The Bear's Key

And just to elaborate on that bolded point (didn't get to it before), I'm not saying military and international force would be top on the list. The combined ingenuity of the world can hardly be matched by a rogue nation's severely grandiose-dreaming leadership.

I meant #2 and #4 only. If you did see those both, even only a few minutes of each, and still disagree with the proposals, I can only say fair enough. But I'm not certain if you have seen either, by that answer. You didn't even address the key point: choice. Somehow I think the problem had to with robbery (borrowing) by politicians for other things. A piling money inventory of that magnitude should've been collecting interest all the while. It never should have depleted so fast except for the careless policy of having no strict oversight. And therein lies the problem -- not with S.S.

Right here they do. You see it within the honeycombs? The 90s angles outnumber the 120s. The 90s even look slightly more precise. That seems to have merit. However, remember there's a difference between calculations made on paper and the trigonometrical components existing in nature. The only reason it's done on paper is for ease. You're correct it's in the human mind, though. But it couldn't be if the foundation for it didn't exist in nature. Our method of systemizing the calculation of its variables does reside in the mind, but those actual variables do exist in nature, otherwise we couldn't identify them.

Mr Skeptic is correct. We should learn from Prohibition. You have the choice of entering a smokey bar or restaurant. I forgot to include another exception I'm OK with, though. If a city or area is lacking in similar business, thus giving people little choice but to enter the smoking place, then I can support a restriction. But if you have many choices, why not let business decide if they want to attract smokers and potentially lose customers who don't smoke? Businesses might be required to hang a "smoking" visibly. But what's the point of that, even? It doesn't hurt someone to ask if the place is non-smoking. Lastly, food and smoking have practically gone together hand-in-hand for enough people that it's a shame to rob them of the pleasure when dining out. They must have a place to enjoy the vice, without being inconvenienced especially all the clientelle in the restaraunt were smokers (or at least OK with it enough to dine there). However, everyone is drinking.

Yes, but only in environments where people must travel to get to destinations. For example, bus stations, malls (to other stores), hospitals (to patients), correctional facilites indoors, lobbies, hallways, buildings with lots of different offices, etc. But to tell a restaurant owner its customers are forbidden to smoke, totally nincompoop idea and policy. Especially in bars, I mean common -- you're already drinking. I don't mind people smoking around me (cigs or herbage) even though I'm a non-smoker. In my face would be unwanted, otherwise the government needs to make a way smarter policy.

Completely different. That was one nation going practically alone, under dubious rationale. We are pretty smart as a world. Remember, a nuke-free planet is going to have more capital and wholesale support than the arrogant leader with a controversial election from the most powerful nation. And it wouldn't be an occupying force, or if it were, it'd be more like a U.N. one that remained.

Iran doesn't have weapons yet, but it might be trying. Regardless, if the world decided to eradicate nukes, and Iran decided to go ahead with nukes production anyway, before they'd even get a few ready the world has all the political and international capital necessary to use monumental, overwhelming force. Again -- just vs its government structure, to disable their effective leadership.

If you mean a response against the populace, then you might read my post again. It did say... the world's combined military power is going to descend on that nation swiftly and with ultimate finality to its government (which are the perpetrators, not the citizens)

Nice thinking. Of course. So even if a rogue nation *cheated* and detonated a nuke on a rival, the world's combined military power is going to descend on that nation swiftly and with ultimate finality to its government. Having a nuke or two doesn't give you military power. Just a one-shot deal which in the end (no pun here) translates into: suicide.

You're quite correct. I'm not able to edit it now unfortunately. Perhaps a kindly mod will happen by, see it, and perform a drive-by correction (*hint*) Didn't you see post #61? Have another looksy... I'll copy/paste the relevant bits once again. Maybe someone wants to bet on the odds of you missing it again? I rarely gamble with money, but this is approaching a sure bet. 2. Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers (Length: 11:31) With the best health stats in the world, they go to the doctor a lot, get to see any specialist they want, and their costs are low. How do they do it? 4. Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others (Length: 8:02) It has state of the art IT, gives equal access to all, free choice of doctors, no wait, lots of competition among providers, and gov't runs financing.

