... is just as bad as a person who's murdered his own countrymen for decades.
Ahh, like Saddam Hussein? To be consistent I'm sure you have praised Bush for bringing him to justice? And what, no mention of cop-killer Bill Ayers, buddy to Our Dear Leader?
You have called me an idiot 3 times. It has been my experience that those who resort to name-calling do so because they are intellectually bankrupt, and so no offense is taken. I know (as do you apparently) there is clearly nothing substantive behind your feeble attempts to belittle my intelligence.
And now, regarding your quote from the Wik... I call BS. Yes, that quote appears on the Wik, but did you happen to go look at that quote in context? Well I did. I went to the BNC's web page (via the reference provided in the Wik article). Here is a quote from their policy statement on healthcare:
For decades, the British National Health Service was looked upon by the rest of the world as one of the most successful state run health services in the world. Today, it is a laughing stock. The NHS is critically ill. NHS Trusts are sacking staff, closing wards, cancelling operations and refusing patients vital life-saving drugs. Meanwhile, 'health tourists' are costing the NHS £2 billion a year, and diseases such as TB and AIDS are on the increase as a result of immigration... Sixty percent of NHS staff are bureaucrats, and there are now more managers in the NHS than beds -- with many earning more than £100,000 per year.
In short, while socialized medicine may be laudable from a naive and idealistic perspective, every implementation to date has become, or will soon be, a disaster. And this is no surprise, because that is what happens when you socialize anything. Quality drops through the floor, and costs rise out of control. And why is that? Human nature. Where there is no competition and no profit incentive people lose their initiative and become lazy. Look at the USPS ($11B loss last year), or public schools (shudder), or insert your favorite government agency... RMV? DHS? FEMA? Or instead of those tangential agencies, let's consider instead a direct analogy... Medicare? Costs are spiraling out of control -- it is a ticking timebomb. Here are some interesting references (warning, they are not written in crayon):
The only remedy will be to severely rationing care, after first taxing the crap out of "the rich" until they are no longer rich, find even more creative ways to hide their income, or leave the country.
Tell me, does the wealth of society belong to the people who work, or to the people who own the workers?
Easy. The wealth belongs to those who risked the capital to create the wealth. The people who spent $200M to build the factory should receive the profits from that factory. And in fairness, if the venture fails, they should *not* be bailed out by the government. The workers are compensated for their work. The smart ones put some money aside so they can risk their own capital to share in the (potential) rewards as well. That's the beauty of capitalism. Anyone with capital, who is willing to risk it, and does it intelligently, can share in society's wealth.
I don't particularly care for the opinions of dear friends of Augusto Pinochet.
How about dear friends of Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko? Are they good in your book?
Half of the highlights of government officials calling the Canadian or English social systems broken usually end up saying,...
Interesting. So half of the highlights constitutes 50%. But the "usually" qualifier derates that number somewhat. Let's use a conservative 75% for usually (3 out of 4 times would be considered usually by reasonable people). So, multiplying 50% by 75% means that 37.5% of the time the "At least we're not as bad as the system in the US." qualifier is added on. That means that 62.5% of the time it is not. Of course, in keeping with/. tradition, I should demand citations for these assertions you make, since as you say, those qualifiers "never reach our shores", and I am not willing to simply take your word for it.
However, from reading your recent posts, I still think you're an idiot.... You seem to not understand that the top 10% own a vast majority of assets in America. It makes sense for them to pay the vast majority of the taxes.
FWIW, I don't think you are an idiot. I do believe you are misguided however. Let me explain in really simple terms since you've demonstrated on multiple occasions now that things that aren't plainly stated leave you confused. The statistic I was quoting in that ancient post you dredged up was about federal INCOME taxes. Note, those taxes are on INCOME, not assets. The nonsequitor that you brought up would be pertinent only if I was discussing property and excise taxes which are levied on assets, but alas, that was not the case. Please read more carefully before you attack - you only keep embarrassing yourself.
I also can't help but observe that you seem obsessed with crayons, as you've mentioned them twice now. I can only guess that's your idea of being funny and clever. Perhaps you think that is the case, but to most people it comes off as pompous and arrogant.
