1. What are the terms of your insurance? Do they cover anything? Would they cover you if you had a history of anything? I, personally, have had leukaemia, and I would not be able to afford health insurance in America. Incidentally, I actually have medical insurance here in Britain, and the vast majority of the treatment was done on the NHS, because the private hospitals didn't have the facilities to deal with my treatment. My treatment was prompt and first-class and the only time that I ever used my insurance was in getting a small non-essential operation (a feeding tube), and the NHS did offer that, but the queues were long because it was not an essential operation. If I were to stop paying for my insurance now, I would not be able to afford to get on it again. If I lived in America, I would be SCREWED.
2. Given how much money America spends on its military, just a fraction of that spending could go to producing a truly world class health system. Most of the issues which other socialised healthcare systems have are due to underfunding, which wouldn't really be a problem with America's deep pockets. So, yes, it would solve quite a lot. Incidentally, the problems with underfunding are almost invariably with the nonessential parts of the system. If you need a hip replacing, you'll get it done instantly in America (and covered) and it'd take forever in Britain. However, in Britain, you'd get cancer treated very promptly and you'd never have to pay a penny, whereas in America you'll only get the treatment which your insurers want to deal with. I assure you, we do laugh at your healthcare system. Whenever anyone wants any kind of reform in the NHS, there's always the phrase "but I don't want it to be like the American system" in there somewhere.
As for Hillary, well, she's a waste of space, but this seems to be the only time that she's right. Bill had the idea too, but for some reason Americans are incredibly against this type of system, even though it works very well in many much poorer countries.
3. I agree with you on this point. However, how many people do you think would pay for their own insurance off their own backs? Only a very few responsible and RICH people, which would really end up having the poor unable to afford healthcare.
4. The constitution was written 300 years ago. Where medicine was primitive (read: mostly placebos) and when no drugs or surgeries cost sums in the sextuple digits. Things were different then to now, and you should not be preaching blind dogmatism to the Constitution. Some of the things in there are fundamental human rights (incidentally, usually the ones most broken, I'm thinking "cruel and unusual punishment" and "free speech and press" in particular here.), some are outdated and not necessary any more (second amendment comes to mind, whether you regard it as the right to have guns or the right to form a militia (which IS the correct reading, incidentally), regardless, outdated) and some things which are rights which are not there. (a quick scan reveals a total lack of the words "teach" "education" and "school")
... how many people do you think go to Accident and Emergency for a COLD? Two words. General practitioner. These people usually operate surgeries out of their own homes (or a house anyway). THAT is where you go when you have a cold. Incidentally, the job is VERY well paid. The issue of people suing the government is more a problem with American culture than the socialised system - besides which, the American government isn't exactly short on cash, I don't think that if they put even a small fraction of, say, their military spending, in there, that any amount of lawsuits would make any real dent in the funds.
I swear that I have never got libertarianism, it'd work in a wonderful world where consumers are educated, there's always competition and the companies are never amoral or immoral, but unfortunently none of that is true. The fact is that if you have too little government interference, you're going to get fucked by the private sector. If you have too much, you're going to get fucked by the public sector. There's a balance to be struck, and America sure as hell hasn't got anywhere near that balance yet.
... some of this is simply incorrect. One notable part being the assertion that the French and British have no nuclear subs. I can't speak for France, but Britain is actually the opposite, ALL of Britain's nuclear arsenal is nuclear subs.
... this guy wasn't exactly a big shot. Beyond the fact that he probably couldn't get polonium by himself, why would he poison himself? He had just become a British citizen, starting a new life with his family, a month before. Traces of polonium have been found at the restaurant he ate at, in an impromptu lunch. He didn't do it himself.
The British government wouldn't do it, because, put bluntly, we can't afford to invade the oil fields. We have a health system that's in severe debt (I believe £100m in the West Midlands alone) due to a VERY poorly conceived IT system (£20-30 billion so far (!!!!)) - we have an army which is strained for equipment and regularly targetted by terrorist attacks in Iraq and regularly get into battles with the Taliban in Afghanistan. We don't have the resources. This is to say nothing about public perception of this kind of tactic. People were generally pro-invasion for Afghanistan. People weren't pro-invasion with Iraq but because of some false documents Blair pushed ahead anyway. People would definitely not be pro invading Russia. Everywhere is VERY anti-American since Iraq. Even if the motive is there, the means is not.
Now, the American government. Much deeper pockets, less critical public sure, but really, the same points stand. Besides which, what we know of CIA activity shows that they usually just fund opponents of their enemies, only to be bitten in the arse a decade or so down the line. I think that the theory that the CIA did it is giving the CIA a bit too much credit, really, and should be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Given the mysterious deaths of many vocal critics of Putin's Russia, coupled with the fact that the American and British forces are barely coping with Iraq and Afghanistan (the Americans seemed to have pretty much bailed on Afghanistan, British forces are engaged in battles with the Taliban almost every day - plus there've been horror stories of equipment shortages, or deaths caused by cheap equipment being used...) I think that it's safe to assume that it is Russia. It might not be, but currently all signs are pointing very obviously to our nice friend Putin.
Who, incidentally, IS bad. Besides the treatment of critics and oligarchs who got a bit too powerful, his attitude to the free press make Bush look like a vocal supporter of free speech. His elections, although not rigged, were extremely one-sided with their advertising. The media in Russia is state controlled (directly, not like the BBC, which is actually a staunch critic of the British government), and he exploits this rather than freeing the media. Chechnya too, of course. He is a bad person, put bluntly. I'd say worse than Bush, who I don't exactly have a high opinion of. Hell, I'd say that Putin is one of the major stumbling blocks for Russia to modernise and join the western club.
That's alternative splicing, something somewhat trendy at the moment, I believe. Yes, some of the introns do actually code for stuff, but some of it is actually, as far as we can tell, junk.
Whoever marked this idiot as +5 interesting deserves to be smacked in the face.
