You do know that Google includes results where it's flagged you've made a misspelling, right? Did you not wonder why half the items on the first page have been picked up with the word 'Lego' bolded even though you searched for 'leggos'?
The Microsoft EULA specifically states that the manufacturer decides the terms upon which a refund is given, so they don't have to refund you just the OS if they don't want to.
I can't believe you posted on Slashdot, twice, to say that 99% of people don't agree with what people post on Slashdot - and then went on to say 99% of people agree with what you posted on Slashdot.
You have two options here: you can defeat yourself more or walk away in the knowledge that you were bright enough to accept you're a hypocrit.
I think the GP was trying to get across that it's pointless having a go at Microsoft for locking out modded consoles from Live, then in the same breath say that Apple would never, ever do such a thing.
The OP was cognitive dissonance at it's best (or worst).
Sources? What about prevention rates, is that included? Do the statistics on Americans include people who die of cancer but don't get noticed because they don't have insurance and never make it to a clinic, let alone a hospital? Considering that's something like 15% of the people in the country, that would be a significant statistic.
I'm the opposite of you. I would rather everyone be given a chance to live than a select percentage have slightly less chance of dying, but that's just me.
You can opt out of the contributions if you don't earn enough or you've hit retirement age. Even then, you're still covered.
If not it's mandatory and therefore no better than a monopoly.
I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind this, because there's still a very vibrant private health-care market in the UK despite the existence of government mandated health-care contributions.
Since government care is so damn wonderful, why is there a need for private car in the UK?
Nobody is saying that the NHS is perfect, or even wonderful. However, it is a good baseline for people that need it in an emergency or can't afford better. If you want more than that, you have the option to pay someone else to provide it. It's as simple as that.
And second, why did the college girl let herself be denied access to a PAP smear when the UK Health service said no? Why didn't she go get a PAP smear from the private option?
I don't know, I'm not responsible for her decisions and I don't know her personally. Maybe she couldn't pull together the £60 it would cost her to get one, or maybe she was incredibly stupid. So many possibilities.
Overall it sounds like the UK's not the promised paradise either.
That's because you'll infer your preferred conclusion from any data, even if it doesn't make sense. "Didn't think to go to a private hospital? That's the government's fault! I knew it wasn't a perfect system, even though nobody claimed it was!"
I'm pretty much done with arguing with you, because it's patently clear from your last few comments that you have no idea what you're arguing against and you have no willingness to find out. I could speculate as to why you're so invested in the current system, but as the answers range from somewhere between being paid to advocate for the insurance companies right the way down to the possibility that you'd rather other people die than you have to pay for health insurance, I don't really want to know the answer.
My point is exactly this - twelve words into your comment, and like the GP you've already proven that you don't have a clue what UK healthcare is like.
Canada and the UK's healthcare systems are both going bankrupt
I'd love to see where you heard that from. My Google searches indicate that they're not going bankrupt, but the NHS needs an overhaul in the next two years. That's not going bankrupt, that's modernising.
I tell you what, here's something that doesn't take much of my time to explain - you keep calling healthcare here a 'UK government monopoly', but that's completely wrong. Start learning from there and you might actually start getting to the truth behind some of the bollocks you've been told.
No but in the US, you can simply walk in, hand-over some cash, and get the PAP smear done. You can't do that with the UK Government's monopoly. They won't accept cash payments, so when the college-aged woman was told "no", that was the end. She had no other choices. It's anti-liberty.
That would be true if the existence of government subsidised health-care precluded her from paying for private care, but it doesn't. She could have paid that cash to a private hospital and got her pap smear.
I'm willing to listen if you're willing to explain
The problem here is you've already been told an absolute pack of lies as to how the healthcare system here works. I don't have the time or the energy to reverse even a fraction of that.
The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.
A policy that has now changed because of that exact instance. Are you honestly saying that a US insurance provider would have provided her insurance? And that if they hadn't and this had happened, that their policy would have changed one iota? Shall we compare this one high-profile incident of a failure in a government-sponsored healthcare system against the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied medical insurance in the US for exactly that reason? Do you honestly believe that the free-market would force insurance companies to insure people with a high-risk of cancer against cancer?
(according to MEP Daniel Hannan).
Daniel Hannan is a liar, then.
A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.
If you don't understand the difference, then there's no helping you.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a survey is inherently inaccurate because of selection bias.
That would be true if google gave you all the hits, even the ones that aren't relevant, but it doesn't.
You do know that Google includes results where it's flagged you've made a misspelling, right? Did you not wonder why half the items on the first page have been picked up with the word 'Lego' bolded even though you searched for 'leggos'?
Talk about a skewed test...
So that gives anyone carte blanche to act just as badly? To paraphrase Morbo, "MORALS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!"
The Microsoft EULA specifically states that the manufacturer decides the terms upon which a refund is given, so they don't have to refund you just the OS if they don't want to.
