ala uPNP, but it's a ugly hack really.
Normally I keep quiet in theological discourse, but what you said is really grating.
In most cases, taking offense to scientific theories is what causes the ridicule. If you can win a scientific argument based on facts and reasoning, then no-one will ridicule you. OTOH, if you have to resort to logical fallacies and citing religious texts, then well, you can't expect to be taken seriously, and you wont.
I never said they "stole" the idea like the OP did. I said they copied them and then patented implementations of it, and then act as if they are the greatest, most innovative company of all time. You can copy something *while* giving credit at the same time, *and* sue everybody else doing similar things (which is essentially what Apple did).
Like how Apple invented the GUI, or the smartphone? Oh wait, they didn't... They just copied it from somebody, patented it and then sued everybody else for "infringement".
BT is no longer a crown corporation. One could argue that the service it provided when it was public-owned is much better than it is now that it has privatized. Infrastructure and utilities is probably the most suitable application of a public ownership, and it has always been difficult to ensure competition in a market-based model due to the capital investment and economies of scale once the infrastructure is in place. This is prevalent in both telecommunications and energy sectors catering to the end-user.
Of course, this also applies to things like rail transport which require extensive infrastructure - take British Rail for example.
No, socialism is not totalitarian as long as the government adheres to effective democratic principles. That is the way Scandinavian/Nordic countries are run.
However, a totalitarian capitalist state is basically fascist.
Occupying China.. haha.. Seriously... Who do you think lowered the barriers to import the cheap consumer goods from China?
I'm sorry, but you're seriously deluded. There is only one solution, and that is to close the trade deficit at all costs (easiest way is devaluation of USD). Right now we're buying Chinese goods on cheap credit from, guess who?? China.
Just another round of talking-points and logical fallacies, but really, you're wasting your time.
The protesters aren't saying "business is greedy... we want money too". That might be what it sounds to the elite (and to you). To the rest of us, they are highlighting the unfairness in the current system and they want the voices representing the rest of us heard, not just the voices paid for by monied interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Directing growth is a necessary goal of government when economic crises threaten to pull a country apart. A country that is economically disintegrating will also politically disintegrate eventually. Economic policy is, and has always been, a major function of government since the dawn of the modern era.
The problem with the EU was arguably by design and the intention of the elite in Europe all along (for a more integrated Europe). It is well known that monetary union will amplify economic disparities within the union. The US, for example, has to make transfer payment through federal fiscal policy that redistributes wealth from the stronger economies of New York, Texas and California, etc. to states that are financially weak, such as Kentucky and Mississippi. The steps they are taking now to create a Eurozone budget approval mechanism is just the first step in integrating economic and fiscal policy (and hence more sovereignty ceeded to Brussels). There was no way to sell this to the electorate, so this has to be in in a roundabout way. Isn't politics exciting.
Your third point that the US contributes a disproportionate amount to medical breakthrough and innovation is a often repeated lie. There has been a proportionate number of breakthroughs and medical innovation from institutions and organizations outside of the US. Besides, even if it were true that the US produces more medical innovation disproportionately (which it does not), it is not a justification for the poor healthcare value for money that is being burdened upon Americans.
Google products (mostly services) represents a completely different paradigm to Microsoft products (mostly software), call it post-desktop or whatever, but it's not even fully-realized yet. It's a bit pre-mature to compare them to Microsoft.
It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.
Forgot to answer your other question. The amount of waiting for GP consultations is honestly down to your medical centre or surgery (doctors office, usually staffed by a few GPs). Two of my previous GP practices (I moved around a bit) had walk-in sessions to see a GP everyday so you are almost certain to see a GP on the same day, which was great, and if you wanted to see your dedicated GP, you just had to check her walk-in schedule. Those that require appointments usually take urgent matters on the same day, and book you in depending on workload and whether you want to see your dedicated GP or not. In my experience, this was usually in 1-2 days. The most I have waited on to see a doctor for a minor ailment was 5 days, which I found acceptable. On the other hand, some surgeries are terrible at schedeling consultations, especially some of the bigger ones, which means it's probably a good idea to change to another surgery who will give you a good service (In the UK, the GPs are usually private practices that are paid by the NHS through a contract framework and you can choose your GP yourself).
First of all, I lived in the US, the UK and Canada, each for a significant amount of time, so I have first hand experience with all three medical systems, as well as some experience with the medical systems of other countries as I have worked or stayed in a number of places for shorter periods.
Now back to your question. All important surgery in the UK is prioritized. If you want anedoctal evidence, my sister-in-law who is a university student in the UK fell on her face (which is quite terrible for a girl) not-too-long-ago requiring in 13 stitches in total. Due to the location of injury (very close to her eye), the A&E (ER) doctor in the hospital where she was taken from immediately referred her to a plastic surgeon who is a specialist in these proceedures to minimize the risk to her sight (and her face). She was taken by ambulance to the other hospital and had surgery performed. This process took in total 6 hours. She stayed in hospital for the night and went back several times to the specialist to check up on her progress and to ensure that any scarring is kept to a minimum.