I mean, come on, this person clearly is a right-wing religious nut with no grasp on how science actually works. "pureed baby"? And the last line, as if using embyronic stem cells is somehow equivilent to electrocuting a fully grown man?
i) Britain does not follow the US constitution.
ii) Crime rates in Britain are marginally higher than those of America.
iii) Gun crime rates in Britain are ten times lower than those of America.
iv) Canada where there's an intermediate between the two extremes has gun crime rates four times lower than that of America.
v) Therefore, in the long term, banning guns does reduce gun crime, even though in the short term it doesn't.
... to be honest, I think that this guy here is just lying.
I have a musician who was a chart-topper a few years ago in my family - incredibly well selling band it was, too. Despite this, he came out significantly in debt, and he is no big spender at all. Recently he's become a song-writer, and has written music which has been moderately succesful, now he has a decent income.
I find it hard to believe that any artist anywhere makes 50% of the profit from the music he or she makes - every source I've heard, including from the horse's mouth, claims a figure not even approaching that one. Either you've got immensly lucky with which label accepted you, or you're simply making stuff up.
Although your point may superficially appear to be insightful, it seems to show a degree of ignorance about sociology, biology and economics.
i) The rich people are not going to die out, they're still having children, just fewer and later.
ii) A lot of rich people have a lot of kids anyway - I go to a public school (in the British sense: very prestigous, very expensive private school) and there are plenty of families with four or five children. At one point there was a family with four children in the school at the same time. Anyone who can afford that most definitely does not qualify as being poor!
iii) When rich people die without an heir, their money does not just vanish into thin air. The money ends up somewhere, probably with another rich person.
iv) Smart does not necessarily mean rich. I've met poor people who are sharp as a knife and rich people as thick as two planks nailed together.
v) Social classes exist within the USA. Accept it.
vi) Though social classes are not as extreme as castes, you still don't get much intermarriage between them. You don't see many barons marrying washer-women, or oil tycoons marrying their hairdressers. Although it does happen, it's rare. Similarly, social climbing is also rarer than people would like to admit.
The idea is that because the upper and middle classes rarely breed with the lower classes (yes, I know, once again, un-PC, once again, I don't care) that eventually speciation will occur. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about this myself, but... hey. Whatever.
Er... what part of this post is supported in any way by reality? Hell, even the examples of smaller bands are really not accurate, Sigur Ros is one of the most famous and commercially successful post-rock bands around, they're the number 1 selling band in their native Iceland, they're big in the UK too - Interpol and Death Cab for Cutie may not be MASSIVE, but they're not small, unpopular, obscure bands by any stretch of the imagination.
And all you seem to be saying here is that bands don't make a killing touring. Yes, big deal, we're not saying they do, we're just saying that they make more money touring than they do from record sales, which IS true. I thought it was well known that being a professional musician was not a good way to make money, however, being a songwriter IS, to use an anecdotal example - the husband of a cousin of mine was, I believe, the drummer of a band that reached number one in the UK charts. He made pretty much zero money from this endeavour, and I think actually ended up in debt. Cut to current day, after writing a single for a moderately succesful pop singer, he's... well... not rolling in it, but he has enough money to get by now. Which is better than before.
Of course, because I'm just a random guy on the internet, so you'll have to take my word on that one, seeing as I'm not really willing to name him.
Back on topic. Most bands don't make any money on record sales, most bands do make most of their cash by touring, even if they don't get rich through it. On the Keasby Nights album by Streetlight Manifesto, at the end of the last track a voice explains why the album was made (because the album was a rerecorded version of a recent album, and the band obviously felt that they needed to justify this) - one of the lines that struck me was "and the budgets we get are laughable, especially for a band with seven musicians to record, we were out touring in order to pay rent".
So, basically, regardless of how much money they make touring, it's still more than what they make from the album. The retailer and the label (and to a lesser extent the song writer) do profit from the CD, but the artist doesn't, unless they sell about as many as Madonna does.
... is it just me or are there very few points that actually makes any sense in the article - aside from the support from more movie and TV companies, I really see no valid points there at all. And, let's be honest here, who actually uses their mp3 player primarily for movies?
The initial version will sport a 30GB hard drive, peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connectivity, a 3-in. screen (320-by-240-pixel QVGA viewable in either portrait or landscape mode), an FM tuner that will display song information from stations that broadcast a Radio Broadcast Data Standards (RBDS) signal and a built-in nonreplaceable lithium-ion rechargeable battery that will probably deliver about 12 hours of music or about 3.5 hours of video on a single charge. It won't last as long as the iPod, but it will charge faster.
Looking at this, the Zune is superior to the cheapest iPod video (in that it's about the same price and has the Wifi, a bigger screen and FM radio) but has worse battery life. The FM tuner is nice, but not anything essential, ditto the bigger screen. What worries me is that this is the ONLY model (effectively giving Apple an advantage in the "I have more than 30GB of music" market) and the battery life. It's hardly a significant difference - taking the Zune to be competing with the 30GB iPod but... why would faster recharges be a selling point for the average consumer? Maybe there'll be a few people who charge their mp3 players on the train or on a plane or whatever, but I'd imagine that most people just plug it in and charge it overnight.
Zune will connect to an iTunes-like music store called the Zune Marketplace, which will offer millions of songs, according to Microsoft. Music will be available for 99 cents per song or via an "all-you-can-eat," $14.99-per-month subscription package called a "Zune Pass." Movies and TV shows will become available on the site sometime next year. Marketplace will work with the Microsoft Points program -- Xbox users can spend Points on Zune media and vice versa. Each song on Marketplace costs 79 points. (For instance, 100 points equals $1.25).
Although the subscription method is an improvement from Apple's model, I don't really see Apple NOT enacting a similar scheme if it's a success. And I don't really see why linking to the XBOX will be a huge boon for the Zune - anyone able to get onto the Marketplace already has broadband of some description and I'd imagine that most people don't get broadband purely for the XBOX, and they probably have a PC anyway. Maybe it'd help it sell for people who have Macs but also have XBOXes but surely Mac-people would be more likely to use iTunes anyway?
