the problem with too much military spending is a problem in the US. You waste much more money of your GDP for the military than other Western countries. However, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the taxes do not suffice to pay for all the social benefits. So you either get rid of the social benefits or have to raise taxes.
In the last 30 years, all Western countries have reduced the taxes for rich people. As Warren Buffet pointed out, he is paying 17% taxes, while most people pay 30%. In Germany the situation is similar. Taxes on your salary go from 15% up to 42% for high incomes. However, profits made on the capital market is only taxed with 20%.
One problem with taxes on these kinds of income are, if you raise them too much, people move their money to Switzerland, Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands (there are ways in preventing that, but politicians look deliberately in the other direction).
The other option is to reduce social benefits or be consequent and do not have any. While this sounds like a simple solution, it results in a lot of other problems. A country, or a group of people live together. they are interdependent. If one group raises to much above the others, they tend to disconnect (happened in history several times). As the richer groups tend then to turn their back on the rest (not necessarily to everyone, but to the majority) and stop understanding their situation, they steer up resentments on the other end. When those lower class people, start to have problems sustaining their present level, which often means they have to move to cheaper and less habitable quarters. Such environment creates the general feeling that you cannot achieve anything. You can struggle, but in the end you fail. When living in that environment, the times get harder, people tend to violence. Rich people normally call then for the state to protect them. When that does not help, they build guarded homes and villages. Shutting out the poor. You can visit that situation in South Africa.
In such a situation, it can happen, and it has happened, that the poor start some sort of revolt. The main trigger for the revolt in Egypt and other states in northern Africa, and also in Syria, are the poor condition, and the disconnectedness of the ruling class.
It is absolutely clear that such a situation is even for the ruling class very uncomfortable and undesirable. Therefore, we have to sustain the option for everyone that we care for his or her basic needs. This cuts violence between people in lower classes and towards the middle class. Furthermore, we have to provide the means that people can evolve. They must be empowered. If so they can find their place in live. Not everyone needs to become rich or even strive for it. Happiness or other contexts of wellbeing can be achieved in different way. However, they correlate highly with guaranteed human rights, which include education, medical care, care of elderly, security, housing, a task or work with which you can identify, fair working conditions etc. (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).
The only working solution to the above problems is social security systems. Especially those who tend to empower people, like the one in Sweden. Not so much like the system in Germany. And definitely not like the US system.
On a side note: If you look at the total debt of the US government (and therefor the citizens) plus the debt of private households it adds up quite well with the amount of money the upper 10% of your country own. In Germany it is quite similar. Recently they released the latest poverty report for Germany. The government cheated a bit in the summary, but the data is telling another story. Their cutting of social benefits did not help. More people have jobs, but they cannot live from the money they get. So they get state money, which still costs the the state money, my tax money.
So to solve your math problem, which is actually a calculus problem,
I've thought that those who need the technology could also just ask. Why has everything be solved violently? Especially, when that serves neither side. The possible outcomes are more like: The group with the lowest number of sugar is more interested in generating the new technology. So they would invent it first, if possible. Then others would still rely on their cheap sugar until it runs out. Then they ask for the tech. In most cases they buy it. In other cases you just give it away.
We did that before. While in Europe acid rain ruined large areas of forests, in close proximity to the population. So everyone saw it. And the people requested action. In a relatively short time the change was forced upon the industry. And they reduced their SO_2 output, the situation improved over the years. The USA and Canada took a softer approach, which led in these countries to a delayed action. While the EU already had the proper technology developed. The US did not and so they bought it. They did not invade. The last time they came was to get rid of these Nazis.
I try to make a simple example and let you draw the conclusion. Let assume there are 10 cans of sugar and 5 people. It turns out the sugar is the only resource. It is obviously limited. So who will survive in the long run? Those with the 8 cans of sugar or those who figure out how to recycle it.
BTW: I do not believe that China is going to invade the EU or any other place on earth. The search economical hegemony just like the US and the EU. By number of people the easily outnumber the EU, the USA, and Australia together. The only comparable country is India. they are the largest democracy.
In the end we all can only survive when we have a sustainable system. When I look at China they are looking into it. They have no religious or other ideologues concept in the way, like the USA. They introduced a capitalistic economy in a, so called, communistic country. But there is nothing communistic in China today.
As former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt pointed out (in one of his interviews, talking about meetings with the Chinese government), they follow more a confucianistic approach. The answer to that statement from the Chinese side was in summary "So what?"
However, they are still doomed if they are not able to manage to keep the wealth more homogeneous in their country.
The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK. You give up so much control over your existences for this and other handouts and I do not understand why. Do you really want to end up like greece?..or hell, the USA 20-40 years from now, as it slides into its new status as a chinese satellite?
First, we do not have waiting lines in hospitals or any other part of the healthcare system in Germany. Especially not for urgent things. Second, when I have a chronic disease, my bill does not rise. I do not go bankrupt over healthcare cost. Third, according to OECD measures. The average US citizen pays $ 6000 for healthcare per year (including state money and including those people who do not have any healthcare) with a service coverage of around 80%, while the so puny Europeans only pay around $ 3000 per year (also including all subsidies) and have a service coverage by 99%. Fourth, the problem in Greece is corruption. And the ever mounting debt is a general problem of our world economy. the US has a much bigger deficit per person and by GDP. Especially when compared to Germany. And that after Germany had to incorporate East Germany in the 1990s.
However, we are all sitting in the same boat (including China). If we sink, the sink too. And we have all a resource and sustainability problem. And one cause of that is the present constitution of the economic system. That has to be fixed. As well as the resource problem. And yes. The US is not helping with these issues according to past outcomes of global environment conferences. The "We need to drill for more oil"-logic is also flawed. It would be better to start switching then to prolong the present. But, if you do not want to change, Europe or to be more precise the EU can try to do better. You are always welcomed to follow us.