Slashdot posted a story with no basis in fact whatsoever? Slap me, I must be dreaming.
I didn't think you'd take the walk away option, oddly enough.
I can't believe you posted on Slashdot, twice, to say that 99% of people don't agree with what people post on Slashdot - and then went on to say 99% of people agree with what you posted on Slashdot.
You have two options here: you can defeat yourself more or walk away in the knowledge that you were bright enough to accept you're a hypocrit.
And I hate it when people spout their own opinion and then pretend 99% of the people agree with them.
I find your underpants lacking.
I believe that they removed the one-time auth and replaced it with no auth whatsoever, hence the brouhaha.
So, they don't have any open positions for psychologists - wouldn't that be completely independent of whether they already have them or not?
You know you can say "motherfucker" here, right? Stupid motherfucker.
I think the GP was trying to get across that it's pointless having a go at Microsoft for locking out modded consoles from Live, then in the same breath say that Apple would never, ever do such a thing. The OP was cognitive dissonance at it's best (or worst).
Sources? What about prevention rates, is that included? Do the statistics on Americans include people who die of cancer but don't get noticed because they don't have insurance and never make it to a clinic, let alone a hospital? Considering that's something like 15% of the people in the country, that would be a significant statistic. I'm the opposite of you. I would rather everyone be given a chance to live than a select percentage have slightly less chance of dying, but that's just me.
If not it's mandatory and therefore no better than a monopoly.
I'm interested to hear your reasoning behind this, because there's still a very vibrant private health-care market in the UK despite the existence of government mandated health-care contributions.
Since government care is so damn wonderful, why is there a need for private car in the UK?
Nobody is saying that the NHS is perfect, or even wonderful. However, it is a good baseline for people that need it in an emergency or can't afford better. If you want more than that, you have the option to pay someone else to provide it. It's as simple as that.
And second, why did the college girl let herself be denied access to a PAP smear when the UK Health service said no? Why didn't she go get a PAP smear from the private option?
I don't know, I'm not responsible for her decisions and I don't know her personally. Maybe she couldn't pull together the £60 it would cost her to get one, or maybe she was incredibly stupid. So many possibilities.
Overall it sounds like the UK's not the promised paradise either.
That's because you'll infer your preferred conclusion from any data, even if it doesn't make sense. "Didn't think to go to a private hospital? That's the government's fault! I knew it wasn't a perfect system, even though nobody claimed it was!"
I'm pretty much done with arguing with you, because it's patently clear from your last few comments that you have no idea what you're arguing against and you have no willingness to find out. I could speculate as to why you're so invested in the current system, but as the answers range from somewhere between being paid to advocate for the insurance companies right the way down to the possibility that you'd rather other people die than you have to pay for health insurance, I don't really want to know the answer.
The UK has no private hospitals.
False. I get the feeling I'm being trolled here, because it took me 2 seconds on Google to find that link.
Government run monopolies
My point is exactly this - twelve words into your comment, and like the GP you've already proven that you don't have a clue what UK healthcare is like.
Canada and the UK's healthcare systems are both going bankrupt
I'd love to see where you heard that from. My Google searches indicate that they're not going bankrupt, but the NHS needs an overhaul in the next two years. That's not going bankrupt, that's modernising.
I tell you what, here's something that doesn't take much of my time to explain - you keep calling healthcare here a 'UK government monopoly', but that's completely wrong. Start learning from there and you might actually start getting to the truth behind some of the bollocks you've been told.
No but in the US, you can simply walk in, hand-over some cash, and get the PAP smear done. You can't do that with the UK Government's monopoly. They won't accept cash payments, so when the college-aged woman was told "no", that was the end. She had no other choices. It's anti-liberty.
That would be true if the existence of government subsidised health-care precluded her from paying for private care, but it doesn't. She could have paid that cash to a private hospital and got her pap smear.
I'm willing to listen if you're willing to explain
The problem here is you've already been told an absolute pack of lies as to how the healthcare system here works. I don't have the time or the energy to reverse even a fraction of that.
The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.
A policy that has now changed because of that exact instance. Are you honestly saying that a US insurance provider would have provided her insurance? And that if they hadn't and this had happened, that their policy would have changed one iota? Shall we compare this one high-profile incident of a failure in a government-sponsored healthcare system against the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied medical insurance in the US for exactly that reason? Do you honestly believe that the free-market would force insurance companies to insure people with a high-risk of cancer against cancer?
(according to MEP Daniel Hannan).
Daniel Hannan is a liar, then.
A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.
If you don't understand the difference, then there's no helping you.
They want the US to be like the UK.
From a UK resident, trust me, that's not the travesty that you're trying to paint it as.
Is this still working on the actual version of Windows 7, rather than just build 7000?
Tomatoes are a fruit. What was your point?