I don't see how the study supports that conclusion, so I'd disagree that such a conclusion would not be poor. The study looks at overall health of the nation, not specifically at the large majority who already get good (though expensive) health care.
Overall health of a country translates to care the majority receives. It would be hard to conclude otherwise. First off Canada is easy because it's indiscriminate, so everyone receives the same care. Now the US. Lets say the majority of people (the upper 70%) receive better care than Canada. So if we were to give the lower 30% zero care that might bring the US below Canada if the majority care was marginally above Canada. This would ensure it integrates to something under Canada. However, the upper 30% (you claim) receives better care than the majority, which would raise the overall care a bit. Also the lower %30 don't necessarily get zero care. It would be hard to fudge the statistics to get it work out right, but it's possible. It would be easier to conclude that the majority in the US receive less care than Canada and that the overall care in the US is worse.
I don't need to: I gave an argument. I noted the fact that the upper middle class who right now has more options, would have less options. That may not seem significant to you, but it is to them.
You equate choice to better care. Is that really what happens in reality? You seem sure, but you would need to compare statistics between both Canadian and US upper middle class citizens and compare the care they really do receive.
No, I do not. Why do you think that I do say such a thing?
If you refuse health care to those who can't afford it for the sake of "freedom", you *are* harming people.
Unfortunately, of course, it's not the market that makes it so people don't get health care, it's the government, via industry regulation.
The market does in many ways decide whether people can get health care: if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Does a lower class citizen have the choice to have the best care? You get what you can based on how the market decides prices. Deregulation doesn't get rid of this, and the government doesn't cause it.
First off, it appears from the study in your parent post that it wouldn't be a poor conclusion that health care in canada is better for a majority of the population. You claim that upper middle class would be significantly worse off in canada, but don't give references to that claim. Second, so you say its OK to harm all the people who would benefit from a social health care system in order to retain people's freedom of choice? Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Sure, you can go without insurance but you'll be in big trouble when something out of your control happens to you, and most people aren't crazy enough to risk that. Health care costs can be *so* high that lack of insurance can ruin a person financially. Seems like some choices are lost there. Never mind the people who can't even afford insurance so don't have any choice there.
I'm still not convinced you can conclude that Vista "bested the competition handily". Even though the average number of days to fix a vulnerability and overall number of vulnerabilities was lower for Vista, it isn't clear whether 21 days with 39 vulnerabilities, 12 being *severe*, is necessarily better than (for example, MacOSX) 66 days with 43 vulnerabilities, 1 being severe. It would be a good guess that each day with a severe vulnerability would be worse (or carried a heavier weight) than each day with a lower priority one. It's unclear from the test to what extend this is true, but if high priority days carried the same weight as 3 low priority days, Vista would be approximately on par with the competition. I think that it's sufficiently within resonable doubt that given the correct weights, Vista could look as bad as or worse than the competition.
Yeh, Albuquerque and Denver got lots of snow, but the issue isn't necessarily temperature, it's more likely to be more precipitation. Albuquerque is at a mile high, and its winters are generally cold enough to snow, it just doesn't because it's a desert.
Newton's theories have already been proven to be incorrect (or inexact). General relativity is needed to explain precession of mercury. Newton's equations are at best valid only when the gravational forces are weak. Einstein's theories may be inexact at large distances and new insights into the physics would be needed.
Sure, self correcting code would be fairly easy. General grammar rules would basically amount to databases within the code. The code would access these databases every time it reads sentences. If there is inconsistancies between what the code is reading and what it references, it can keep track of these in order to decide later whether to change the rules in its database. What's even more fun is you can send this code in the form of a bot to chat rooms in order to learn colloquial speech. I'd say the most difficult problem is finding the most effecient way to orgainize ideas such that is doesn't take an arbitrary number of rule sets to represent ideas.
I'd question whether the xbox 2 is capable of being backwards capatable because xbox uses an intel x86 chip, while microsoft has already made a deal with IBM to put a ppc (supposedly a derivative of the power 5 or 6) in the xbox 2. This hardware difference might make backwards capability.... slightly uneconomical for ms.
In addition, it would not be in the RIAA's best interest to take their 4-5 figure lawyer up to sue downloaders when the defendant's defense can be bought for 15 bucks (ie buying the music, therefore prooving ownership)
I agree with most of the complaints Tog gives concerning the dock, especially the one about the dock being a big target. I dont know how many times a day I used to accidently pull the hidden dock out when moving things around on the desktop (now I leave the dock unhidden) (though i've never had trouble opening the dock). In addition, the indistinuighability of icons in the dock are a problem when finding the right document or minimized window to open.
However, he neglects some important problems that I come across on a daily basis. That is its easy to make mistakes with selecting objects in the dock. I find it a daily problem of missing the right icon and opening the wrong application (and having to hold down on the new bouncing icon to hopefully quit before it completely opens) or even dragging a document I needed into the trash! This comes from 2 features in the dock: the minimize/maximize feature which moves icons on the dock around (though the increase in size does remove some confusion), and the lack of clear-cut boudaries between icons.