It will be either the 'sharks with frikkin lasers atached to their head'-jokes, or an accumulation of these people who thought that the LHC would produce micro-black-holes getting all excited about blowing something up. Turning from black hole alarmist to Death Star alarmists. I wonder if these people are the same as the;
- OMG the acidic rain will render the world uninhabitable! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
Well they said, acid rain destroys the forests. And it did. There was an significant increase in dead trees. The famous black forest became almost a no forest. So we did something about it and and now things are going to improve.
- OMG the LHC will end the world with a man-made black hole! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
That are definitely other people, because they did not have any proof at all. While in the previous version, trees could be counted and their health could be determined. the latter folks did not even provide a sound theory.
- OMG they want to ship radio active waste to the moon! Think about the radiation! Think about the kids! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
That sounds more like the first group. They calculated the risk to the ecosystem when a plutonium based reactor falls back to earth, breaks up in the atmosphere etc. However, shipping the waste to the moon or even into earth orbit is unbelievable expensive.
- OMG you drove a car today, according to these models, that will raise the sea level three feet by next Thursday you idiot! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
You seem to have trouble to categorize things correctly. If earth temperature rises. Or to be more precise. When we have more energy in the earth system, then that leads to more melted ice in Greenland and Antarctica. However, that will not rise the sea level today. It will affect your kids and their kids. They have to move New York or convert it into some Venice. The IPCC is definitely not an alarmist group.
- OMG the Mayan calender is going to finish us all! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
These guys are alarmists or even crazy. Simply because they have no proof. The only thing they have is a calendar, which ends after 6000 years. Well the world never ended when millions of calendars ended last year on December 31st. So why should that be different with that Mayan calendar. this is typical nonsense from people who have no insight into science.
- OMG they want to teach the kids Darwinism! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
Ah now you referring to Christian fundamentalists. As they oppose science, they fall in that alarmists group.
- OMG the Y2K bug! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
This was a marketing scheme (partly). However, if they had not fixed so many systems, it would have caused some trouble. But nothing serious.
- OMG Ponies!
Is this pony thing a dangerous event? I must have missed that.;-)
First, let me say that you react very emotional to something that unimportant than which manufacturer is more important. My point was that limiting the view to the US and maybe other First World region markets to increase the importance of one manufacturer over the other is a flawed approach.
WTF are you talking about, with this "declining societies"? The "middle-class" of Asia is...pathetic. They have no decent infrastructure.
I do not know why you are so fixated on the middle class. Middle class is a declining group in the US and so is is in Europe. Look at the demonstrations in Spain, Portugal and Greece. On the other hand in Asia more and more people are able to buy a smart phone. Yes, they go first with a cheap one. And the numbers of premium phones sold is lower than the number of cheap phones sold (same as in the First World). Furthermore, you are right when you state that the percentage of potential buyers is smaller than in the US or the EU. But the US has 300-350 million inhabitant and the EU has 420 million inhabitants, while China has 1300 million inhabitants and India is of similar size. Therefore, these markets are relevant. Even though China is no democracy and private ownership of homes is not really possible, people invest in personal things, like gadgets.
Probably, no decent broadband, cable, etc., except for a tiny percentage of their population (and the internet is censored in Corrupt Communist China, for fsck's sake!).
Cellphone coverage in the big cities in the east and south are good enough to use a 3G phone there. And the question is not if these things work as comfortable as in the First World, the question is if people are still buying these phones. And they do. As the global market share report shows. Their country has a big corruption problem and yes they are not a democracy, but that had capitalism never stopped to work. BTW China is not a communist country. Their party is just named that way. They have no social security system (even worse than the US) and job guarantee features as Eastern European countries had, before the end of the Cold War.
As you say, "the new kids" might use Android. do a little research, you'll probably find out what they really would like to have is the new iPhone! Besides, when you say "no one cares if Apple has great sales in Europe" you come across as really stupid and clueless because, in your - I am assuming, from your lack of...worldliness - young mind, you demonstrate you haven't a fucking clue about "markets". Please, go see what the Apple stock is worth. Use Google.
Well the market share tells me that they do buy Android phones. And that is what the article and my post was about. The market share indicates what they buy and that are not iPhones. In number of sales the First World is a very limited market. Our population is older and we already have a high market saturation for smart phones. Also we are all going into recession. While those Asian countries only have a reduced growth. As, long as income of the low income groups still rise in those countries, the number of potential first buyers increase which will have a big impact on market shares. While in our Western regions new smart phones replace old ones.
In that context, the Android is nothing but a shiny little toy that the typical middle-class teen displays to say his dad's got more money than you. It's pathetic. You gotta see it up close and personal.
It's nothing but a huge marketing clusterfuck, just like Microsoft Windows is a huge marketing clusterfuck/sham.
If you do not like Android, so be it. I, honestly, do not care less. Especially not in the context of this article. It is about who has a bigger market share and what are the prospects? And they all are in favor of Android. We will see how Windows 8 performs. However, I doubt that it will get that much market share in the next 5 to 1
Lets say you are right and most of the Android market share comes from Chinese and Indian users. That implies Apple's market share is bigger in the US, Europe and Australia. So be it. Then Apple as the bigger market share in declining societies, while new new kids on the block use Android. China alone has more potential buyers than all these First World regions together. No one cares if Apple has great sales in that tiny winy market of the US and Europe.
However, when I look around. A lot of people here in Germany buy themselves Android phones. Especially iPhone users who want more value and less restrictions on their phone. Even though they find the Android phones less intuitive than the iPhone.
They did and it worked as predicted. There is nothing wrong with game theory when applied accordingly. Game theorists pointed out that by present and past regulations short time gains can be increased by the risk of losses later. And they predicted that those who are able to stay ahead would not suffer losses. And that is exactly what happened. They played hot potato with a lot of hot potato. And someone burned their fingers. It is a pyramid-like game. They always fail in the end. But while normally the last players lose. In reality the states, meaning the people who did not play, have to pay for it.
You want more science used for evil, well they did;-)
The given scenario states, that we are all doomed, because there is no fixed point of disaster. However, they missed one thing. If if we had a fixed point. The point is outside of our lifespan. The effect of our doing will hit our children children. Therefore, the game has to be changed. You get the money and can spend it on green stuff. And when enough of the others do the same, the next group of people who plays the game gets the money.