Zune will come preloaded with yet-undisclosed songs from DTS, EMI Music's Astralwerks Records and Virgin Records, Ninja Tune, Playlouderecordings, Quango Music Group, Sub Pop Records and V2/Artemis Records.
Unless they're exclusive tracks or ultra-uber-rare tracks, I don't see why this makes a difference. I don't think that anyone would buy an mp3 player for preloaded songs.
Best of all, Zunes will be able to connect to one another wirelessly, letting people share songs (as well as playlists and.jpg photos) with up to four other simultaneous Zune users within Wi-Fi range. Recipients of these shared songs will be able to play them three times for up to three days free, after which they'll have to pay to listen. Songs received wirelessly can't be shared. ... traditionally you just put on the song and give one of the headphones to the other person so they can listen. Or you huddle up so that you can see the picture on the screen. Is there any point to this feature?
Zune software will import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC formats; JPEG photos; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264 formats. Microsoft has hinted that it will support other media formats, but hasn't specified which ones. Zune will import songs from Apple's iTunes "as permitted by the online service f
Er... yes? How did you think they got permission to do it?
Cambridge may be quite an influential university, but I don't think they're so powerful as to be allowed to do this kind of stuff without permission with impunity... The fact is that they need to keep on the right side of the law on this one.
Am I the only one who found MySpace's tech support
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... actually good? When I sent in a complaint because the music players within the site didn't work in Opera 9 - they fixed it within a day or two.
The usual response I get from sites which have issues with Opera is "well, don't only, like, two percent of the population use Opera? lol, no point then!". Yes, Lionhead, fuck your forum.
Don't forget that people bought UMDs of DVDs they already owned when the PSP came out - for the sake of portability. I'm sure that people who already own the games are going to think of some justification of buying it all again.
I have three words for you: Compare the timescales.
It's normal for climates to change, but not at this pace, it is not a defencible position to claim that this climate change is natural. Although "ecowarriors" may piss you off, the scientists who actually KNOW about this stuff are on their side, and when the people who have a clue how these things actually work are on someone's side, it's probably a good idea to be on that side too. If what is being said is true, then we must take extreme action to avoid utterly raping our ecosystem and flooding our major cities. If what is being said is false, then we're less dependent on fossil fuels, and have saved a few pretty seals. It's win-win, people. But really, when such a concensus has been reached in the scientific community, odds are you should listen.
Cue lots of responses from naysayers about polywater.
To be honest, there is actually a lot of very good stuff released currently (and a fair bit from the 90s, the big thing of note then was really alternative and grune... some things worth listening to, but not as much as from 60s, 70s, 80s.).
Of course, most of it doesn't make it to the Top 40 - of the bands that do that are worth listening to, they're usually at number 13 or 17 or something. Well, normally, there've been a few bands, like Franz Ferdinand, who've become popular with the mainstream and are genuinely good enough to deserve it.
The taste of the majority suck, look at the success of Fallout Boy or Black Eyed Peas (okay, I liked "Where is the love?" but I hated most of their stuff) and ask yourself if they really enjoy it. What about the popularity of emo music as of late? Or RnB? Or the long string of bad rap albums or abysmal bubblegum pop.
There's a lot of good indie music out there (including some of the music which is both, paradoxically, indie and mainsteam at the same time), there are a fair few prog rock bands with their own little scene (prog metal is particularly popular, so if you liked heavy metal and prog rock, you can do worse to check some out). There are some good post-rock bands too.
You just have to look for good music, you can't just let it find you, or you'll find very little. I recommend using Pandora and last.fm.
Incidentally, a lot of these newer good bands have no affiliation with the RIAA - a lot of indie ones don't (though some of the more popular ones do, Snow Patrol and Kaiser Chiefs come to mind) - it's completely possible to buy a lot of good music without supporting the RIAA.
To be honest, you probably could anyway, if you look at how much is spent on the military, there's so much that can be done with that kind of money. [insert your pet social welfare project of choice here] for example.
No need for extorting the rest of the world. Hell, many much smaller countries manage incredibly extensive social welfare programs covering all areas of life with a much lower gdp per capita than America. New Zealand is certainly not a rich country (well, it is, but not in comparison to the major economic powers), and they have a rather spectacular social welfare programme - and also the only country that I know of to get almost all of the energy on its electricity grid from renewable sources. Britain does spend a lot on money sinks such as the military and our current government is quite inept at handling money (see: rebranding of Royal Mail, IT project for NHS, etc etc) - despite this, we can still afford to run a decent NHS (I say decent, because... well, it's not excellent, it needs a lot of work in some areas, but in others, well... it is excellent. Year before last I had cancer, and the quality of service was top notch.) and a lot of social welfare programs. Sweden also, hardly an economic superpower, but look at their welfare.
The issue with welfare in the USA isn't the money, it could easily be drummed up by perhaps having one less Sidewinder on the next generation of fighter jets, but rather the attitude. Americans seem to have the attitude that all people who cash in welfare are leeches. When I have tried to debate the case for socialised healthcare among Americans before, the response has always been "wtf, I don't want to have to pay for someone else's healthcare!" - when I give an example of some tramp who can't afford medical insurance, and ask what would happen to him, they say "that's not my responsibility". Of course, they never entertain the prospect that they might end up in that situation in ten years or so, where they might think a bit differently on the matter.
I believe that on one occasion recently there was a poll taken among Americans, they were told that 98% of America's wealth is controlled by 2% of the population, or something to that effect. 80% of the people polled thought that they would be in that 2% by the end of five years. When 80% of people think they're going to be within the richest 2% of the country, I doubt that many people are going to be thinking of themselves in a situation where they can't afford medical insurance in the next few years. As such, they think it's not their problem.
That plus the great American fear of anything to do with "COMMIES!"
Why did this get an insightful? This is just flamebait if ever I saw it.