You can migrate that last section of post #11 to a new thread if disruptive (and remove this post). I wouldn't like to deny someone the opportunity to respond because of a clamp-down on topic breaks. Just move the last iNow quote and my response to a new thread, if you see the need (or leave it and just copy it over -- thanks).

From the vid posted in the OP. Part 1. Great Britain: A Leader in Preventative Medicine (Length: 12:41) Correspondent T.R. Reid finds there's a lot to like in its socialized health system, funded with taxes. There are problems, but reforms are underway. 2. Japan: Universal Coverage, No Gatekeepers (Length: 11:31) With the best health stats in the world, they go to the doctor a lot, get to see any specialist they want, and their costs are low. How do they do it? 3. Germany: A Popular, Largely Market-Based System (Length: 11:01) Its universal health care covers medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy. Insurers can't make a profit; providers and government negotiate prices. 4. Taiwan: A New System They Copied From Others (Length: 8:02) It has state of the art IT, gives equal access to all, free choice of doctors, no wait, lots of competition among providers, and gov't runs financing. 5. Switzerland: Its Former System Resembled Ours (Length: 13:16) Since 1994, everyone now must buy health insurance - with the state paying for the poor. And insurance companies can't make a profit on basic care. The enticement of #2 and #4 is potentially a threat to the universal healthcare advocate's most treasured points. If such advocates can't bring themselves to watch only the very first minutes of something, even if the reality of it might expose factual inaccuarcies they've held dearly -- in other words, dread for the potential they've been wasting so much energy on a lie -- then it might just really be a purposeful avoidance of facts (unless the vid is a lie, but how can you debunk anything without at least taking a peek?). Simply view the first introductory minutes of #2 and #4 and you can shut it off. Easy peasy. For those who just can't: if you really need me to, I'll transcribe the beginning of all five parts for you. (Consider it a public health service )

Common Transdecimal still waiting here. Oh, wait...

(Or 2012. Or Y2K. Many endworld scenarios) I agree with JohnB here.

A government by and for the people. Special interests, businesses, etc, are secondary. Or need to be. Thus you're correct about how people need to refresh their view of government in relationship to themselves. It's like that in Europe?? Since when did businesses and entrepreneurs flock out of there? Is the business landscape a desert over there? No commercials on TV or billboards on highways? I think you might lay off certain political network drugs a bit.

We can play the guessing game without knowledge of the variables they'll use to make it happen, but in the end I think the problem will be solved in a way that no one here would normally suspect. A innovative way that confounds our expectations (lacking access to their plans). Unfortunately, it seems Obama will keep a few nukes in stock. He said he would not drop U.S. weapons unless other nations agreed to do the same, a tenet of old-school arms control, and promised to "maintain a nuclear deterrent that is strong, safe, secure and reliable." Even so, it will be a huge step in a better direction. That philosophy is riddled with lack of foresight and ignores many variables, though. If the productive nations outlawed guns, you'd have no big enterprise making them by the millions. You'd have pieces of crap that don't shoot as efficiently or backfire unexpectedly more often. Plus, if a criminal knew you were "loaded" they'd be more likely to shoot you in the back, then search your pockets, rather than ask you to empty your pockets at gunpoint. But even if they drew a gun, you're already at a disadvantage unless you have a gun out pointed ahead everywhere you walk. And if everyone carried a gun? The robber would just ask that you place your weapon on the ground, or hand it over to their buddy. Yes, gangs would be a more safer way to pull crime off neatly. In the Wild West, anyone on the street might've had a gun. But criminals still robbed trains and lived a life of crime. More importantly, thugs still intimidated the public (commanded respect and/or instilled fear). Lastly, who's more like to shoot the other -- an everyday person or a criminally mindset one? I fully support the right to guns, but find the usual arguments to be weak. The strongest argument they could make, and should: it's protected in the Constitution. But the usual complaints by the special interest might have other agendas not readily perceivable.

