The problem is, toxicity of aspirin in tablet form is NOT greater. It's actually far smaller.
It's _easier_ to overdose on tablet aspirin since it's sold in a such convenient tablet form. However, if you do use aspirin sanely you basically have no chance to get poisoned even if you do use it regularly (modulo personal adverse drug reactions).
However, if you do drink willow bark tea regularly in therapeutic concentration quantities you WILL get kidney failure eventually (which generally is not a problem because stomach problems will get to you first).
Very few plants have pharmaceutically-active components in sufficiently high concentration to be used for drugs. Or when they do contain them, they are usually contaminated by something else.
For example, aspirin is contained in willow bark and you can actually use willow bark tea instead of aspirin. However, willow bark also contains substances that actively damage kidneys so you can't drink willow tea often.
There is. It might be that your wife's glasses are not really polaroids (my prescription glasses definitely are) and I can see my Galaxy S screen changing brightness as I rotate it. All OLED screens use polarizing filter to reduce glare.
Unfortunately, AMOLED devices require polarized filter to reduce reflection from the aluminium backplate behind the AMOLED layer. So they are polarizing too (easy to check - just rotate AMOLED-based phone while wearing polaroid glasses).
Stop both trains, find that yahoo, put him on the track before one train and his friend on the track before the second train. Then start both trains again.
First, you can design docking port to be safe in this case.
Second, trains can _stop_. It's easy - you ALWAYS leave some part of parallel track for emergency braking and if trains reach it with doors open then brakes are applied automatically. You can make the emergency strip long enough for gentle braking.
"It does if it gets itself into a situation like Italy where the rate on bonds is unsustainable, that's kind of the point."
Japan has like 2.5 times its GDP in debt, yet it bond rates are low. The problem with Italy is their lack of their own currency, and UK has avoided this problem by not joining the eurozone. Conversely, problems of Italy can be solved by loosening ECB rules to allow it to act as the lender of the last resort.
"This is comical, Canada wasn't hit very hard because it already had sane laws governing the financial practices of it's banks, didn't have to resort to the kind of bailouts most other western countries did which is what drastically increased their debts."
So did Spain and Italy. Both had good banking regulation, yet it hasn't helped them with their lending problem.
"Presumably you're aware that Britain was going to lose it's AAA rating and the very reason it didn't was the austerity cuts? No? Didn't think so."
Who cares about AAA ratings? The assholes in rating agencies can't find their own asses with two hands. Certainly markets don't care about AAA ratings at all, as witnessed by US bond market.
So we have the same situation repeating again, and again, and again, and again - austerity doesn't work. It causes economic growth to flag, does nothing for business confidence and so on. There are literally no examples of working (in the sense 'doing something good') austerity measures.
But wait! We'll soon have opportunity to see how austerity doesn't work for France and Italy!
Nope. UK has all the chances to go 'bankrupt' (in the sense of requirement for _really_ high inflation to avoid it).
Canada is NOT 'weathering the storm', it enacted a REAL stimulus program quite soon and fast and avoided most of the crisis. Sweden used even more aggressive stimulus (at one point in time it has offered NEGATIVE interest rate) and right now has low unemployment with good growth. Poland devalued its currency and enacted a stimulus, so again the worst has been avoided.
"Saying it doesn't cause a reduction in rates is laughable, it's the reason rates are low in the first place, if we took your option they wouldn't be, they'd be like Spain's, France's, or Italy's"
Again, that's demonstrably not true. Ireland had made real and savage austerity cuts and right now their rate is more than that of Italy. Latvia's bond rate is about 6% even though there's a brutal austerity program in progress. While Sweden enjoys 2% rate. US with its humongous trade and budget deficits has 2% rate as well.
So nope, austerity and bond rates are not linked directly.
I have actually lived in socialistic countries. Moreover, I even have read Marx and passed exam on 'scientific communism'. So yes, I'm aware that socialism forms a wide spectrum of political, social and economic phenomena.
However, it still doesn't make your definitions any more valid.
Does it cost a reduction in rates? Nope, they are already pretty low. Does it cause greater growth? Nope, it has almost caused a new recession and still might. Does it create more jobs? Nope, unemployment has grown.
So nope. If UK could do at least something from the list above AND reduce deficit at the same time then it would have been impressive.
And I'll gladly bet you money that austerity measures will fail one way or another. They might lead to all-out recession or they might be quietly swept under the rug.