America became as it is because of it's ultra-individualist way of life - Europe, though hardly as socialist as Americans seem to think it is, does not have that view on life - it's not going to become like America is now.
I also think you overestimate how much power has been moved to Brussels - yes, there are EU regulations, an EU currency and so forth, but the EU is far from being a United States of Europe - each country is independent, has its own distinct identity, makes its own laws, runs its own army and police force, has its own courts etc. etc. etc.
Europe is a collective of nations, perhaps as America was at some point in some ways, but really... in other ways, not really. Europe's diversity is exactly why we will not become like America - a Liverpudlian is completely different from a Mancurian, and those cities are almost touching! How different do you think, say, Dublin would be to, say, Sicily? There are so many cultural variations, deeply entrenched rivalries and alliances that it becoming a monoculture like America is quite impossible.
When the USA became one country, the individual states didn't really have a massive amount of identity, they were all recently formed, mostly came from the same country, didn't have extremely bloody wars among themselves so forth. Europe is not the same.
And as for why it is a good idea, look at the EEC, it makes trade within Europe a LOT cheaper for everyone involved. Now look up, say, UK's CIA world factbook, and work out how much of its trade is to other EU nations. Hint, it's most of it.
THAT is the advantage of the EU.
Oh, and we laugh at America too, but we also doubt that when most Americans laugh at Europe, they're really thinking "hey, this United States thing sucks, look, Europe's doing it too! lol".
Every single time someone brings this up.
No, not true, Japanese people are quite racist, yes, but I don't think they care where their electronics come from. Case in point: iPod - as succesful there as it is everywhere else, American company. And the PSP - failing there, Japanese company.
And I'm well aware of how the trade between the west and Japan came into being, but that was centuries ago, what does that have to do with anything? I suppose that all Japanese are suicide bombers too, because some of them were in WWII...
Most US hardcore gamers being Japanophiles works with the loosest definition of the word (someone who loves Japan, or someone who's willing to play an overtly Japanese game, regardless of weirdness) - Japanophiles would sicken Japanese people in a very specific sense of the word (the "I'm going to Nihon for some kawaii sugoi lolicon manga and some sugoi games, you baka! You baka! There's no culture there but games and anime! Things rule BECAUSE they're Japanese..." type. I'm sure you know some.).
Most US hardcore gamers don't fit into the latter category. It's the difference between someone who just likes Japan and some of their media (I would fit in there) and someone who would honest to God visit Japan for the sake of video games or anime.
As for Wii vs PS3 being the battle in Japan... probably, the Japanese tend to buy expensive electronics as if they were penny sweets but... really? You have no idea - Japan hates certain kinds of games - they don't like first person shooters for example, just like America hates, say, horse-racers. It has NOTHING to do with where the game comes from, really. Also, MGS4 and FF13 are draws to Japanese gamers, certainly, but not as much as you think - MGS isn't THAT popular over there, certainly not as much as it is in the western world, and Final Fantasy is a lot less popular than Dragon Quest over there.
Also, I think that for the western Japanophiles price will be an issue, this is $600, no matter how you slice it, devotion to what's hip in Japan only goes so far. Also, liking FF and MGS =/= Japanophile. In fact, I've yet to meet anyone who's obsessive over either of those series and a Japanophile.
And you overestimate Japan's influence on console sales in the west - Japan, America and Europe are seperate markets. In Europe, the Master System was more popular than the NES. In Japan, the Gamecube sold MUCH better than the XBOX. Notice how neither of those really altered the US trends.
I'd agree with the last statement though, have you ever seen what's in the top 10 games lists at game shops? Fifa (or Madden in America), generic FPS, generic FPS, bad GTA ripoff... blegh.
The CCTV isn't that bad, it certainly makes people less keen to fight and drink in public. In fact, CCTV I'm cool with, so long as it's not in people's homes, or people's businesses or anything like that, just for in public.
And really, this isn't Big Brother at all, in 1984 the cameras were EVERYWHERE, the Party was watching all the time, sleep, eat, whatever.
Here the public are watching because the police don't have the time to watch all the CCTV video, all recorded in a public place. Big difference.
I would say voting to leave the EU is about the stupidest thing you can do, I'd agree that the representative model of democracy doesn't really work well, but the way to fix this is to try and create change within the EU, not by ducking out.
I know you're anti-Europe, so I'm going to show you why I think this.
Check the CIA world factbook - look under the United Kingdom, check "main export partners" or something along those lines.
Of the eight countries listed there, seven are EU nations. They add up to slightly less than half of our exports to the entire world, just those seven countries. For imports, six of the eight countries we import most from are EU nations, the amount of stuff we import from them amounts to over twice that of the other two combined (US and China).
Now look up the benefits of the European Economic Community, and look at how our government seems to have difficulty managing money as it is - keeping in mind those figures, and say again, with a straight face, that leaving the EU will be better for us, and won't utterly decimate our economy.
I believe that we have to get more involved in the EU, we have to maximise our power within it, and then we have to expand the EU as much as possible - each European power individually counts for little in the world any more (I mean, the few really powerful ones count for something, but they're hardly America or China powerful). The EU as a gestalt entity is a runner for next global super-power.
Let me repeat, the way forward is closer integration and changing the EU from within, not exiting and royally fucking ourselves economically, hell, why do you think we joined in the first place?
On one point I agree - Gamecube is third in the English-speaking world. I like the Gamecube and I admit this.
However, the xenophobia of Japan not buying western electronics is ridiculous - the iPod has been a huge success over there - as an example of a western electronic device that did well over there.
I think it has entirely more to do with Japan's taste in games - they don't like first person shooters. Most of the XBOX's good exclusives were FPSs, or realistic racers.
Incidentally, that's the same reason why I didn't get one myself.