When the job is too unattractive, because of exhausting work schedules, low payment and high entry cost, then there is an easy way to fix it. Pay them more. I do not want to sit in a plane where the pilots have to think about their dept or the financial situation of their family. They should be awake and focused on the job. You normally get that with a fair salary and good working conditions. And yes when the ticket prices will go up a dollar or two. So be it.
MOOC is nothing more than online learning, brought to us in the 2000s. Distant learning is an really old thing. In the last century it was done through postal service. First, shipping documents, then shipping documents and CDs. With the upcoming of the Internet. More media was delivered through that channel. As the Internet also allows to transfer video and allows synchronous and asynchronous communication (chat, audio and video chat, forum etc.).
All previous distant learning concepts suffered from high drop-out rates. To compensate for that, real life meetings were added to the curricula. Therefore, I assume the same will happen here. However, the content of a lecture could easily be transmitted online. So yes it might kill some private companies in the education business. So be it. Education should be free and if MOOC or online learning can provide that. Fine. Universities are financed by the state and the state are the people living in that state. Therefore, all the content the universities produce is payed by those people and the content should be made available, if possible, to all of them.
Yes, universities are also funded by companies. However, they provide money for research and the companies get their results. But, the rest is financed by the people and therefore the results belong to the people.
The IT industry, teachers, researchers and may more depend on their morning dose of coffee. When that is gone, this will be the end of the Western civilization. However, we could adapt to tea. Tea has a wider range of flavors than coffee so it is not necessary to invent all these untasteful coffee mixtures, which only exist to give people who have not to make many decisions every day, a chance to do so, by answering 5 questions to get a coffee. However, we still have subway and can make seven decisions until we get to the food.
However, we most likely do not need any coffee by 2080, because our industry will be crashed for good, as they do not want to adapt to the necessities of reality. Then we will all sit at home without jobs. I do not need coffee to cry in my pillow. It is contra-productive to drink coffee and stay in bed. So, no big deal when there is no coffee anymore.
Well that's the way how this system works. When people are too impassioned. Its the same feeling when a kid comes by and builds a nicer sandcastle or criticizes yours. Or even takes over your castle, because you had to leave and modifies it. The horror! If you want a more objective answer, you need a different discussion form. On/. people state their opinions. They take them as truth. And if you criticize their position, they start calling names or the start debating. Instead of a real discussion (something we should have learned in school and university) we have a debate on our hand. And the goal is to win, rather than to find a solution or an answer. And the moderation system is the same way. Minorities get suppressed. The only way out of this would be professional moderation, but that is definitely too expensive for/. and all the juvenile commentary going on here. Therefore you have to filter yourself. Maybe the system should automatically put move posts up, which are controversy.
When reading the posts so far, it looks like that some want their old interface back, which Gnome always had (which is not totally true, the old is also quite new). The main problem is, people have to relearn (a bit) how to use their machine. Some processes they used are no longer possible or useful. This is actually the same thing why other people do not want to go away from Windows on the desktop of their PCs and laptops.
Honestly, some her claim it was a bad move and no one wants the new bad and un-usable interface, while others call the previous group idiots and only a minor group with not much relevance. I am absolutely sure that both side talk bullshit (as in Harry Frankfurts, "On Bullshit"). Both sides cannot backup their claims toward the user basis and the user experience. I wonder why nobody is discussing the technology of the new and old Gnome stuff. Or the development and documentation process, which sucks (like in most OSS projects and even more in close source projects, design and documentation is mostly done after implementation and decisions are not documented. It is most important for other people to understand code to know why it is the way it is. The API is not enough. But, yes that is a general problem), or the choice of development language for gnome-shell etc.
To do a real critique on the UI experience, everyone should ask himself who are the audience of the UI? Which uses cases are incorporated? Which case cases are missing? If only application have to be launched and desktops have to be switched, then there is not much difference between Gnome 2 or Gnome 3, beside some eye candy. Honestly, they failed to make it more task centric which was one idea at the beginning. But the infrastructure for a move in that direction has to be build first. So I am not blaming anyone here.
So as a start: What do you want to do with your desktop shell? What do you want to do with your data navigation tool (aka file manager)?
Someone who chooses to study literature has most likely no interest in, let say, computer science. Trying to train him to become a computer scientist would be a pointless exercise. Similar like teaching me art. Furthermore, we have no expressed limit on the number of people who are allowed to start studying computer science (in most German universities), because there are not enough people who want to study that topic. Furthermore, 50% of the students drop out because it is too complicated for them. "Suggesting" people to study computer science by financial means would not improve that rate. That people do not want to study any of those STEM topics is a general development in Western countries and has to do with a cultural shift.
On a side note: We have enough people studying these topics. If there would be too few, the prices would go up. However, they are not going up. Not even for people with a master or doctoral degree. So obviously we have enough of them here. Another thing is, that in future we will need more people studying STEM topics to replace the present engineering stuff in our companies.
But the real problem is the attitude towards STEM topics. I participated as an advisor/tutor in two assessment programs for young women to test their ability towards STEM topics. What we could see was, that they had totally awkward believes towards STEM. Most of them were wrong. It is considered uninteresting, unsexy, hard and complicated. So they choose other topics. Even though they know. After university they get less money after a economy or other art degree than as an engineer or scientist. They rather have to work as trainees or un-payed interns than studying STEM topics.
Coming back to your quote:
So, yes it was better 20 years ago, but it is still better than the present US system.
So, fewer Germans go to university, and STEM fields have big trouble finding students in Germany. That means that everybody is forced to pay so that some people can get degrees in art history, literature, and theology, degrees that are are utterly useless in the job market. How is that "better"?