So want to bet that by 2015 deficit will not only be present, but would actually grow? I'm willing to be an equivalent of 30g of gold (so not to depend on currency fluctuations) or a case of your favorite beer.
"So what happens when the deficit is gone? well, if we're smart we start running a surplus, what do we do with surplus? we reduce that afformentioned national debt that you mentioned is growing."
It won't be gone because if this "reduction" continues on track, economy would crater and reduced revenue and added unemployment benefits would wipe out most of the deficit reductions. A good strategy is to borrow like crazy because interest rates are low right now, invest money into the economy and THEN repay it during good times.
You might notice that your article states: "Rachel Reeves, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "While these figures are better than many feared, the chancellor's borrowing targets have already been revised upwards. The government is already set to borrow £46bn more because of the slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment George Osborne's failed policies have delivered....
Analysts said spending restraint had been the big factor in reducing borrowing last month. Michael Saunders at Citi said core central government outlays – Whitehall spending excluding interest payments on the national debt and welfare benefits – were 3.7% lower than in September 2010, the biggest year on year drop since 2002. Tax receipts are also up on last year, although the underlying increase of 6% is slightly below the forecast made by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility in March. Economists warned that the stalling of the economy since last autumn may start to take its toll on the public finances over the next few months, particularly if the crisis in the eurozone intensifies."
So not only a part of the savings is already going to be wiped out by increased borrowing to offset the growing unemployment, it doesn't also count the increased welfare.
I'm not going to analyze it further, but it seems likely that a significant part of the savings was a result of normal economic recovery! I.e.growing tax revenues and lowering welfare payments. Both have nothing to do with austerity.
However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.
So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve? I distinctly remember words like 'business confidence' and 'spur the investments' - both have demonstrably failed to happen.
Nope. It's YOU who define that socialism is "redistribution of resources within a social group" and by YOUR definition pretty much every society is socialistic.
So either go back to school and learn about correct definitions or fuck off.
Moron = user with nick pecosdave. Elm = a left stop signal of a Buick Tree = subway car
I can give you a few another such 'definitions'.
If you are going to argue about merits of various social systems using your own nonsense definitions - that's fine. But don't try to argue like this:
"Since Nazism (by my definition) is a process of painting your house blue and Nazism has led to 30 million deaths we should ban the blue paint! Yes, that's right blue paint causes Nazism!"
I predict that your deficit is going to GROW in near- and long-term since the revenues have fallen and you'd need even more austerity. In short, it is already an epic fail.
"Losing a year or two of 2 - 3% levels of growth over the next 20 years or so is much less of a big deal than running the risk of defaulting which would result in 10 - 20 years of lost growth and serious strife instead."
Who told you that an austerity just causes you to 'lose a few years'? It is going to lower the base of growth, and quite significantly and for a quite a long time. While at the same time adding to STRUCTURAL problems of unemployment by allowing people to lose qualifications.
And in return you get exactly what? "Business confidence" is worth shit, and it has actually fallen. Slashing deficits NOW NOW NOW NOW doesn't do anything with long-term deficits which mainly depend on ability to sustain growth.
"It only works ONCE, because what you've just described is revolution, and revolution inevitably becomes tedious and annoying to pretty much everyone - including the revolutionaries themselves. Businesses larger than a sidewalk vendor can't cope with laws that change on a daily (or even a weekly) basis."
Bullshitt. Businesses can and do adapt to changing laws, as long as they don't attack core business matters. And if changes in laws do attack them then you have other problems anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, toxicity of aspirin in tablet form is NOT greater. It's actually far smaller.
It's _easier_ to overdose on tablet aspirin since it's sold in a such convenient tablet form. However, if you do use aspirin sanely you basically have no chance to get poisoned even if you do use it regularly (modulo personal adverse drug reactions).
However, if you do drink willow bark tea regularly in therapeutic concentration quantities you WILL get kidney failure eventually (which generally is not a problem because stomach problems will get to you first).
That's because far far fewer people now use willow tea.
If usage of willow tea and aspirin was comparable, you'd see magnitudes more deaths from drinking too much willow tea.
Nope.
Very few plants have pharmaceutically-active components in sufficiently high concentration to be used for drugs. Or when they do contain them, they are usually contaminated by something else.
For example, aspirin is contained in willow bark and you can actually use willow bark tea instead of aspirin. However, willow bark also contains substances that actively damage kidneys so you can't drink willow tea often.
Easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWLOqVdtbkw - Ubuntu on Galaxy S.
There is. It might be that your wife's glasses are not really polaroids (my prescription glasses definitely are) and I can see my Galaxy S screen changing brightness as I rotate it. All OLED screens use polarizing filter to reduce glare.
Unfortunately, AMOLED devices require polarized filter to reduce reflection from the aluminium backplate behind the AMOLED layer. So they are polarizing too (easy to check - just rotate AMOLED-based phone while wearing polaroid glasses).
Stop both trains, find that yahoo, put him on the track before one train and his friend on the track before the second train. Then start both trains again.
There, problem solved.
First, you can design docking port to be safe in this case.
Second, trains can _stop_. It's easy - you ALWAYS leave some part of parallel track for emergency braking and if trains reach it with doors open then brakes are applied automatically. You can make the emergency strip long enough for gentle braking.
"Instead of trying to re-invent how to move the drones to and from offices, lets figure a way to bring the office, the work back home."
You mean: "Instead of trying to re-invent how to move the drones to and from offices, lets figure a way to bring the office, the work to India"?
Not really. Basically, as soon as our methods allow to detect lower-mass planets we immediately detect them.
It's just that now our tools are not yet good enough to detect Earth-sized planets in habitable zone.
I live in Ukraine and here bottled water is labeled "Contains no GM products", seriously.
Unless the speed of neutrinos depends on their energy. Accelerator-produced neutrinos are MUCH more energetic than neutrinos from fusion.
"It does if it gets itself into a situation like Italy where the rate on bonds is unsustainable, that's kind of the point."
Japan has like 2.5 times its GDP in debt, yet it bond rates are low. The problem with Italy is their lack of their own currency, and UK has avoided this problem by not joining the eurozone. Conversely, problems of Italy can be solved by loosening ECB rules to allow it to act as the lender of the last resort.
"This is comical, Canada wasn't hit very hard because it already had sane laws governing the financial practices of it's banks, didn't have to resort to the kind of bailouts most other western countries did which is what drastically increased their debts."
So did Spain and Italy. Both had good banking regulation, yet it hasn't helped them with their lending problem.
"Presumably you're aware that Britain was going to lose it's AAA rating and the very reason it didn't was the austerity cuts? No? Didn't think so."
Who cares about AAA ratings? The assholes in rating agencies can't find their own asses with two hands. Certainly markets don't care about AAA ratings at all, as witnessed by US bond market.
So we have the same situation repeating again, and again, and again, and again - austerity doesn't work. It causes economic growth to flag, does nothing for business confidence and so on. There are literally no examples of working (in the sense 'doing something good') austerity measures.
But wait! We'll soon have opportunity to see how austerity doesn't work for France and Italy!
Nope. UK has all the chances to go 'bankrupt' (in the sense of requirement for _really_ high inflation to avoid it).
Canada is NOT 'weathering the storm', it enacted a REAL stimulus program quite soon and fast and avoided most of the crisis. Sweden used even more aggressive stimulus (at one point in time it has offered NEGATIVE interest rate) and right now has low unemployment with good growth. Poland devalued its currency and enacted a stimulus, so again the worst has been avoided.
"Saying it doesn't cause a reduction in rates is laughable, it's the reason rates are low in the first place, if we took your option they wouldn't be, they'd be like Spain's, France's, or Italy's"
Again, that's demonstrably not true. Ireland had made real and savage austerity cuts and right now their rate is more than that of Italy. Latvia's bond rate is about 6% even though there's a brutal austerity program in progress. While Sweden enjoys 2% rate. US with its humongous trade and budget deficits has 2% rate as well.
So nope, austerity and bond rates are not linked directly.
"Interestingly, I am almost completely unable to read Russian transliterated in to Latin characters"
Even native speakers hate transliterated Russian. It's just ugly.
Of course, if you don't HAVE a place to sleep you can't protest. Which also solves their problems.
I have actually lived in socialistic countries. Moreover, I even have read Marx and passed exam on 'scientific communism'. So yes, I'm aware that socialism forms a wide spectrum of political, social and economic phenomena.
However, it still doesn't make your definitions any more valid.
Why is it impressing?
Does it cost a reduction in rates? Nope, they are already pretty low.
Does it cause greater growth? Nope, it has almost caused a new recession and still might.