Slashdot Mirror
1. What are the terms of your insurance? Do they cover anything? Would they cover you if you had a history of anything? I, personally, have had leukaemia, and I would not be able to afford health insurance in America. Incidentally, I actually have medical insurance here in Britain, and the vast majority of the treatment was done on the NHS, because the private hospitals didn't have the facilities to deal with my treatment. My treatment was prompt and first-class and the only time that I ever used my insurance was in getting a small non-essential operation (a feeding tube), and the NHS did offer that, but the queues were long because it was not an essential operation. If I were to stop paying for my insurance now, I would not be able to afford to get on it again. If I lived in America, I would be SCREWED.
2. Given how much money America spends on its military, just a fraction of that spending could go to producing a truly world class health system. Most of the issues which other socialised healthcare systems have are due to underfunding, which wouldn't really be a problem with America's deep pockets. So, yes, it would solve quite a lot. Incidentally, the problems with underfunding are almost invariably with the nonessential parts of the system. If you need a hip replacing, you'll get it done instantly in America (and covered) and it'd take forever in Britain. However, in Britain, you'd get cancer treated very promptly and you'd never have to pay a penny, whereas in America you'll only get the treatment which your insurers want to deal with. I assure you, we do laugh at your healthcare system. Whenever anyone wants any kind of reform in the NHS, there's always the phrase "but I don't want it to be like the American system" in there somewhere.
As for Hillary, well, she's a waste of space, but this seems to be the only time that she's right. Bill had the idea too, but for some reason Americans are incredibly against this type of system, even though it works very well in many much poorer countries.
3. I agree with you on this point. However, how many people do you think would pay for their own insurance off their own backs? Only a very few responsible and RICH people, which would really end up having the poor unable to afford healthcare.
4. The constitution was written 300 years ago. Where medicine was primitive (read: mostly placebos) and when no drugs or surgeries cost sums in the sextuple digits. Things were different then to now, and you should not be preaching blind dogmatism to the Constitution. Some of the things in there are fundamental human rights (incidentally, usually the ones most broken, I'm thinking "cruel and unusual punishment" and "free speech and press" in particular here.), some are outdated and not necessary any more (second amendment comes to mind, whether you regard it as the right to have guns or the right to form a militia (which IS the correct reading, incidentally), regardless, outdated) and some things which are rights which are not there. (a quick scan reveals a total lack of the words "teach" "education" and "school")
... how many people do you think go to Accident and Emergency for a COLD? Two words. General practitioner. These people usually operate surgeries out of their own homes (or a house anyway). THAT is where you go when you have a cold. Incidentally, the job is VERY well paid. The issue of people suing the government is more a problem with American culture than the socialised system - besides which, the American government isn't exactly short on cash, I don't think that if they put even a small fraction of, say, their military spending, in there, that any amount of lawsuits would make any real dent in the funds.
I swear that I have never got libertarianism, it'd work in a wonderful world where consumers are educated, there's always competition and the companies are never amoral or immoral, but unfortunently none of that is true. The fact is that if you have too little government interference, you're going to get fucked by the private sector. If you have too much, you're going to get fucked by the public sector. There's a balance to be struck, and America sure as hell hasn't got anywhere near that balance yet.
... some of this is simply incorrect. One notable part being the assertion that the French and British have no nuclear subs. I can't speak for France, but Britain is actually the opposite, ALL of Britain's nuclear arsenal is nuclear subs.
... this guy wasn't exactly a big shot. Beyond the fact that he probably couldn't get polonium by himself, why would he poison himself? He had just become a British citizen, starting a new life with his family, a month before. Traces of polonium have been found at the restaurant he ate at, in an impromptu lunch. He didn't do it himself.
The British government wouldn't do it, because, put bluntly, we can't afford to invade the oil fields. We have a health system that's in severe debt (I believe £100m in the West Midlands alone) due to a VERY poorly conceived IT system (£20-30 billion so far (!!!!)) - we have an army which is strained for equipment and regularly targetted by terrorist attacks in Iraq and regularly get into battles with the Taliban in Afghanistan. We don't have the resources. This is to say nothing about public perception of this kind of tactic. People were generally pro-invasion for Afghanistan. People weren't pro-invasion with Iraq but because of some false documents Blair pushed ahead anyway. People would definitely not be pro invading Russia. Everywhere is VERY anti-American since Iraq. Even if the motive is there, the means is not.
Now, the American government. Much deeper pockets, less critical public sure, but really, the same points stand. Besides which, what we know of CIA activity shows that they usually just fund opponents of their enemies, only to be bitten in the arse a decade or so down the line. I think that the theory that the CIA did it is giving the CIA a bit too much credit, really, and should be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Given the mysterious deaths of many vocal critics of Putin's Russia, coupled with the fact that the American and British forces are barely coping with Iraq and Afghanistan (the Americans seemed to have pretty much bailed on Afghanistan, British forces are engaged in battles with the Taliban almost every day - plus there've been horror stories of equipment shortages, or deaths caused by cheap equipment being used...) I think that it's safe to assume that it is Russia. It might not be, but currently all signs are pointing very obviously to our nice friend Putin.
Who, incidentally, IS bad. Besides the treatment of critics and oligarchs who got a bit too powerful, his attitude to the free press make Bush look like a vocal supporter of free speech. His elections, although not rigged, were extremely one-sided with their advertising. The media in Russia is state controlled (directly, not like the BBC, which is actually a staunch critic of the British government), and he exploits this rather than freeing the media. Chechnya too, of course. He is a bad person, put bluntly. I'd say worse than Bush, who I don't exactly have a high opinion of. Hell, I'd say that Putin is one of the major stumbling blocks for Russia to modernise and join the western club.
That's alternative splicing, something somewhat trendy at the moment, I believe. Yes, some of the introns do actually code for stuff, but some of it is actually, as far as we can tell, junk.
Sky+ is QUITE popular, but, as Sky is not even the most popular satellite television provider and not everyone with Sky has Sky+...
Whoever marked this idiot as +5 interesting deserves to be smacked in the face.
I mean, come on, this person clearly is a right-wing religious nut with no grasp on how science actually works. "pureed baby"? And the last line, as if using embyronic stem cells is somehow equivilent to electrocuting a fully grown man?