The UK does not have a perfect medical system, but IMHO it is very good, especially considering you don't usually have to pay anything out of pocket (The whole NHS system is paid for out of general taxation). If you are not happy with the care, there are a variety of options available. You can top-up your NHS coverage with private insurance that pays for proceedures which do have a waiting list (like hip replacements) and specialists while still using the NHS for frontline care, or you can go private completely and buy insurance that covers everything, including GP (family doctor) visits. Counter-intuitively, this nationalized system also created a very competitive market for health insurance as private insurance is basically a "luxury". You can buy personal coverage for a family of four for 30 GBP (~45 USD) for basic cover, to roughly 100 GBP (~150 USD) for fully comprehensive cover which is roughly 1/10 the cost compared to the average in the US.
Fiscal policy is one way to direct growth in the economy. Infrastructure projects, especially, provide the most bang for the buck in terms of value for money. The only problem is that infrastructure tend to require maintenance which means future funding is in essence commited. Social programs are also useful to ensure what is most fairly termed as equality of opportunity, to help alieviate the inherent unfairness of wealth distribution. It is not fair, as a matter of fact, to deny opportunity of advancement due to ones situation at birth. This is why we spend money on things like education so that we have a more inclusive society where advancement is based on merit, and not solely on whether you have the means to pay for advancement.
Monetary policy is another way to direct growth although it tends to result in bubbles when the interest rates are very low levels to spur investments mainly fueled by debt. When money is essentially cheap, banks and investers tend to do stupid things with all this surplus cash flowing around - like making mortgages to people who they know can't afford it (and then selling the mortgages off at a profit to relieve themselves of any risk), or private equity making leveraged buyouts incurring a large debt on the target company which brings on unsustainable interest payments when the money markets dry up.
Back to fiscal policy, the problem with the US is not that it is spending too much (compared to other advanced economies). It is mosty because public spending in the US is notoriously poor value. For example, the US spends ~8% of GDP on just Medicare and Medicaid, covering only a small proportion of the population. In total the US spends nearly 16% of GDP on heathcare. The UK for example, spends only 8% on its healthcare system that covers everybody, at all ages.
Unless the deadline for implementing the directive has passed and the infringing party is associated with the public sector. Or if the directive was implemented (transposed) incorrectly. In which case the doctrine of direct effect would apply.
The only problem with your theory is that those that are jumping ship to chrome is likely already using Google search.
The real reason that Google pushes chrome is to ensure that they can drive the direction of web standards. In other words, chrome gives them a large say in how the web moves forward.
What people tend to forget is that Google isn't a software company. They are a company that indexes and provides access to information, which currently is funded by ad-sales, but is not limited to this business model. Everything that Google does is towards this goal.
Florian, maybe?
Bad troll, bad..
Tripe, as opposed to your Randist fantasies.
What happens when both end-points are behind a hide-NAT? ... ...
Many-to-one NAT by nature breaks the bi-directional model of TCP and UDP communications. You can workaround it by using dynamic port mappings ala uPNP, but it's a ugly hack really.
It's hypocritical that you know what the problem is but you're bitching about the people that are actually raising awareness of the problem.
So it's fashionable now to call people that are actually well-grounded in economics retarded. Stay classy, troll.
Firefox is built on Javascript, just like the rest of the web. That's the standard architecture now, live with it.
Way to go, lose an argument and use an alt to reply.
Normally I keep quiet in theological discourse, but what you said is really grating.
In most cases, taking offense to scientific theories is what causes the ridicule. If you can win a scientific argument based on facts and reasoning, then no-one will ridicule you. OTOH, if you have to resort to logical fallacies and citing religious texts, then well, you can't expect to be taken seriously, and you wont.
Which, funnily enough, needs energy.... hum....
I never said they "stole" the idea like the OP did. I said they copied them and then patented implementations of it, and then act as if they are the greatest, most innovative company of all time. You can copy something *while* giving credit at the same time, *and* sue everybody else doing similar things (which is essentially what Apple did).
http://www.dailytech.com/Judge+Refuses+Apples+Request+for+Preliminary+Injunction+Against+Samsung/article23014.htm
Tell me how in any way these smartphone "features" deserve patent protection. The patent system has basically turned into a protection racket.
Like how Apple invented the GUI, or the smartphone? Oh wait, they didn't... They just copied it from somebody, patented it and then sued everybody else for "infringement".
BT is no longer a crown corporation. One could argue that the service it provided when it was public-owned is much better than it is now that it has privatized. Infrastructure and utilities is probably the most suitable application of a public ownership, and it has always been difficult to ensure competition in a market-based model due to the capital investment and economies of scale once the infrastructure is in place. This is prevalent in both telecommunications and energy sectors catering to the end-user.
Of course, this also applies to things like rail transport which require extensive infrastructure - take British Rail for example.
Thanks for that link.
No, socialism is not totalitarian as long as the government adheres to effective democratic principles. That is the way Scandinavian/Nordic countries are run.
However, a totalitarian capitalist state is basically fascist.
As you said, cronyism begins at the top. Who controls the money, who are the masters of the universe?
Occupying China.. haha.. Seriously... Who do you think lowered the barriers to import the cheap consumer goods from China?
I'm sorry, but you're seriously deluded. There is only one solution, and that is to close the trade deficit at all costs (easiest way is devaluation of USD). Right now we're buying Chinese goods on cheap credit from, guess who?? China.
Just another round of talking-points and logical fallacies, but really, you're wasting your time.
The protesters aren't saying "business is greedy ... we want money too". That might be what it sounds to the elite (and to you). To the rest of us, they are highlighting the unfairness in the current system and they want the voices representing the rest of us heard, not just the voices paid for by monied interests.