In total numbers, there are going more and more people to university every year. And we are up now to 2 mio. students coming from 1 mio. students in 1970. However, they slowed that progress by making it more expensive to study around 2000. The issue while people do not study STEM topics has nothing to do with the cost or no cost of those programs. Choices are made on the basis of assumptions towards personal skills. If people are afraid of \Sigma on a chalkboard then they will not go to study STEM. I saw that in my education science courses (minor topic) on the topic of quantitative social sciences. They are so afraid of it, that they never will go and learn any STEM topic. They rather study nothing. And that would be a great disaster, because people learn a lot in those art topics.
And a study is not about getting a good job education, but to get general education which elevates your ability to preserve the world and act on it. Most students are able to solve complex problems with the scientific method when they done studying any topic, which makes them much able to get jobs than people do did not. As you can also conclude from the fact that academics in Germany are less likely to be unemployed (3% unemployed academics, 6.5% unemployed in general).
Our, you can study when you can apply for university policy at least does not hinder anyone willing to study STEM from doing so. While expensive programs will keep people from choosing. At least that was the fact in Germany during that short period where we had tuition fees.
Correct, the secondary education systems sucks. Especially when compared to other European countries. Even though you can get into university if you got a matric/A level/Gymnasium degree or, depending on your state, via a wide range of special programs. Some are called Zulassungsprüfung (admission exam), which requires you to have work X years and the do a one or two years course with that exam at the end. So it is getting better, but they still have to go a long way until Germany complies with those Bologna and other educational agreements in Europe, where it does not count where you learned the stuff, just that you learned the stuff.
Honestly, I life in Germany and I work at university. There are no fees (beside some money for the Studentenwerk, which provides cheap "food", the students council and at most universities a train and bus ticket for the local area). However, there are some small taxes in some states called Verwaltungskostenbeitrag (extra money for the lazy bureaucracy). Also in Bavaria and Lower-Saxony, you still have to pay € 1000 per year. But in all other states, this tuition fee was revoked (at least for your first studies until bachelor, and when studied consecutively also the master degree). You max have to pay fees for studying longer than 6 years in total for your master. So, yes it was better 20 years ago, but it is still better than the present US system.
I totally disagree with you. In Germany, where I am from, we have no such thing as a tuition fee (beside Bavaria and Lower-Saxony). Politics introduced a symbolic fee of € 1000 a year a couple of years ago. It's only effect was, that poor people did not try to get into university. In the last 5 years almost all states dropped these fees again. The overall time students required to finish their studies did not change over that tuition fee experiment time only the number of students where diminished.
Some studies showed that by collection tuition fees, the number of students doing part-time studies rose and so their overall time to complete doubled. However, these results are not that significant, as part-time studies are a relatively new concept supported by universities.
Nevertheless, it is safe to say. Tuition fees do not have any effect on the seriousness of the way how people take their studies. A tuition free education allows you to select that topic you are interested in, which will most likely result in a high motivated student. While when your decision is, "lets do something where I can definitely pay back my dept" then this may result in a different selection of topics. Topics you are not that good. How will you ever by excellent at it, if it is not the thing you want to do?
You might be right about that. However, have you ever considered off-shoring yourself. Yes, I know, in the long run that will not help the US, as you would leave the country, which would cause a brain drain, which results in even worse economics. However, on a personal perspective it still might be a good idea. For example, due to the present crisis in Spain a lot of Spanish people move to Germany, as this is (at the moment and only for the moment) a thriving economy compared to its neighbors. Maybe you have to learn a new language?
A paper and pencil study, like education, math or sociology costs about € 3000 per year, while engineering and sciences with a lot of lab work go up to € 10000 or more. At least in Germany that is. If you stop having sociology, this would have no effect on the cost of all the other topics available at a university. However, you would not be able to study computer science and sociology together, because there wouldn't be any good sociology teacher left. Thanks god, we (in the upper mentioned country) do not have tuition fees for students, And even though a lot of people studying economics and other arts, we still have only 3% unemployment for academics, while the over all unemployment rate is 6.5%.
Here people select a topic, because they are interested in (beside the economics people, according to recent surveys they decide because they think there is money in it) this results in people who are good at that what they do, as they are motivated. A real good thing would be to add a year before they choose a topic, where they could look into different topics and make a better judgment on picking a topic.
Honestly, I believe if you stop financing the universities through taxes you will loose in the long run. A lesser educated society is definitely not the answer to all the upcoming problems we have.
In a modern democracy every vote should have equal weight. However, the present system changes that by a) the winner takes it all and b) by giving small states more weight. You already have the senate to represent state balance. The parliament and the president should be elected directly by the people and not through some 18th century system. It was a good idea in those days. However, today it is not very democratic anymore.
Furthermore, the money spent in the election should be limited. SuperPACs and similar constructs should not be legal. The income and extra benefits of all candidates and elected people must be transparent. I want to know whose song they sing. Who is paying them and how much. As politicians are representatives for the people, their motives must be understandable and that is only possible with a lot of transparency.
On a side note: Changes in economic regulations take many years to have any measurable effect. It takes between 5-20 years from law to a significant change for the people.
On a second side note: The US should consider to get a multi-party system where minorities or minority opinions can also have seats in the parliament. Have a look at France, Sweden, The Netherlands or Germany (don't copy Italy). In such a system the Greens would sit in the parliament as well as the Tea Party. If present parties do not cover all issues of the public, a new party could bring these issues forward. Have a look at the Pirate parties in Europe. The rose very quickly introducing transparency and information age issues. The established parties had to address these issues and the political discourse changed.
In the US and UK unions are formed by workers for their special set of tasks/jobs, which results in a vast set of unions one for secretaries, one for metal workers, one for the administration staff etc. In continental Europe unions are formed for special business sectors. For example, all employees of car, machinery industry are in one union. The new payments are negotiated by the union and an organisation which represents the companies. This results in an balanced situation where the union and that business organisation can negotiate on the same level, which makes strikes mostly obsolete. Sometimes the still occur, but only to show the companies, that the union is backed by its workers. Also, breaking our unions, like Thatcher did in the UK, did not work that well in the rest of Europe. So it would be a great idea to reinvent unions in the US and UK along that promising union concept.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem with too much military spending is a problem in the US. You waste much more money of your GDP for the military than other Western countries. However, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the taxes do not suffice to pay for all the social benefits. So you either get rid of the social benefits or have to raise taxes.