This is the dumbest comment I've read by a non AC today... A person who supports a democracy does not necessarily support socialism. A person who supports socialism almost certainly doesn't support communism.
Perhaps I was being too subtle for you. Hint: a republican does not necessarily support facism. (see the post to which I was responding). I can't believe I had to spell it out for you, but I guess there are some slow-witted folks here on/.
Or he's just your average American... The American political vocabulary might as well be written in crayon.
Nice! And you sir or madam (note how I didn't assume gender as did you, oh enlightened one) are just your average American-basher.
Yikes! You are indeed correct! My information is out of date. I found the following at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb158496.aspx. As I am an MSDN subscriber I didn't realize the express editions did not support the mobile SDK, though according to the snippet below you can use the standard edition - pro is not required. Thanks for setting me straight.
In order to develop Windows Mobile powered applications, Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Standard Edition or above is required. Visual Studio Express Editions are not supported.
FWIW, I developed for Windows Mobile / Smartphone for several years. The tools were all free. Back then they had something called Visual Studio Embedded (free of course). The best thing was I was able to write a single version of the application (a non-trivial multi-threaded, multimedia application with network connectivity) which ran on my Windows desktop as well as on Windows Mobile (aka Pocket PC) and Windows Smartphone. I did the vast majority of my debugging and testing on the desktop. Very rarely did I have to do any mobile-specific debugging, other than wrestling with the &*%^$# cell network (this was from 2001 through 2005, when pushing data through the cell network was barely functional).
Oh, and by the way, deploying to phones is free also. I don't need Microsoft's permission, nor do I have to pay them a fee.
As an airplane nut I really enjoyed the Air Force Museum (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/). We had originally planned to stay one day but ended up staying two. And make sure to sign up to see and tour the retired Air Force Ones that they have in a separate hangar (along with experimental prototype planes like the X-1).
Also while in Dayton, check out the Wright Brother's Bicycle Shop!
We all know that medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates are kept artificially low, which forces the rest of us with "private" care to subsidize them. Adding a public option, which, while not free, will also be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, will further limit revenues received by the healthcare providers, which will then further increase the pressure on the private segment. This, in turn, will force companies to drop health coverage because their costs will skyrocket (subsidizing medicare, medicaid and Obamacare). When that happens, the pressure on the remaining private companies will grow evermore, with more and more companies tossing in the towel, until the entire system is a public system. That is the plan.
After the above plays out, expect *big-time tax increases* to pay for it all. Since private industry will no longer be subsidizing it, the money will have to come from the taxpayers, and believe me, the "rich" can't pay for all of it - the middle class is going to get socked. We should also expect rationing (adding 50 million people to the system will NOT increase access for the 280 million who already have health insurance), and lower quality care because if the government ultimately determines how much doctors and nurses get paid, the "best and brightest" will go into other more lucrative fields like politics.
I guess technically I qualify as a "denialist", given my professed skepticism, though that skepticism is mostly about how much of the warming trend is anthropomorphic, rather than "denying" there is climate change. I also question how much we can really do to abate the changes short of reverting back to the dark ages. It seems to me that the data clearly shows a warming trend, though as many have pointed out, the earth has been much warmer in its past, long before the industrial age. Plus, the advantage of spending our limited resources dealing with the consequences of warming rather than trying to prevent seems obvious to me. It would be effort well-spent regardless of the origin of the warming.
First off, you're displaying your prejudices here. Nice.
Got me there. Mr Gore of the 20 bedroom mansion, SUV entourages and private jetting about the country was obviously not using the "Global Warming" issue to prop up his political aspirations. (sarcasm) I'm sure it was really all about the planet (/sarcasm). http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_al_gores_mansion.html
Any scientists that gives evidence that global warming isn't/won't happen will receive fame and fortune,
So far what they have received is scorn, ridicule and extreme criticism.
... because one side is using denialism as their only talking point.
... and the other side is using fear. And BTW, denialism is *not* the same as skepticism.