We can play the guessing game without knowledge of the variables they'll use to make it happen, but in the end I think the problem will be solved in a way that no one here would normally suspect. A innovative way that confounds our expectations (lacking access to their plans). Unfortunately, it seems Obama will keep a few nukes in stock. He said he would not drop U.S. weapons unless other nations agreed to do the same, a tenet of old-school arms control, and promised to "maintain a nuclear deterrent that is strong, safe, secure and reliable." Even so, it will be a huge step in a better direction. That philosophy is riddled with lack of foresight and ignores many variables, though. If the productive nations outlawed guns, you'd have no big enterprise making them by the millions. You'd have pieces of crap that don't shoot as efficiently or backfire unexpectedly more often. Plus, if a criminal knew you were "loaded" they'd be more likely to shoot you in the back, then search your pockets, rather than ask you to empty your pockets at gunpoint. But even if they drew a gun, you're already at a disadvantage unless you have a gun out pointed ahead everywhere you walk. And if everyone carried a gun? The robber would just ask that you place your weapon on the ground, or hand it over to their buddy. Yes, gangs would be a more safer way to pull crime off neatly. In the Wild West, anyone on the street might've had a gun. But criminals still robbed trains and lived a life of crime. More importantly, thugs still intimidated the public (commanded respect and/or instilled fear). Lastly, who's more like to shoot the other -- an everyday person or a criminally mindset one? I fully support the right to guns, but find the usual arguments to be weak. The strongest argument they could make, and should: it's protected in the Constitution. But the usual complaints by the special interest might have other agendas not readily perceivable.

Within unregulated economies, the infrastructure often shows it. What you see in those parts of the world are kids begging for pocket change, makeshift shelters off the roads, and few pockets of wealth (including tourism areas). The most funny part of anti-regulation demands? Business is a main contributor to regulation -- through special interests and paid favors. If you can reduce competition by legal technicalities, the more power to you (literally). The demands against regulation are very like the demands against big government. In reality, the former really just wants to chop at unfavorable regulation and keep the favorable $$-making ones in place (in the form of "do as we please without intervention"), and the latter really wants to chop at the opposition's bread and butter and keep their own in place. It's not entirely like that obviously, but for a good part it seems to be.

Excellent, bascule. Here's a related one too. Analysis: Obama no-nukes pledge not so farfetched http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_nuclear_future_analysis ..a full-throated program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and even such realpolitik lions of foreign policy and arms control as George Schultz and Henry Kissinger. ..... "This idea of a nuclear weapons-free world isn't sort of pie in the sky....and there are people who are very steeped in these national security issues who are promoting it." Obama's version of "global zero" seems based on the following premises. • Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they are worth, an expensive luxury for superpowers and a threat for the rest of the world. • The size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals inspires nuclear starter-states such as China to add to their stockpiles and give non-nuclear states a reason to join the club. • Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals. (The warmongers on TV might get angry. Perhaps. Bitch slap them. )