Seriously, if only I had some mod points.
i) Britain does not follow the US constitution.
ii) Crime rates in Britain are marginally higher than those of America.
iii) Gun crime rates in Britain are ten times lower than those of America.
iv) Canada where there's an intermediate between the two extremes has gun crime rates four times lower than that of America.
v) Therefore, in the long term, banning guns does reduce gun crime, even though in the short term it doesn't.
... to be honest, I think that this guy here is just lying.
I have a musician who was a chart-topper a few years ago in my family - incredibly well selling band it was, too. Despite this, he came out significantly in debt, and he is no big spender at all. Recently he's become a song-writer, and has written music which has been moderately succesful, now he has a decent income.
I find it hard to believe that any artist anywhere makes 50% of the profit from the music he or she makes - every source I've heard, including from the horse's mouth, claims a figure not even approaching that one. Either you've got immensly lucky with which label accepted you, or you're simply making stuff up.
Although your point may superficially appear to be insightful, it seems to show a degree of ignorance about sociology, biology and economics.
... hey. Whatever.
i) The rich people are not going to die out, they're still having children, just fewer and later.
ii) A lot of rich people have a lot of kids anyway - I go to a public school (in the British sense: very prestigous, very expensive private school) and there are plenty of families with four or five children. At one point there was a family with four children in the school at the same time. Anyone who can afford that most definitely does not qualify as being poor!
iii) When rich people die without an heir, their money does not just vanish into thin air. The money ends up somewhere, probably with another rich person.
iv) Smart does not necessarily mean rich. I've met poor people who are sharp as a knife and rich people as thick as two planks nailed together.
v) Social classes exist within the USA. Accept it.
vi) Though social classes are not as extreme as castes, you still don't get much intermarriage between them. You don't see many barons marrying washer-women, or oil tycoons marrying their hairdressers. Although it does happen, it's rare. Similarly, social climbing is also rarer than people would like to admit.
The idea is that because the upper and middle classes rarely breed with the lower classes (yes, I know, once again, un-PC, once again, I don't care) that eventually speciation will occur. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about this myself, but
Er ... what part of this post is supported in any way by reality? Hell, even the examples of smaller bands are really not accurate, Sigur Ros is one of the most famous and commercially successful post-rock bands around, they're the number 1 selling band in their native Iceland, they're big in the UK too - Interpol and Death Cab for Cutie may not be MASSIVE, but they're not small, unpopular, obscure bands by any stretch of the imagination.
... well ... not rolling in it, but he has enough money to get by now. Which is better than before.
And all you seem to be saying here is that bands don't make a killing touring. Yes, big deal, we're not saying they do, we're just saying that they make more money touring than they do from record sales, which IS true. I thought it was well known that being a professional musician was not a good way to make money, however, being a songwriter IS, to use an anecdotal example - the husband of a cousin of mine was, I believe, the drummer of a band that reached number one in the UK charts. He made pretty much zero money from this endeavour, and I think actually ended up in debt. Cut to current day, after writing a single for a moderately succesful pop singer, he's
Of course, because I'm just a random guy on the internet, so you'll have to take my word on that one, seeing as I'm not really willing to name him.
Back on topic. Most bands don't make any money on record sales, most bands do make most of their cash by touring, even if they don't get rich through it. On the Keasby Nights album by Streetlight Manifesto, at the end of the last track a voice explains why the album was made (because the album was a rerecorded version of a recent album, and the band obviously felt that they needed to justify this) - one of the lines that struck me was "and the budgets we get are laughable, especially for a band with seven musicians to record, we were out touring in order to pay rent".
So, basically, regardless of how much money they make touring, it's still more than what they make from the album. The retailer and the label (and to a lesser extent the song writer) do profit from the CD, but the artist doesn't, unless they sell about as many as Madonna does.
... is it just me or are there very few points that actually makes any sense in the article - aside from the support from more movie and TV companies, I really see no valid points there at all. And, let's be honest here, who actually uses their mp3 player primarily for movies?
... why would faster recharges be a selling point for the average consumer? Maybe there'll be a few people who charge their mp3 players on the train or on a plane or whatever, but I'd imagine that most people just plug it in and charge it overnight.
.jpg photos) with up to four other simultaneous Zune users within Wi-Fi range. Recipients of these shared songs will be able to play them three times for up to three days free, after which they'll have to pay to listen. Songs received wirelessly can't be shared.
... traditionally you just put on the song and give one of the headphones to the other person so they can listen. Or you huddle up so that you can see the picture on the screen. Is there any point to this feature?
The initial version will sport a 30GB hard drive, peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connectivity, a 3-in. screen (320-by-240-pixel QVGA viewable in either portrait or landscape mode), an FM tuner that will display song information from stations that broadcast a Radio Broadcast Data Standards (RBDS) signal and a built-in nonreplaceable lithium-ion rechargeable battery that will probably deliver about 12 hours of music or about 3.5 hours of video on a single charge. It won't last as long as the iPod, but it will charge faster.
Looking at this, the Zune is superior to the cheapest iPod video (in that it's about the same price and has the Wifi, a bigger screen and FM radio) but has worse battery life. The FM tuner is nice, but not anything essential, ditto the bigger screen. What worries me is that this is the ONLY model (effectively giving Apple an advantage in the "I have more than 30GB of music" market) and the battery life. It's hardly a significant difference - taking the Zune to be competing with the 30GB iPod but
Zune will connect to an iTunes-like music store called the Zune Marketplace, which will offer millions of songs, according to Microsoft. Music will be available for 99 cents per song or via an "all-you-can-eat," $14.99-per-month subscription package called a "Zune Pass." Movies and TV shows will become available on the site sometime next year. Marketplace will work with the Microsoft Points program -- Xbox users can spend Points on Zune media and vice versa. Each song on Marketplace costs 79 points. (For instance, 100 points equals $1.25).