In the last 30 years, all Western countries have reduced the taxes for rich people. As Warren Buffet pointed out, he is paying 17% taxes, while most people pay 30%. In Germany the situation is similar. Taxes on your salary go from 15% up to 42% for high incomes. However, profits made on the capital market is only taxed with 20%.
One problem with taxes on these kinds of income are, if you raise them too much, people move their money to Switzerland, Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands (there are ways in preventing that, but politicians look deliberately in the other direction).
The other option is to reduce social benefits or be consequent and do not have any. While this sounds like a simple solution, it results in a lot of other problems. A country, or a group of people live together. they are interdependent. If one group raises to much above the others, they tend to disconnect (happened in history several times). As the richer groups tend then to turn their back on the rest (not necessarily to everyone, but to the majority) and stop understanding their situation, they steer up resentments on the other end. When those lower class people, start to have problems sustaining their present level, which often means they have to move to cheaper and less habitable quarters. Such environment creates the general feeling that you cannot achieve anything. You can struggle, but in the end you fail. When living in that environment, the times get harder, people tend to violence. Rich people normally call then for the state to protect them. When that does not help, they build guarded homes and villages. Shutting out the poor. You can visit that situation in South Africa.
In such a situation, it can happen, and it has happened, that the poor start some sort of revolt. The main trigger for the revolt in Egypt and other states in northern Africa, and also in Syria, are the poor condition, and the disconnectedness of the ruling class.
It is absolutely clear that such a situation is even for the ruling class very uncomfortable and undesirable. Therefore, we have to sustain the option for everyone that we care for his or her basic needs. This cuts violence between people in lower classes and towards the middle class. Furthermore, we have to provide the means that people can evolve. They must be empowered. If so they can find their place in live. Not everyone needs to become rich or even strive for it. Happiness or other contexts of wellbeing can be achieved in different way. However, they correlate highly with guaranteed human rights, which include education, medical care, care of elderly, security, housing, a task or work with which you can identify, fair working conditions etc. (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).
The only working solution to the above problems is social security systems. Especially those who tend to empower people, like the one in Sweden. Not so much like the system in Germany. And definitely not like the US system.
On a side note: If you look at the total debt of the US government (and therefor the citizens) plus the debt of private households it adds up quite well with the amount of money the upper 10% of your country own. In Germany it is quite similar. Recently they released the latest poverty report for Germany. The government cheated a bit in the summary, but the data is telling another story. Their cutting of social benefits did not help. More people have jobs, but they cannot live from the money they get. So they get state money, which still costs the the state money, my tax money.
So to solve your math problem, which is actually a calculus problem,
I've thought that those who need the technology could also just ask. Why has everything be solved violently? Especially, when that serves neither side. The possible outcomes are more like: The group with the lowest number of sugar is more interested in generating the new technology. So they would invent it first, if possible. Then others would still rely on their cheap sugar until it runs out. Then they ask for the tech. In most cases they buy it. In other cases you just give it away.
We did that before. While in Europe acid rain ruined large areas of forests, in close proximity to the population. So everyone saw it. And the people requested action. In a relatively short time the change was forced upon the industry. And they reduced their SO_2 output, the situation improved over the years. The USA and Canada took a softer approach, which led in these countries to a delayed action. While the EU already had the proper technology developed. The US did not and so they bought it. They did not invade. The last time they came was to get rid of these Nazis.
I try to make a simple example and let you draw the conclusion. Let assume there are 10 cans of sugar and 5 people. It turns out the sugar is the only resource. It is obviously limited. So who will survive in the long run? Those with the 8 cans of sugar or those who figure out how to recycle it.
BTW: I do not believe that China is going to invade the EU or any other place on earth. The search economical hegemony just like the US and the EU. By number of people the easily outnumber the EU, the USA, and Australia together. The only comparable country is India. they are the largest democracy.
In the end we all can only survive when we have a sustainable system. When I look at China they are looking into it. They have no religious or other ideologues concept in the way, like the USA. They introduced a capitalistic economy in a, so called, communistic country. But there is nothing communistic in China today.
As former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt pointed out (in one of his interviews, talking about meetings with the Chinese government), they follow more a confucianistic approach. The answer to that statement from the Chinese side was in summary "So what?"
However, they are still doomed if they are not able to manage to keep the wealth more homogeneous in their country.
The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK. You give up so much control over your existences for this and other handouts and I do not understand why. Do you really want to end up like greece? ..or hell, the USA 20-40 years from now, as it slides into its new status as a chinese satellite?
First, we do not have waiting lines in hospitals or any other part of the healthcare system in Germany. Especially not for urgent things. Second, when I have a chronic disease, my bill does not rise. I do not go bankrupt over healthcare cost. Third, according to OECD measures. The average US citizen pays $ 6000 for healthcare per year (including state money and including those people who do not have any healthcare) with a service coverage of around 80%, while the so puny Europeans only pay around $ 3000 per year (also including all subsidies) and have a service coverage by 99%. Fourth, the problem in Greece is corruption. And the ever mounting debt is a general problem of our world economy. the US has a much bigger deficit per person and by GDP. Especially when compared to Germany. And that after Germany had to incorporate East Germany in the 1990s.
However, we are all sitting in the same boat (including China). If we sink, the sink too. And we have all a resource and sustainability problem. And one cause of that is the present constitution of the economic system. That has to be fixed. As well as the resource problem. And yes. The US is not helping with these issues according to past outcomes of global environment conferences. The "We need to drill for more oil"-logic is also flawed. It would be better to start switching then to prolong the present. But, if you do not want to change, Europe or to be more precise the EU can try to do better. You are always welcomed to follow us.
It will be either the 'sharks with frikkin lasers atached to their head'-jokes, or an accumulation of these people who thought that the LHC would produce micro-black-holes getting all excited about blowing something up. Turning from black hole alarmist to Death Star alarmists.