Socialism.... entitlement... Words used by pundits to dismiss any constructive solution which threaten gluttonous profits (usually made at our expense), and which might be seen as dismissive here. I recommend that we also investigate the "socialism" of different nations personally, instead of relying on what the ideologists of either side tell us -- and who probably never stepped foot in the relevant nations (and if they had stepped foot, probably didn't stay long enough, or just wore their ideological blinders to filter out reality). Let's get input from unbiased people in nations with high levels of socialized medicine. Like Canada, France, Norway, etc. The internet is our friend, and has worldwide (instant) reach. Things might seem obvious to us, like a cause-and-effect problem with a logically relevant solution, but due to the unaccounted variables in complex systems, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 when it comes to social tendencies and outcomes. That's an excellent suggestion. And it works for so many other things in need of problem-solving. Obviously what's good in one place isn't necessarily so in another, but certain solutions are more *universal* and beneficial than others. i.e. Why is MJ not as much a teen problem in Amsterdam, where it's legal? Or, why isn't alchohol as much of a teen problem in nations where 15 year olds can purchase it for their dads? Variables are the key. A seriously ill person isn't able-bodied. But you are entitled to complain when the results of neglecting society's upkeep comes knocking at our doors. Yes, there is a price -- a healthy and thriving society doesn't come free. Paying to keep the infrastructure maximized for optimal levels of spenders, workers, owners, and enjoyers of life in the good ol' U.S (which includes the ability to travel elsewhere and learn). Not everyone's inborn foundation is built the same. Many people are born with the qualities to be highly independent and tackling problems head-on, so even when growing up under abusive, broken, or poor conditions, they often still have a better chance of managing life than people with an inborn rickety foundation who grew up in a more upscale enironment. Others are possibly born to listen to commentators who lull and quiet their conscience, after a vote for dark-hearted agents posing as hard-work defenders, then complain when the societal impact comes biting at their ass (yet will blame it again on the casualties, not the instigators). I don't see how stopping drug companies from charging the US taxpayer for their profit margin (R&D, marketing, and pure profit) would be incredibly unpopular. It's not just medicare on the side of entitelement, but also the companies themselves. Do we get wholesale prices? Or loopholes that force our taxes up? Testimony on Medicare about how it's being regularly overcharged. http://web.archive.org/web/20060928003712/http://www3.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/testimony.asp?Counter=612 Medicare now pays more than many other purchasers for the drugs we cover due to the way that drug manufacturers report their prices and Medicare's payment policies. Medicare should pay appropriately for all Medicare benefits, including the drugs we currently cover, and it is unacceptable that the current system results in Medicare paying excessive prices. ..... Numerous studies have indicated that the industry's reported wholesale prices, the data on which Medicare payments are based, are vastly higher than the amounts that drug manufacturers and wholesalers actually charge providers. That means Medicare beneficiaries, through their premiums and cost sharing, and U.S. taxpayers are spending far more than the "average" price that we believe the law intended them to pay. ..... We must find a competitive way to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers are no longer paying excessive prices for drugs that are far above the competitive discounts that are widely available today. From Health Affairs. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1 An interesting opinion piece. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html How did illness bankrupt middle-class Americans with health insurance? For some, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage and other loopholes left them holding the bag for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck. ... Too sick to work, they suddenly lost their jobs. With the jobs went most of their income and their health insurance -- a quarter of all employers cancel coverage the day you leave work because of a disabling illness; another quarter do so in less than a year. ..... Health insurance isn't an on-off switch, giving full protection to everyone who has it. There is real coverage and there is faux coverage. Policies that can be canceled when you need them most are often useless.