... instead we're mired in this debate about what's true. Very, very sad.
On this we can agree. As I mentioned in my post, there is far too much geopolitical fog around this issue which is preventing us from having this debate. I would love to know what the real truth is, but I find myself being put off by the shrill proclamations (which I've heard many times before... heck in the 70s it was global cooling) and the calls to extreme action to "prevent" climate change. What if we completely destroy our economy, go back to living in caves and subsisting on berries we find lying about, only to have "global warming" happen anyhow?. We will be ill-equipped to deal with it at that point. IMHO, we should admit that climate change happens, some of it may be due to human activity, and some (most?) of it is natural (see earth's history). With that realization out of the way, I think we should be spending the bulk of our effort and resources figuring out how to deal with a warmer climate, and less trying (vainly?) to stop it. But instead there are many who view this as an opportunity to shift the balance of power on the planet; it's a chance to take the developed countries "down a peg", or to slow them down so the others can catch up.
If climate scientists wanted money, they'd go work for industry.
That's a crock and you know it. When you work for industry you do what *the man* tells you to do. Scientists are not wired that way. They prefer the "grant" process which gives them their "academic freedom". Many (most) believe they can save the world if only people will give them the resources they require and leave them alone to do their work. Why would they tether themselves to an organization that a) takes away their freedom and b) expects results?
I admit I am not a climate scientist (far from it), but I am scientifically predisposed. And I am skeptical of the whole Global Warming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "climate change" movement because it is so bound up in all of the geopolitical crap. Heck, it was essentially launched by a political opportunist.
These names perfectly capture what, to me, has always been the difference between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft is utilitarian, functional, and boring. Apple is flashy, self-congratulatory, and "above the fray". Microsoft provides "answers", whereas Apple lets you talk to "geniuses". How appropriate.
... how any *real* scientist could be anything but independent. Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation. Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about.
FWIW, I am registered unenrolled (a.k.a. independent) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me (rare) or scares me (frequent).
Methinks you are confused. Are you perhaps a city dweller? Given that the suburbs are much more spacious than urban dwellings, it would follow from the article that suburbanites' brains have evolved to be larger than urbanites.
... a huge lie perpetrated by people who would like to see the huge pot of SSA money be put into the stock market. I wonder how that would have worked out?
Slashdot Mirror
914424
Ahh, like Saddam Hussein? To be consistent I'm sure you have praised Bush for bringing him to justice? And what, no mention of cop-killer Bill Ayers, buddy to Our Dear Leader?
... I call BS. Yes, that quote appears on the Wik, but did you happen to go look at that quote in context? Well I did. I went to the BNC's web page (via the reference provided in the Wik article). Here is a quote from their policy statement on healthcare:
... Sixty percent of NHS staff are bureaucrats, and there are now more managers in the NHS than beds -- with many earning more than £100,000 per year.
... RMV? DHS? FEMA? Or instead of those tangential agencies, let's consider instead a direct analogy ... Medicare? Costs are spiraling out of control -- it is a ticking timebomb. Here are some interesting references (warning, they are not written in crayon):
You have called me an idiot 3 times. It has been my experience that those who resort to name-calling do so because they are intellectually bankrupt, and so no offense is taken. I know (as do you apparently) there is clearly nothing substantive behind your feeble attempts to belittle my intelligence.
And now, regarding your quote from the Wik
For decades, the British National Health Service was looked upon by the rest of the world as one of the most successful state run health services in the world. Today, it is a laughing stock. The NHS is critically ill. NHS Trusts are sacking staff, closing wards, cancelling operations and refusing patients vital life-saving drugs. Meanwhile, 'health tourists' are costing the NHS £2 billion a year, and diseases such as TB and AIDS are on the increase as a result of immigration
In short, while socialized medicine may be laudable from a naive and idealistic perspective, every implementation to date has become, or will soon be, a disaster. And this is no surprise, because that is what happens when you socialize anything. Quality drops through the floor, and costs rise out of control. And why is that? Human nature. Where there is no competition and no profit incentive people lose their initiative and become lazy. Look at the USPS ($11B loss last year), or public schools (shudder), or insert your favorite government agency
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29339.html
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3700
The only remedy will be to severely rationing care, after first taxing the crap out of "the rich" until they are no longer rich, find even more creative ways to hide their income, or leave the country.