I wonder if these people are the same as the;
- OMG the acidic rain will render the world uninhabitable! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
Well they said, acid rain destroys the forests. And it did. There was an significant increase in dead trees. The famous black forest became almost a no forest. So we did something about it and and now things are going to improve.
- OMG the LHC will end the world with a man-made black hole! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
That are definitely other people, because they did not have any proof at all. While in the previous version, trees could be counted and their health could be determined. the latter folks did not even provide a sound theory.
- OMG they want to ship radio active waste to the moon! Think about the radiation! Think about the kids! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
That sounds more like the first group. They calculated the risk to the ecosystem when a plutonium based reactor falls back to earth, breaks up in the atmosphere etc. However, shipping the waste to the moon or even into earth orbit is unbelievable expensive.
- OMG you drove a car today, according to these models, that will raise the sea level three feet by next Thursday you idiot! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
You seem to have trouble to categorize things correctly. If earth temperature rises. Or to be more precise. When we have more energy in the earth system, then that leads to more melted ice in Greenland and Antarctica. However, that will not rise the sea level today. It will affect your kids and their kids. They have to move New York or convert it into some Venice. The IPCC is definitely not an alarmist group.
- OMG the Mayan calender is going to finish us all! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
These guys are alarmists or even crazy. Simply because they have no proof. The only thing they have is a calendar, which ends after 6000 years. Well the world never ended when millions of calendars ended last year on December 31st. So why should that be different with that Mayan calendar. this is typical nonsense from people who have no insight into science.
- OMG they want to teach the kids Darwinism! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
Ah now you referring to Christian fundamentalists. As they oppose science, they fall in that alarmists group.
- OMG the Y2K bug! We must do something or we are all gonna die!
This was a marketing scheme (partly). However, if they had not fixed so many systems, it would have caused some trouble. But nothing serious.
- OMG Ponies!
Is this pony thing a dangerous event? I must have missed that. ;-)
First, let me say that you react very emotional to something that unimportant than which manufacturer is more important. My point was that limiting the view to the US and maybe other First World region markets to increase the importance of one manufacturer over the other is a flawed approach.
WTF are you talking about, with this "declining societies"? The "middle-class" of Asia is...pathetic. They have no decent infrastructure.
I do not know why you are so fixated on the middle class. Middle class is a declining group in the US and so is is in Europe. Look at the demonstrations in Spain, Portugal and Greece. On the other hand in Asia more and more people are able to buy a smart phone. Yes, they go first with a cheap one. And the numbers of premium phones sold is lower than the number of cheap phones sold (same as in the First World). Furthermore, you are right when you state that the percentage of potential buyers is smaller than in the US or the EU. But the US has 300-350 million inhabitant and the EU has 420 million inhabitants, while China has 1300 million inhabitants and India is of similar size. Therefore, these markets are relevant. Even though China is no democracy and private ownership of homes is not really possible, people invest in personal things, like gadgets.
Probably, no decent broadband, cable, etc., except for a tiny percentage of their population (and the internet is censored in Corrupt Communist China, for fsck's sake!).
Cellphone coverage in the big cities in the east and south are good enough to use a 3G phone there. And the question is not if these things work as comfortable as in the First World, the question is if people are still buying these phones. And they do. As the global market share report shows. Their country has a big corruption problem and yes they are not a democracy, but that had capitalism never stopped to work. BTW China is not a communist country. Their party is just named that way. They have no social security system (even worse than the US) and job guarantee features as Eastern European countries had, before the end of the Cold War.
As you say, "the new kids" might use Android. do a little research, you'll probably find out what they really would like to have is the new iPhone! Besides, when you say "no one cares if Apple has great sales in Europe" you come across as really stupid and clueless because, in your - I am assuming, from your lack of...worldliness - young mind, you demonstrate you haven't a fucking clue about "markets". Please, go see what the Apple stock is worth. Use Google.
Well the market share tells me that they do buy Android phones. And that is what the article and my post was about. The market share indicates what they buy and that are not iPhones. In number of sales the First World is a very limited market. Our population is older and we already have a high market saturation for smart phones. Also we are all going into recession. While those Asian countries only have a reduced growth. As, long as income of the low income groups still rise in those countries, the number of potential first buyers increase which will have a big impact on market shares. While in our Western regions new smart phones replace old ones.
In that context, the Android is nothing but a shiny little toy that the typical middle-class teen displays to say his dad's got more money than you. It's pathetic. You gotta see it up close and personal.
It's nothing but a huge marketing clusterfuck, just like Microsoft Windows is a huge marketing clusterfuck/sham.
If you do not like Android, so be it. I, honestly, do not care less. Especially not in the context of this article. It is about who has a bigger market share and what are the prospects? And they all are in favor of Android. We will see how Windows 8 performs. However, I doubt that it will get that much market share in the next 5 to 1
Lets say you are right and most of the Android market share comes from Chinese and Indian users. That implies Apple's market share is bigger in the US, Europe and Australia. So be it. Then Apple as the bigger market share in declining societies, while new new kids on the block use Android. China alone has more potential buyers than all these First World regions together. No one cares if Apple has great sales in that tiny winy market of the US and Europe.
However, when I look around. A lot of people here in Germany buy themselves Android phones. Especially iPhone users who want more value and less restrictions on their phone. Even though they find the Android phones less intuitive than the iPhone.
They did and it worked as predicted. There is nothing wrong with game theory when applied accordingly. Game theorists pointed out that by present and past regulations short time gains can be increased by the risk of losses later. And they predicted that those who are able to stay ahead would not suffer losses. And that is exactly what happened. They played hot potato with a lot of hot potato. And someone burned their fingers. It is a pyramid-like game. They always fail in the end. But while normally the last players lose. In reality the states, meaning the people who did not play, have to pay for it.
You want more science used for evil, well they did ;-)
The given scenario states, that we are all doomed, because there is no fixed point of disaster. However, they missed one thing. If if we had a fixed point. The point is outside of our lifespan. The effect of our doing will hit our children children. Therefore, the game has to be changed. You get the money and can spend it on green stuff. And when enough of the others do the same, the next group of people who plays the game gets the money.
