Things that ur happy about

[kaosmark2]

Waterstones' reaction to amazon drones is funny:

http://www.waterstones.com/blog/2013/12/introducing-o-w-l-s/

[jump]

Waterstones' reaction to amazon drones is funny:

http://www.waterstones.com/blog/2013/12/introducing-o-w-l-s/

Love this bit

Q: But aren’t you worried about the owls developing intelligence and using the knowledge of our home addresses to enact some sort of sky-based revenge? Enslaving us all to deliver their internet orders to their nests?

A: No, the laws of robotics means that this can never happen. The owls will be incapable of harming a human.

Q: But owls aren’t robots, they’re birds.

A: That’s the end of the questions, thank you.

[kaosmark2]

Love this bit

Q: But aren’t you worried about the owls developing intelligence and using the knowledge of our home addresses to enact some sort of sky-based revenge? Enslaving us all to deliver their internet orders to their nests?

A: No, the laws of robotics means that this can never happen. The owls will be incapable of harming a human.

Q: But owls aren’t robots, they’re birds.

A: That’s the end of the questions, thank you.

It's absolute genius. Well-played to them.

[Spindles]

Great link, thanks

[feral chile]

Just got back from my daughters pre-school Christmas show Beaming with pride

Aw I miss those days.

[feral chile]

I am so so happy right now. Thank you to whoever had to cancel your endoscopy today - you saved us 2 months of worry - I hope your case wasn't urgent, and I hope you have equally good news :)

Oh dear that was like one of those FB statuses, happy birthday to someone who doesn't use FB -

but I'm too relieved to care :)

Edited December 4, 2013 by feral chile

[Spindles]

2 month wait for an endoscopy? That is pretty poor and illustrates the inequalities within the health service atm. Our local hospital (which the tories are currently chopping into pieces and moving out of reach of the town's occupants) is able to provide an appointment within 14 days.

It sounds like the results have been what you were hoping for. Hope it wasn't too unpleasant (I hate endoscopy with a vengeance)

[feral chile]

2 month wait for an endoscopy? That is pretty poor and illustrates the inequalities within the health service atm. Our local hospital (which the tories are currently chopping into pieces and moving out of reach of the town's occupants) is able to provide an appointment within 14 days.

It sounds like the results have been what you were hoping for. Hope it wasn't too unpleasant (I hate endoscopy with a vengeance)

It would have been a 15 week wait for an urgent endoscopy. He's already been on the waiting list for a month, and it took about 4 months to get his urgent referral sent through to start with.

And that's with a dual parental history of terminal stomach cancer, and unexplained stomach pain that resisted medication.

Edited December 4, 2013 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

Exactly why we have private health insurance...

Part of the problem.

By engaging in the private health system you allow and enable the discrepancies and the lower quality of NHS. Private healthcare needs to be scrapped.

[kaosmark2]

Its kind of bullshit that... We technically pay twice. The NHS receives no less money from us by us having private healthcare. If anything it gets more money from us.

Goverments cut budgets, reduce services... Not me...

By engaging with funding private healthcare you're enabling a system which tries to offer higher wages to attract better doctors away from the NHS, enabling a system that is fine with capitalism dictating healthcare, accessibility of equipment and facilities, etc. It's not about what you give to the NHS, it's about what the private system takes away.

[eFestivals]

Exactly why we have private health insurance... (all be it free through my wives company package)

Yes, because you and your family have a greater right to your health than others, while helping to destroy the right to health care for others.

Only sick people have private health care.

[eFestivals]

Its kind of bullshit that... We technically pay twice. The NHS receives no less money from us by us having private healthcare. If anything it gets more money from us.

complete crap and utter crap.

The NHS is carrying the costs of your private care. Unless you can show me the non-NHS training those private medical staff had?

Edited December 5, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

A qualified doctor is a qualified doctor...

paid for at massive cost by the taxpayer to then not give that benefit of their training back to the taxpayer.

I doubt what you say has any real standing in the UK... Most of us use private healthcare to jump waiting lists cause others to die and not much more. Two / Four week wait becomes a day etc... The doctor is usually the same as I said.

Corrected for you.

[eFestivals]

How many doctors don't continue to do NHS work ? Hardly any from my experience...

are they giving the NHS their full skills, which were given to them by the NHS?

[eFestivals]

Ultimately I pay more for a better service...

you pay more to deny others equitable care.

[eFestivals]

So once trained by public money you should always be imprisoned by it You commi you

and you wonder why the country is fucked.

[eFestivals]

Although me paying private money actually increases the amount in the NHS piggy bank.

The amount of high level care the private sector needs from the NHS to cover their medical negligence cases is much higher than the load it takes off the NHS via the minor cases the private sector deals with, and that's before getting into all the free staff it leeches from the NHS.

[eFestivals]

It would be more fucked with you in charge

Funnily enough, it wouldn't.