Does it create more jobs? Nope, unemployment has grown.
So nope. If UK could do at least something from the list above AND reduce deficit at the same time then it would have been impressive.
And I'll gladly bet you money that austerity measures will fail one way or another. They might lead to all-out recession or they might be quietly swept under the rug.
So want to bet that by 2015 deficit will not only be present, but would actually grow? I'm willing to be an equivalent of 30g of gold (so not to depend on currency fluctuations) or a case of your favorite beer.
"So what happens when the deficit is gone? well, if we're smart we start running a surplus, what do we do with surplus? we reduce that afformentioned national debt that you mentioned is growing."
It won't be gone because if this "reduction" continues on track, economy would crater and reduced revenue and added unemployment benefits would wipe out most of the deficit reductions. A good strategy is to borrow like crazy because interest rates are low right now, invest money into the economy and THEN repay it during good times.
You might notice that your article states: ...
"Rachel Reeves, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "While these figures are better than many feared, the chancellor's borrowing targets have already been revised upwards. The government is already set to borrow £46bn more because of the slower growth, higher inflation and higher unemployment George Osborne's failed policies have delivered.
Analysts said spending restraint had been the big factor in reducing borrowing last month. Michael Saunders at Citi said core central government outlays – Whitehall spending excluding interest payments on the national debt and welfare benefits – were 3.7% lower than in September 2010, the biggest year on year drop since 2002. Tax receipts are also up on last year, although the underlying increase of 6% is slightly below the forecast made by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility in March. Economists warned that the stalling of the economy since last autumn may start to take its toll on the public finances over the next few months, particularly if the crisis in the eurozone intensifies."
So not only a part of the savings is already going to be wiped out by increased borrowing to offset the growing unemployment, it doesn't also count the increased welfare.
I'm not going to analyze it further, but it seems likely that a significant part of the savings was a result of normal economic recovery! I.e.growing tax revenues and lowering welfare payments. Both have nothing to do with austerity.
Nope. Not a FUD. Wanna bet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 - trade is flagging,
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt - debt is growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months - business confidence craters.
Deficits are not significantly affected.
However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.
So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve? I distinctly remember words like 'business confidence' and 'spur the investments' - both have demonstrably failed to happen.
Nope. It's YOU who define that socialism is "redistribution of resources within a social group" and by YOUR definition pretty much every society is socialistic.
So either go back to school and learn about correct definitions or fuck off.
Nope. They are quite idiotic and miss the point.
"Fascism - compulsory submission to a philosophy - a very simple definition but it doesn't agree with the one on the Webster website."
So slavery if fascism and Southern States were fascist? As well as Medieval Europe and Ancient World. That's quite something.
"Socialism - the redistribution of resources within a group."
So capitalism is socialism (since they both entail a redistribution of resources)? That's nice.
A few of my definition:
Moron = user with nick pecosdave.
Elm = a left stop signal of a Buick
Tree = subway car
I can give you a few another such 'definitions'.
If you are going to argue about merits of various social systems using your own nonsense definitions - that's fine. But don't try to argue like this:
"Since Nazism (by my definition) is a process of painting your house blue and Nazism has led to 30 million deaths we should ban the blue paint! Yes, that's right blue paint causes Nazism!"
I predict that your deficit is going to GROW in near- and long-term since the revenues have fallen and you'd need even more austerity. In short, it is already an epic fail.
"Losing a year or two of 2 - 3% levels of growth over the next 20 years or so is much less of a big deal than running the risk of defaulting which would result in 10 - 20 years of lost growth and serious strife instead."
Who told you that an austerity just causes you to 'lose a few years'? It is going to lower the base of growth, and quite significantly and for a quite a long time. While at the same time adding to STRUCTURAL problems of unemployment by allowing people to lose qualifications.
And in return you get exactly what? "Business confidence" is worth shit, and it has actually fallen. Slashing deficits NOW NOW NOW NOW doesn't do anything with long-term deficits which mainly depend on ability to sustain growth.
So, why?
"It only works ONCE, because what you've just described is revolution, and revolution inevitably becomes tedious and annoying to pretty much everyone - including the revolutionaries themselves. Businesses larger than a sidewalk vendor can't cope with laws that change on a daily (or even a weekly) basis."
Bullshitt. Businesses can and do adapt to changing laws, as long as they don't attack core business matters. And if changes in laws do attack them then you have other problems anyway.