When the job is too unattractive, because of exhausting work schedules, low payment and high entry cost, then there is an easy way to fix it. Pay them more. I do not want to sit in a plane where the pilots have to think about their dept or the financial situation of their family. They should be awake and focused on the job. You normally get that with a fair salary and good working conditions. And yes when the ticket prices will go up a dollar or two. So be it.
I wrote my master thesis on black tea, because the office coffee machine produced some sort of acid liquid.
MOOC is nothing more than online learning, brought to us in the 2000s. Distant learning is an really old thing. In the last century it was done through postal service. First, shipping documents, then shipping documents and CDs. With the upcoming of the Internet. More media was delivered through that channel. As the Internet also allows to transfer video and allows synchronous and asynchronous communication (chat, audio and video chat, forum etc.).
All previous distant learning concepts suffered from high drop-out rates. To compensate for that, real life meetings were added to the curricula. Therefore, I assume the same will happen here. However, the content of a lecture could easily be transmitted online. So yes it might kill some private companies in the education business. So be it. Education should be free and if MOOC or online learning can provide that. Fine. Universities are financed by the state and the state are the people living in that state. Therefore, all the content the universities produce is payed by those people and the content should be made available, if possible, to all of them.
Yes, universities are also funded by companies. However, they provide money for research and the companies get their results. But, the rest is financed by the people and therefore the results belong to the people.
The IT industry, teachers, researchers and may more depend on their morning dose of coffee. When that is gone, this will be the end of the Western civilization. However, we could adapt to tea. Tea has a wider range of flavors than coffee so it is not necessary to invent all these untasteful coffee mixtures, which only exist to give people who have not to make many decisions every day, a chance to do so, by answering 5 questions to get a coffee. However, we still have subway and can make seven decisions until we get to the food.
However, we most likely do not need any coffee by 2080, because our industry will be crashed for good, as they do not want to adapt to the necessities of reality. Then we will all sit at home without jobs. I do not need coffee to cry in my pillow. It is contra-productive to drink coffee and stay in bed. So, no big deal when there is no coffee anymore.
Well that's the way how this system works. When people are too impassioned. Its the same feeling when a kid comes by and builds a nicer sandcastle or criticizes yours. Or even takes over your castle, because you had to leave and modifies it. The horror! If you want a more objective answer, you need a different discussion form. On /. people state their opinions. They take them as truth. And if you criticize their position, they start calling names or the start debating. Instead of a real discussion (something we should have learned in school and university) we have a debate on our hand. And the goal is to win, rather than to find a solution or an answer. And the moderation system is the same way. Minorities get suppressed. The only way out of this would be professional moderation, but that is definitely too expensive for /. and all the juvenile commentary going on here. Therefore you have to filter yourself. Maybe the system should automatically put move posts up, which are controversy.
When reading the posts so far, it looks like that some want their old interface back, which Gnome always had (which is not totally true, the old is also quite new). The main problem is, people have to relearn (a bit) how to use their machine. Some processes they used are no longer possible or useful. This is actually the same thing why other people do not want to go away from Windows on the desktop of their PCs and laptops.
Honestly, some her claim it was a bad move and no one wants the new bad and un-usable interface, while others call the previous group idiots and only a minor group with not much relevance. I am absolutely sure that both side talk bullshit (as in Harry Frankfurts, "On Bullshit"). Both sides cannot backup their claims toward the user basis and the user experience. I wonder why nobody is discussing the technology of the new and old Gnome stuff. Or the development and documentation process, which sucks (like in most OSS projects and even more in close source projects, design and documentation is mostly done after implementation and decisions are not documented. It is most important for other people to understand code to know why it is the way it is. The API is not enough. But, yes that is a general problem), or the choice of development language for gnome-shell etc.
To do a real critique on the UI experience, everyone should ask himself who are the audience of the UI? Which uses cases are incorporated? Which case cases are missing? If only application have to be launched and desktops have to be switched, then there is not much difference between Gnome 2 or Gnome 3, beside some eye candy. Honestly, they failed to make it more task centric which was one idea at the beginning. But the infrastructure for a move in that direction has to be build first. So I am not blaming anyone here.
So as a start: What do you want to do with your desktop shell? What do you want to do with your data navigation tool (aka file manager)?
Someone who chooses to study literature has most likely no interest in, let say, computer science. Trying to train him to become a computer scientist would be a pointless exercise. Similar like teaching me art. Furthermore, we have no expressed limit on the number of people who are allowed to start studying computer science (in most German universities), because there are not enough people who want to study that topic. Furthermore, 50% of the students drop out because it is too complicated for them. "Suggesting" people to study computer science by financial means would not improve that rate. That people do not want to study any of those STEM topics is a general development in Western countries and has to do with a cultural shift.
On a side note: We have enough people studying these topics. If there would be too few, the prices would go up. However, they are not going up. Not even for people with a master or doctoral degree. So obviously we have enough of them here. Another thing is, that in future we will need more people studying STEM topics to replace the present engineering stuff in our companies.
But the real problem is the attitude towards STEM topics. I participated as an advisor/tutor in two assessment programs for young women to test their ability towards STEM topics. What we could see was, that they had totally awkward believes towards STEM. Most of them were wrong. It is considered uninteresting, unsexy, hard and complicated. So they choose other topics. Even though they know. After university they get less money after a economy or other art degree than as an engineer or scientist. They rather have to work as trainees or un-payed interns than studying STEM topics.
Coming back to your quote:
So, fewer Germans go to university, and STEM fields have big trouble finding students in Germany. That means that everybody is forced to pay so that some people can get degrees in art history, literature, and theology, degrees that are are utterly useless in the job market. How is that "better"?
In total numbers, there are going more and more people to university every year. And we are up now to 2 mio. students coming from 1 mio. students in 1970. However, they slowed that progress by making it more expensive to study around 2000. The issue while people do not study STEM topics has nothing to do with the cost or no cost of those programs. Choices are made on the basis of assumptions towards personal skills. If people are afraid of \Sigma on a chalkboard then they will not go to study STEM. I saw that in my education science courses (minor topic) on the topic of quantitative social sciences. They are so afraid of it, that they never will go and learn any STEM topic. They rather study nothing. And that would be a great disaster, because people learn a lot in those art topics.