These I find more annoying than icons on the dock (which are just links) disappearing in a poof when you drag them off. Items on the dock are only links, and it would be just as or more painful to have to systematically erase things of the dock or extra links that had collected on the desktop from dragging them off.
Otherwise, the dock is a good idea. Its a dynamic tool for an collection user functions such as application usage and switching and linking. This is something that was lacking in the apple menu in classic version of macos, and the change has, in my case despite the problems, made the user experience much more fluid and easy.
Slashdot Mirror
But not bad compared to a XBOX360 + HD DVD player. Lets not forget the summer blue ray promotion: http://www.bluraysavings.com/
Uhm, and don't forget FINAL FANTASY.
First off, it appears from the study in your parent post that it wouldn't be a poor conclusion that health care in canada is better for a majority of the population. You claim that upper middle class would be significantly worse off in canada, but don't give references to that claim.
Second, so you say its OK to harm all the people who would benefit from a social health care system in order to retain people's freedom of choice? Taxes aren't the only way that people can lose freedoms: the market can do its fair share and it can do it much better. Sure, you can go without insurance but you'll be in big trouble when something out of your control happens to you, and most people aren't crazy enough to risk that. Health care costs can be *so* high that lack of insurance can ruin a person financially. Seems like some choices are lost there. Never mind the people who can't even afford insurance so don't have any choice there.
I'm still not convinced you can conclude that Vista "bested the competition handily". Even though the average number of days to fix a vulnerability and overall number of vulnerabilities was lower for Vista, it isn't clear whether 21 days with 39 vulnerabilities, 12 being *severe*, is necessarily better than (for example, MacOSX) 66 days with 43 vulnerabilities, 1 being severe. It would be a good guess that each day with a severe vulnerability would be worse (or carried a heavier weight) than each day with a lower priority one. It's unclear from the test to what extend this is true, but if high priority days carried the same weight as 3 low priority days, Vista would be approximately on par with the competition. I think that it's sufficiently within resonable doubt that given the correct weights, Vista could look as bad as or worse than the competition.
Yeh, Albuquerque and Denver got lots of snow, but the issue isn't necessarily temperature, it's more likely to be more precipitation. Albuquerque is at a mile high, and its winters are generally cold enough to snow, it just doesn't because it's a desert.
to RTFM!!!!
Newton's theories have already been proven to be incorrect (or inexact). General relativity is needed to explain precession of mercury. Newton's equations are at best valid only when the gravational forces are weak. Einstein's theories may be inexact at large distances and new insights into the physics would be needed.
In physics we don't call it dark matter. We call it "make the theory fit the data" matter.
Sure, self correcting code would be fairly easy.
General grammar rules would basically amount to databases within the code. The code would access these databases every time it reads sentences. If there is inconsistancies between what the code is reading and what it references, it can keep track of these in order to decide later whether to change the rules in its database.
What's even more fun is you can send this code in the form of a bot to chat rooms in order to learn colloquial speech.
I'd say the most difficult problem is finding the most effecient way to orgainize ideas such that is doesn't take an arbitrary number of rule sets to represent ideas.
i'm sure they're hiding that damn dirty external power supply
The scary thing is that I have no idea if you're being serious or not.
Actually, 4 disks were found to be missing in the June 30th inventory check Only 2 have been found and 2 are still missing.
I'd question whether the xbox 2 is capable of being backwards capatable because xbox uses an intel x86 chip, while microsoft has already made a deal with IBM to put a ppc (supposedly a derivative of the power 5 or 6) in the xbox 2. This hardware difference might make backwards capability.... slightly uneconomical for ms.
In addition, it would not be in the RIAA's best interest to take their 4-5 figure lawyer up to sue downloaders when the defendant's defense can be bought for 15 bucks (ie buying the music, therefore prooving ownership)
I agree with most of the complaints Tog gives concerning the dock, especially the one about the dock being a big target. I dont know how many times a day I used to accidently pull the hidden dock out when moving things around on the desktop (now I leave the dock unhidden) (though i've never had trouble opening the dock). In addition, the indistinuighability of icons in the dock are a problem when finding the right document or minimized window to open.
However, he neglects some important problems that I come across on a daily basis. That is its easy to make mistakes with selecting objects in the dock. I find it a daily problem of missing the right icon and opening the wrong application (and having to hold down on the new bouncing icon to hopefully quit before it completely opens) or even dragging a document I needed into the trash! This comes from 2 features in the dock: the minimize/maximize feature which moves icons on the dock around (though the increase in size does remove some confusion), and the lack of clear-cut boudaries between icons.
These I find more annoying than icons on the dock (which are just links) disappearing in a poof when you drag them off. Items on the dock are only links, and it would be just as or more painful to have to systematically erase things of the dock or extra links that had collected on the desktop from dragging them off.
Otherwise, the dock is a good idea. Its a dynamic tool for an collection user functions such as application usage and switching and linking. This is something that was lacking in the apple menu in classic version of macos, and the change has, in my case despite the problems, made the user experience much more fluid and easy.