Not always. It depends on the person. But you're right, it can take more advanced skill to build with circles than to use straight lines and corners. Also when people think of futuristic cars, houses, etc, they usually picture imagine curves for elegance and technological greatness. Futuristic design. Comfortable architecture. But funny enough (when drawing), our preferred shapes tend to depends on the stage of life we're at. Give a toddler crayons, and we'll often see more circles than right angles. (Visual reminders. http://www.bartelart.com/arted/wallscribblers.html http://www.artsz.org/child-art http://blog.bolandbol.com/drawing-as-it-develops/circles-and-coloring-books-a-mistake Did you notice how some kids will draw more edges and straighter lines than others? But nonetheless, circular scribbles remain the norm) Straight and right angles is cheaper to plan/build, good enough for the masses and heavy transportation, perhaps. Why spend unnecessarily on the lower class?..goes the thinking. Anyone with enough money residing in the little suburbs-type neighborhoods often have lots of bending streets -- no grid, more like a handful of noodles curving randomly with barely any outlets. We find circular examples too. Roman-ball and hockey Duck-Duck-Goose and marbles Sumo wrestling, golf, and racetrack events Cricket and the Roman Coliseum The ancient games seemed to use circles a lot more -- and if true, it weakens your case for inherent bias towards right angles. Again, the masses. Kids learn print before cursive, in Western nations at least -- it might be different in Eastern languages (hopefully we're going back to teaching cursive -- before print -- as it's seeming that children master associated skills better with cursive). Point is, the rigid lines of capitalization might not be an inborn preference, but a holdover font style intended for printing machines which couldn't do cursive. Regardless, I disagree that we inherently prefer right angles. Take a look at the ancient discoveries (the wheel, pi, and fire), variables that history seems to emphasize as more important to our achievments than the right angle.....which happens to be only a partial circle, or 1/4 to be exact -- so not coincidentally, perhaps, all the variables share a trait: curviness. (fire included ) No, it's not. I see more right angles than instances of 120 degrees. That's not a fact. Women, and their curves, are even more popular to interact with. Curvy sports vehicles too. A much simpler way to maximize efficiency? -- Use square cans. However, it's likely been thought of, and maybe didn't go over too well. I'll leave you with some pics to glance at. Contrasts Spherical construction (above) often does look more elegant than right angles. ...but straight lines and corners look just as (or more) elegant when done good. Pics of circular stairs http://lefflandscape.com/pix/feature-images/masonry/Circular-steps-sm.jpg http://www.cityofsound.com/photos/swiss_cottage_library/swisscottage_stairs2.jpg http://www.scrapbookscrapbook.com/DAC-ART/images/spiral-stairs/spiral-stairs-cambridge-england-1.jpg http://www.arundelfenceanddeck.com/images/showcase/small_stone%20steps%20(1).jpg In my opinion, those look better than many of their straighter counterparts.

Are you still around, katherine_fry? Next year you got The National Science Competition at the Big Bang Fair in Manchester. The National Science Competition is an over-arching and inclusive competition that covers all areas of science, technology, engineering and maths. There are many different science competitions already, but they tend to be specific to one scheme or subject area. The National Science Competition will welcome almost all entries into other existing competitions - it is deliberately broad in the subjects it covers and in its entry criteria to ensure that as many young people as possible can be included. Just sign up at their website if you haven't already. BBC News printed a good story about last month's finalists, raw enthusiasm of participants, and the competition itself. (FAQs at http://www.nationalsciencecompetition.org/faqs.asp) The National Science Competition is an over-arching and inclusive competition that covers all areas of science, technology, engineering and maths. There are many different science competitions already, but they tend to be specific to one scheme or subject area. The National Science Competition will welcome almost all entries into other existing competitions - it is deliberately broad in the subjects it covers and in its entry criteria to ensure that as many young people as possible can be included.

I think unions sometimes need power leashes just as any organizations do, so it might be a clever move like you say. However, the process will determine its fairness or questionableness.

Hope that works. I guess we define extreme purchasing power and living on high leisure....differently. But remember, my post mentioned how a few things get neglected in order to have those items? So we might be talking about borrowing power intead (house mortgage, car financing). Also, did the U.S. Census include people's debt in their figures? Student loans, credit card interest, other. Those factor in as well.

I can only go by the people whose mortgage gets extended by debt and/or who did take 30 year mortgages. Also we're talking over the years, not just recently. Maybe too, you don't know a lot of worse-off people? Nearly bare fridge. Shopping list consists of noodles with monosodium glutamate (8 for $1). No health insurance. Of course, some of these buy new cars. Or home game systems (new or from pawn shop). And even brand-name clothes (occasionally at hand-me-down thrifts). Most who can afford such "luxuries" are divided between the constant work for little pay, and the illegal drug merchants. And many who do spend on those either are single, or neglect their family's basics. Dreamy, huh? Really though, a big divide exists. Hopefully you're aware of it. Definitely. "Do Not Call" List???? You've obviously haven't gotten the "oh sorry, it takes weeks to remove the name from our system" excuse. Then after, your name is floated to different company. And they like to phone you with no caller ID, to avoid being reported. Or your Caller ID shows a weird number and/or title. Useless for reporting them. You hand them the list of the hundreds unemployed waiting in line for that job. Yeah, because so many companies are hiring right now. Ditto.