No thanks.
Since when is debating with an idiot interesting?
Easy. The wealth belongs to those who risked the capital to create the wealth. The people who spent $200M to build the factory should receive the profits from that factory. And in fairness, if the venture fails, they should *not* be bailed out by the government. The workers are compensated for their work. The smart ones put some money aside so they can risk their own capital to share in the (potential) rewards as well. That's the beauty of capitalism. Anyone with capital, who is willing to risk it, and does it intelligently, can share in society's wealth.
How about dear friends of Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and Tony Rezko? Are they good in your book?
Interesting. So half of the highlights constitutes 50%. But the "usually" qualifier derates that number somewhat. Let's use a conservative 75% for usually (3 out of 4 times would be considered usually by reasonable people). So, multiplying 50% by 75% means that 37.5% of the time the "At least we're not as bad as the system in the US." qualifier is added on. That means that 62.5% of the time it is not. Of course, in keeping with /. tradition, I should demand citations for these assertions you make, since as you say, those qualifiers "never reach our shores", and I am not willing to simply take your word for it.
Now that was funny!
And I'll see your chomsky quote with a favorite of mine from Margaret Thatcher:
The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.
Have a nice weekend, crayon-man.
LT
FWIW, I don't think you are an idiot. I do believe you are misguided however. Let me explain in really simple terms since you've demonstrated on multiple occasions now that things that aren't plainly stated leave you confused. The statistic I was quoting in that ancient post you dredged up was about federal INCOME taxes. Note, those taxes are on INCOME, not assets. The nonsequitor that you brought up would be pertinent only if I was discussing property and excise taxes which are levied on assets, but alas, that was not the case. Please read more carefully before you attack - you only keep embarrassing yourself.
I also can't help but observe that you seem obsessed with crayons, as you've mentioned them twice now. I can only guess that's your idea of being funny and clever. Perhaps you think that is the case, but to most people it comes off as pompous and arrogant.
Perhaps I was being too subtle for you. Hint: a republican does not necessarily support facism. (see the post to which I was responding). I can't believe I had to spell it out for you, but I guess there are some slow-witted folks here on /.
Nice! And you sir or madam (note how I didn't assume gender as did you, oh enlightened one) are just your average American-basher.
Did you just say that on /.? Oh the irony!
Oops, you repeated yourself again.
You can get a copy of Visual Studio Express here (it's free): http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/default.aspx
And you'll also need this WinMo 6.5 SDK (it's free also): http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=20686a1d-97a8-4f80-bc6a-ae010e085a6e.
FWIW, I developed for Windows Mobile / Smartphone for several years. The tools were all free. Back then they had something called Visual Studio Embedded (free of course). The best thing was I was able to write a single version of the application (a non-trivial multi-threaded, multimedia application with network connectivity) which ran on my Windows desktop as well as on Windows Mobile (aka Pocket PC) and Windows Smartphone. I did the vast majority of my debugging and testing on the desktop. Very rarely did I have to do any mobile-specific debugging, other than wrestling with the &*%^$# cell network (this was from 2001 through 2005, when pushing data through the cell network was barely functional).
Oh, and by the way, deploying to phones is free also. I don't need Microsoft's permission, nor do I have to pay them a fee.
Carbon-based Work Unit
As an airplane nut I really enjoyed the Air Force Museum (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/). We had originally planned to stay one day but ended up staying two. And make sure to sign up to see and tour the retired Air Force Ones that they have in a separate hangar (along with experimental prototype planes like the X-1).
Also while in Dayton, check out the Wright Brother's Bicycle Shop!
We all know that medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates are kept artificially low, which forces the rest of us with "private" care to subsidize them. Adding a public option, which, while not free, will also be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, will further limit revenues received by the healthcare providers, which will then further increase the pressure on the private segment. This, in turn, will force companies to drop health coverage because their costs will skyrocket (subsidizing medicare, medicaid and Obamacare). When that happens, the pressure on the remaining private companies will grow evermore, with more and more companies tossing in the towel, until the entire system is a public system. That is the plan.