And a study is not about getting a good job education, but to get general education which elevates your ability to preserve the world and act on it. Most students are able to solve complex problems with the scientific method when they done studying any topic, which makes them much able to get jobs than people do did not. As you can also conclude from the fact that academics in Germany are less likely to be unemployed (3% unemployed academics, 6.5% unemployed in general).
Our, you can study when you can apply for university policy at least does not hinder anyone willing to study STEM from doing so. While expensive programs will keep people from choosing. At least that was the fact in Germany during that short period where we had tuition fees.
Correct, the secondary education systems sucks. Especially when compared to other European countries. Even though you can get into university if you got a matric/A level/Gymnasium degree or, depending on your state, via a wide range of special programs. Some are called Zulassungsprüfung (admission exam), which requires you to have work X years and the do a one or two years course with that exam at the end. So it is getting better, but they still have to go a long way until Germany complies with those Bologna and other educational agreements in Europe, where it does not count where you learned the stuff, just that you learned the stuff.
Honestly, I life in Germany and I work at university. There are no fees (beside some money for the Studentenwerk, which provides cheap "food", the students council and at most universities a train and bus ticket for the local area). However, there are some small taxes in some states called Verwaltungskostenbeitrag (extra money for the lazy bureaucracy). Also in Bavaria and Lower-Saxony, you still have to pay € 1000 per year. But in all other states, this tuition fee was revoked (at least for your first studies until bachelor, and when studied consecutively also the master degree). You max have to pay fees for studying longer than 6 years in total for your master. So, yes it was better 20 years ago, but it is still better than the present US system.
I totally disagree with you. In Germany, where I am from, we have no such thing as a tuition fee (beside Bavaria and Lower-Saxony). Politics introduced a symbolic fee of € 1000 a year a couple of years ago. It's only effect was, that poor people did not try to get into university. In the last 5 years almost all states dropped these fees again. The overall time students required to finish their studies did not change over that tuition fee experiment time only the number of students where diminished.
Some studies showed that by collection tuition fees, the number of students doing part-time studies rose and so their overall time to complete doubled. However, these results are not that significant, as part-time studies are a relatively new concept supported by universities.
Nevertheless, it is safe to say. Tuition fees do not have any effect on the seriousness of the way how people take their studies. A tuition free education allows you to select that topic you are interested in, which will most likely result in a high motivated student. While when your decision is, "lets do something where I can definitely pay back my dept" then this may result in a different selection of topics. Topics you are not that good. How will you ever by excellent at it, if it is not the thing you want to do?
Tuition should be zero. It works in Germany.
You might be right about that. However, have you ever considered off-shoring yourself. Yes, I know, in the long run that will not help the US, as you would leave the country, which would cause a brain drain, which results in even worse economics. However, on a personal perspective it still might be a good idea. For example, due to the present crisis in Spain a lot of Spanish people move to Germany, as this is (at the moment and only for the moment) a thriving economy compared to its neighbors. Maybe you have to learn a new language?
A paper and pencil study, like education, math or sociology costs about € 3000 per year, while engineering and sciences with a lot of lab work go up to € 10000 or more. At least in Germany that is. If you stop having sociology, this would have no effect on the cost of all the other topics available at a university. However, you would not be able to study computer science and sociology together, because there wouldn't be any good sociology teacher left. Thanks god, we (in the upper mentioned country) do not have tuition fees for students, And even though a lot of people studying economics and other arts, we still have only 3% unemployment for academics, while the over all unemployment rate is 6.5%.
Here people select a topic, because they are interested in (beside the economics people, according to recent surveys they decide because they think there is money in it) this results in people who are good at that what they do, as they are motivated. A real good thing would be to add a year before they choose a topic, where they could look into different topics and make a better judgment on picking a topic.
Honestly, I believe if you stop financing the universities through taxes you will loose in the long run. A lesser educated society is definitely not the answer to all the upcoming problems we have.
In a modern democracy every vote should have equal weight. However, the present system changes that by a) the winner takes it all and b) by giving small states more weight. You already have the senate to represent state balance. The parliament and the president should be elected directly by the people and not through some 18th century system. It was a good idea in those days. However, today it is not very democratic anymore.
Furthermore, the money spent in the election should be limited. SuperPACs and similar constructs should not be legal. The income and extra benefits of all candidates and elected people must be transparent. I want to know whose song they sing. Who is paying them and how much. As politicians are representatives for the people, their motives must be understandable and that is only possible with a lot of transparency.
On a side note: Changes in economic regulations take many years to have any measurable effect. It takes between 5-20 years from law to a significant change for the people.
On a second side note: The US should consider to get a multi-party system where minorities or minority opinions can also have seats in the parliament. Have a look at France, Sweden, The Netherlands or Germany (don't copy Italy). In such a system the Greens would sit in the parliament as well as the Tea Party. If present parties do not cover all issues of the public, a new party could bring these issues forward. Have a look at the Pirate parties in Europe. The rose very quickly introducing transparency and information age issues. The established parties had to address these issues and the political discourse changed.
In the US and UK unions are formed by workers for their special set of tasks/jobs, which results in a vast set of unions one for secretaries, one for metal workers, one for the administration staff etc. In continental Europe unions are formed for special business sectors. For example, all employees of car, machinery industry are in one union. The new payments are negotiated by the union and an organisation which represents the companies. This results in an balanced situation where the union and that business organisation can negotiate on the same level, which makes strikes mostly obsolete. Sometimes the still occur, but only to show the companies, that the union is backed by its workers. Also, breaking our unions, like Thatcher did in the UK, did not work that well in the rest of Europe. So it would be a great idea to reinvent unions in the US and UK along that promising union concept.
I have never seen a yacht that ugly in my live. It is breathtaking. True. But in the opposite direction. We should paint on it "Sink different!"