Although the subscription method is an improvement from Apple's model, I don't really see Apple NOT enacting a similar scheme if it's a success. And I don't really see why linking to the XBOX will be a huge boon for the Zune - anyone able to get onto the Marketplace already has broadband of some description and I'd imagine that most people don't get broadband purely for the XBOX, and they probably have a PC anyway. Maybe it'd help it sell for people who have Macs but also have XBOXes but surely Mac-people would be more likely to use iTunes anyway?
Zune will come preloaded with yet-undisclosed songs from DTS, EMI Music's Astralwerks Records and Virgin Records, Ninja Tune, Playlouderecordings, Quango Music Group, Sub Pop Records and V2/Artemis Records.
Unless they're exclusive tracks or ultra-uber-rare tracks, I don't see why this makes a difference. I don't think that anyone would buy an mp3 player for preloaded songs.
Best of all, Zunes will be able to connect to one another wirelessly, letting people share songs (as well as playlists and
Zune software will import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC formats; JPEG photos; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264 formats. Microsoft has hinted that it will support other media formats, but hasn't specified which ones. Zune will import songs from Apple's iTunes "as permitted by the online service f
Er ... yes? How did you think they got permission to do it?
Cambridge may be quite an influential university, but I don't think they're so powerful as to be allowed to do this kind of stuff without permission with impunity... The fact is that they need to keep on the right side of the law on this one.
... actually good? When I sent in a complaint because the music players within the site didn't work in Opera 9 - they fixed it within a day or two.
The usual response I get from sites which have issues with Opera is "well, don't only, like, two percent of the population use Opera? lol, no point then!". Yes, Lionhead, fuck your forum.
... I live in England, where the age of drinking is 18. Almost everybody at my school was drinking by age 14.
The fact is that people often do buy the same thing several times - I mean, how many people did you know who upgraded their VHS collection to DVD?
Don't forget that people bought UMDs of DVDs they already owned when the PSP came out - for the sake of portability. I'm sure that people who already own the games are going to think of some justification of buying it all again.
I have three words for you: Compare the timescales.
It's normal for climates to change, but not at this pace, it is not a defencible position to claim that this climate change is natural. Although "ecowarriors" may piss you off, the scientists who actually KNOW about this stuff are on their side, and when the people who have a clue how these things actually work are on someone's side, it's probably a good idea to be on that side too. If what is being said is true, then we must take extreme action to avoid utterly raping our ecosystem and flooding our major cities. If what is being said is false, then we're less dependent on fossil fuels, and have saved a few pretty seals. It's win-win, people. But really, when such a concensus has been reached in the scientific community, odds are you should listen.
Cue lots of responses from naysayers about polywater.
To be honest, there is actually a lot of very good stuff released currently (and a fair bit from the 90s, the big thing of note then was really alternative and grune ... some things worth listening to, but not as much as from 60s, 70s, 80s.).
;P
Of course, most of it doesn't make it to the Top 40 - of the bands that do that are worth listening to, they're usually at number 13 or 17 or something. Well, normally, there've been a few bands, like Franz Ferdinand, who've become popular with the mainstream and are genuinely good enough to deserve it.
The taste of the majority suck, look at the success of Fallout Boy or Black Eyed Peas (okay, I liked "Where is the love?" but I hated most of their stuff) and ask yourself if they really enjoy it. What about the popularity of emo music as of late? Or RnB? Or the long string of bad rap albums or abysmal bubblegum pop.
There's a lot of good indie music out there (including some of the music which is both, paradoxically, indie and mainsteam at the same time), there are a fair few prog rock bands with their own little scene (prog metal is particularly popular, so if you liked heavy metal and prog rock, you can do worse to check some out). There are some good post-rock bands too.
You just have to look for good music, you can't just let it find you, or you'll find very little. I recommend using Pandora and last.fm.
Incidentally, a lot of these newer good bands have no affiliation with the RIAA - a lot of indie ones don't (though some of the more popular ones do, Snow Patrol and Kaiser Chiefs come to mind) - it's completely possible to buy a lot of good music without supporting the RIAA.
As for the rest, just pirate it
And I remember a hopelessly outdated English navy almost completely destroying the technologically advanced and numerically superior Spanish Armada.
To be honest, you probably could anyway, if you look at how much is spent on the military, there's so much that can be done with that kind of money. [insert your pet social welfare project of choice here] for example.
... well, it's not excellent, it needs a lot of work in some areas, but in others, well ... it is excellent. Year before last I had cancer, and the quality of service was top notch.) and a lot of social welfare programs. Sweden also, hardly an economic superpower, but look at their welfare.
No need for extorting the rest of the world. Hell, many much smaller countries manage incredibly extensive social welfare programs covering all areas of life with a much lower gdp per capita than America. New Zealand is certainly not a rich country (well, it is, but not in comparison to the major economic powers), and they have a rather spectacular social welfare programme - and also the only country that I know of to get almost all of the energy on its electricity grid from renewable sources. Britain does spend a lot on money sinks such as the military and our current government is quite inept at handling money (see: rebranding of Royal Mail, IT project for NHS, etc etc) - despite this, we can still afford to run a decent NHS (I say decent, because
The issue with welfare in the USA isn't the money, it could easily be drummed up by perhaps having one less Sidewinder on the next generation of fighter jets, but rather the attitude. Americans seem to have the attitude that all people who cash in welfare are leeches. When I have tried to debate the case for socialised healthcare among Americans before, the response has always been "wtf, I don't want to have to pay for someone else's healthcare!" - when I give an example of some tramp who can't afford medical insurance, and ask what would happen to him, they say "that's not my responsibility". Of course, they never entertain the prospect that they might end up in that situation in ten years or so, where they might think a bit differently on the matter.
I believe that on one occasion recently there was a poll taken among Americans, they were told that 98% of America's wealth is controlled by 2% of the population, or something to that effect. 80% of the people polled thought that they would be in that 2% by the end of five years. When 80% of people think they're going to be within the richest 2% of the country, I doubt that many people are going to be thinking of themselves in a situation where they can't afford medical insurance in the next few years. As such, they think it's not their problem.