If you care to notice, I'm not the one advocating privilege for myself at the expense - death in this instance - of others.

[eFestivals]

Sorry for not wanting to die for some dogmatic belief...

That's a quite understandable view.

But if you notice, you're only presenting one-half of the consideration. If you had real conviction in what you said there you'd have said it all.

And all of it says: "I don't want to die so I don't care if someone dies to save me".

I doubt anyone here would truly do that given the choice

Don't judge everyone by your self-centred standards.

Edited December 5, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But thank fuck no one will ever get your brain hey

You get it most days. Shame its processes are beyond you.

[kaosmark2]

It would... Communism failed... Move on

No it didn't. Stalinism /= communism.

And based on how here and the US are.... capitalism failed.

[mrtourette]

I think it's fairly preposterous to make a generlisation about any political system failing given the wide range of situations in which each is used and the variety of objectives that are targeted when each is employed.

It's easy to say that looking at the situation now that capitalism has failed, although you can make the case that it has had many successess based on why and how it was used by those who decided to use it. We can only guess at what the situation would be now had we or any other capitalist country had gone down a different path. Likewise with socialism, just because it isn't employed much now doesn't mean it hasn't had success in the past dependant on what the aims and objectives were of whatever government employed it. For example how do you judge whether socialism has been successful in Cuba? It hasn't exactly bestowed a quality of life on it's people that those under capitlaist system may be used to be (so in their eyes would be a failure), however if the aim after the revolution was to instil a system that established fierce independance from a local overbearing power then it has been a roaring success.

All we can do is judge the usefullness or success of any political system based on our own values, it's likely that any system will have had many successess and failures during it's use well before we think the call is made as to whether it's been successful or not.

[kaosmark2]

I think it's fairly preposterous to make a generlisation about any political system failing given the wide range of situations in which each is used and the variety of objectives that are targeted when each is employed.

It's easy to say that looking at the situation now that capitalism has failed, although you can make the case that it has had many successess based on why and how it was used by those who decided to use it. We can only guess at what the situation would be now had we or any other capitalist country had gone down a different path. Likewise with socialism, just because it isn't employed much now doesn't mean it hasn't had success in the past dependant on what the aims and objectives were of whatever government employed it. For example how do you judge whether socialism has been successful in Cuba? It hasn't exactly bestowed a quality of life on it's people that those under capitlaist system may be used to be (so in their eyes would be a failure), however if the aim after the revolution was to instil a system that established fierce independance from a local overbearing power then it has been a roaring success.

All we can do is judge the usefullness or success of any political system based on our own values, it's likely that any system will have had many successess and failures during it's use well before we think the call is made as to whether it's been successful or not.

I completely agree, success/failure is a complex issue with different definitions and potential methods of measure based upon personal ideologies. I was just making a simplistic statement on Barry's level.

My biggest beef with the current system isn't actually the capitalist basis. It's where the socialist protections within it lie. Sure, there's the NHS, an unequal but free education system and a degree of minimum wage/JSA - all of which are far better protections than what the US has - however there's far more protections at the top. "Too big to fail" defies every single capitalist principle, I do agree that the bailout helped the economy somewhat, but that money could have been spent doing far more elsewhere. There was a recent article pointing out that if the amount given to the banks had instead been shared out and given equally to the entire populace then the boost to savings and increased personal expenditure would not only have improved the quality of life for everyone, but have kept cash flowing through the economy far better and actually lifted the country out of recession sooner. As it is, the economy is reasserting itself (primarily due to economic cycles rather than all the crap Gideon is espousing today), but the benefits of that aren't felt throughout society, as the system we have here is top-heavy. It's focused so much on ensuring that the rich stay rich, stay successful, while attempting to justify that with the absolute bollocks that is the theory of trickle-down-economics. We have tax-credits, which ultimately subsidise megacorps not paying a living wage, we have failing CEOs cycling through different chains on 7+ figure salaries, we have bonuses given regardless of actual achievement, all sorts of idiotic little subsystems designed to protect those lucky enough to get into the 1% from the inherent risks of a capitalist system.

I'd be prepared to support giving actual capitalism a go, I'd prefer to try a more major shift but the issue to me is what we have now is failing most people. Inequality is at its highest, not just in terms of the current discrepancies, but in terms of opportunity to break through wealth barriers. The 1% are predominantly the children of the last generation's 1%, a clear sign that our system isn't actually capitalist, it's almost dynastic in nature.

[mrtourette]

I completely agree, success/failure is a complex issue with different definitions and potential methods of measure based upon personal ideologies. I was just making a simplistic statement on Barry's level.

Of course, it was aimed as much at Barry as it was you, but more just a general point.

[kaosmark2]

Its a wonder you manage to dress yourself in the morning

Stalinism is heavily divorced from the Marxist theory it developed off, for a start there was a ruling class that exploits the workers for its own benefit. To suggest that Stalinism is the be-all-and-end-all of communism is just wrong.