After the above plays out, expect *big-time tax increases* to pay for it all. Since private industry will no longer be subsidizing it, the money will have to come from the taxpayers, and believe me, the "rich" can't pay for all of it - the middle class is going to get socked. We should also expect rationing (adding 50 million people to the system will NOT increase access for the 280 million who already have health insurance), and lower quality care because if the government ultimately determines how much doctors and nurses get paid, the "best and brightest" will go into other more lucrative fields like politics.
Patent Office, IRS, Post Office, Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA ...
Now, who out there wants to add government run health care to that list?
When did the subject change to wikipedia?
I may not "know more that people who've spent their life working on the problem", but it appears I share my skepticism with many such people:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
I guess technically I qualify as a "denialist", given my professed skepticism, though that skepticism is mostly about how much of the warming trend is anthropomorphic, rather than "denying" there is climate change. I also question how much we can really do to abate the changes short of reverting back to the dark ages. It seems to me that the data clearly shows a warming trend, though as many have pointed out, the earth has been much warmer in its past, long before the industrial age. Plus, the advantage of spending our limited resources dealing with the consequences of warming rather than trying to prevent seems obvious to me. It would be effort well-spent regardless of the origin of the warming.
Got me there. Mr Gore of the 20 bedroom mansion, SUV entourages and private jetting about the country was obviously not using the "Global Warming" issue to prop up his political aspirations. (sarcasm) I'm sure it was really all about the planet (/sarcasm).
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_that_al_gores_mansion.html
So far what they have received is scorn, ridicule and extreme criticism.
On this we can agree. As I mentioned in my post, there is far too much geopolitical fog around this issue which is preventing us from having this debate. I would love to know what the real truth is, but I find myself being put off by the shrill proclamations (which I've heard many times before ... heck in the 70s it was global cooling) and the calls to extreme action to "prevent" climate change. What if we completely destroy our economy, go back to living in caves and subsisting on berries we find lying about, only to have "global warming" happen anyhow?. We will be ill-equipped to deal with it at that point. IMHO, we should admit that climate change happens, some of it may be due to human activity, and some (most?) of it is natural (see earth's history). With that realization out of the way, I think we should be spending the bulk of our effort and resources figuring out how to deal with a warmer climate, and less trying (vainly?) to stop it. But instead there are many who view this as an opportunity to shift the balance of power on the planet; it's a chance to take the developed countries "down a peg", or to slow them down so the others can catch up.
That's a crock and you know it. When you work for industry you do what *the man* tells you to do. Scientists are not wired that way. They prefer the "grant" process which gives them their "academic freedom". Many (most) believe they can save the world if only people will give them the resources they require and leave them alone to do their work. Why would they tether themselves to an organization that a) takes away their freedom and b) expects results?
I admit I am not a climate scientist (far from it), but I am scientifically predisposed. And I am skeptical of the whole Global Warming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "climate change" movement because it is so bound up in all of the geopolitical crap. Heck, it was essentially launched by a political opportunist.
These names perfectly capture what, to me, has always been the difference between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft is utilitarian, functional, and boring. Apple is flashy, self-congratulatory, and "above the fray". Microsoft provides "answers", whereas Apple lets you talk to "geniuses". How appropriate.
Nah. Around \. if you say "Americans make bad choices" you'd be +5 Insightful/Informative.
Like the Apple Newton for example!
... how any *real* scientist could be anything but independent. Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation. Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about. FWIW, I am registered unenrolled (a.k.a. independent) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me (rare) or scares me (frequent).
Methinks you are confused. Are you perhaps a city dweller? Given that the suburbs are much more spacious than urban dwellings, it would follow from the article that suburbanites' brains have evolved to be larger than urbanites.
You are in luck. This gentleman (a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration) did just such an analysis. Hint: it turns out much better than you might have expected. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/022-stock-market-taxes-on-my-mind.html