That plus the great American fear of anything to do with "COMMIES!"
Why did this get an insightful? This is just flamebait if ever I saw it.
... in other ways, not really. Europe's diversity is exactly why we will not become like America - a Liverpudlian is completely different from a Mancurian, and those cities are almost touching! How different do you think, say, Dublin would be to, say, Sicily? There are so many cultural variations, deeply entrenched rivalries and alliances that it becoming a monoculture like America is quite impossible.
America became as it is because of it's ultra-individualist way of life - Europe, though hardly as socialist as Americans seem to think it is, does not have that view on life - it's not going to become like America is now.
I also think you overestimate how much power has been moved to Brussels - yes, there are EU regulations, an EU currency and so forth, but the EU is far from being a United States of Europe - each country is independent, has its own distinct identity, makes its own laws, runs its own army and police force, has its own courts etc. etc. etc.
Europe is a collective of nations, perhaps as America was at some point in some ways, but really
When the USA became one country, the individual states didn't really have a massive amount of identity, they were all recently formed, mostly came from the same country, didn't have extremely bloody wars among themselves so forth. Europe is not the same.
And as for why it is a good idea, look at the EEC, it makes trade within Europe a LOT cheaper for everyone involved. Now look up, say, UK's CIA world factbook, and work out how much of its trade is to other EU nations. Hint, it's most of it.
THAT is the advantage of the EU.
Oh, and we laugh at America too, but we also doubt that when most Americans laugh at Europe, they're really thinking "hey, this United States thing sucks, look, Europe's doing it too! lol".
Every single time someone brings this up. No, not true, Japanese people are quite racist, yes, but I don't think they care where their electronics come from. Case in point: iPod - as succesful there as it is everywhere else, American company. And the PSP - failing there, Japanese company. And I'm well aware of how the trade between the west and Japan came into being, but that was centuries ago, what does that have to do with anything? I suppose that all Japanese are suicide bombers too, because some of them were in WWII... Most US hardcore gamers being Japanophiles works with the loosest definition of the word (someone who loves Japan, or someone who's willing to play an overtly Japanese game, regardless of weirdness) - Japanophiles would sicken Japanese people in a very specific sense of the word (the "I'm going to Nihon for some kawaii sugoi lolicon manga and some sugoi games, you baka! You baka! There's no culture there but games and anime! Things rule BECAUSE they're Japanese..." type. I'm sure you know some.). Most US hardcore gamers don't fit into the latter category. It's the difference between someone who just likes Japan and some of their media (I would fit in there) and someone who would honest to God visit Japan for the sake of video games or anime. As for Wii vs PS3 being the battle in Japan ... probably, the Japanese tend to buy expensive electronics as if they were penny sweets but ... really? You have no idea - Japan hates certain kinds of games - they don't like first person shooters for example, just like America hates, say, horse-racers. It has NOTHING to do with where the game comes from, really. Also, MGS4 and FF13 are draws to Japanese gamers, certainly, but not as much as you think - MGS isn't THAT popular over there, certainly not as much as it is in the western world, and Final Fantasy is a lot less popular than Dragon Quest over there.
Also, I think that for the western Japanophiles price will be an issue, this is $600, no matter how you slice it, devotion to what's hip in Japan only goes so far. Also, liking FF and MGS =/= Japanophile. In fact, I've yet to meet anyone who's obsessive over either of those series and a Japanophile.
And you overestimate Japan's influence on console sales in the west - Japan, America and Europe are seperate markets. In Europe, the Master System was more popular than the NES. In Japan, the Gamecube sold MUCH better than the XBOX. Notice how neither of those really altered the US trends.
I'd agree with the last statement though, have you ever seen what's in the top 10 games lists at game shops? Fifa (or Madden in America), generic FPS, generic FPS, bad GTA ripoff... blegh.
The CCTV isn't that bad, it certainly makes people less keen to fight and drink in public. In fact, CCTV I'm cool with, so long as it's not in people's homes, or people's businesses or anything like that, just for in public. And really, this isn't Big Brother at all, in 1984 the cameras were EVERYWHERE, the Party was watching all the time, sleep, eat, whatever. Here the public are watching because the police don't have the time to watch all the CCTV video, all recorded in a public place. Big difference.
I would say voting to leave the EU is about the stupidest thing you can do, I'd agree that the representative model of democracy doesn't really work well, but the way to fix this is to try and create change within the EU, not by ducking out. I know you're anti-Europe, so I'm going to show you why I think this. Check the CIA world factbook - look under the United Kingdom, check "main export partners" or something along those lines. Of the eight countries listed there, seven are EU nations. They add up to slightly less than half of our exports to the entire world, just those seven countries. For imports, six of the eight countries we import most from are EU nations, the amount of stuff we import from them amounts to over twice that of the other two combined (US and China). Now look up the benefits of the European Economic Community, and look at how our government seems to have difficulty managing money as it is - keeping in mind those figures, and say again, with a straight face, that leaving the EU will be better for us, and won't utterly decimate our economy. I believe that we have to get more involved in the EU, we have to maximise our power within it, and then we have to expand the EU as much as possible - each European power individually counts for little in the world any more (I mean, the few really powerful ones count for something, but they're hardly America or China powerful). The EU as a gestalt entity is a runner for next global super-power. Let me repeat, the way forward is closer integration and changing the EU from within, not exiting and royally fucking ourselves economically, hell, why do you think we joined in the first place?
On one point I agree - Gamecube is third in the English-speaking world. I like the Gamecube and I admit this. However, the xenophobia of Japan not buying western electronics is ridiculous - the iPod has been a huge success over there - as an example of a western electronic device that did well over there. I think it has entirely more to do with Japan's taste in games - they don't like first person shooters. Most of the XBOX's good exclusives were FPSs, or realistic racers. Incidentally, that's the same reason why I didn't get one myself.