South Africa had much more land for the conquered, even during apartheid.
Israel has set aside massive amounts of land to its previous inhabitants.
Canada certainly has much more land set aside, though I expect it's equally marginal.
More generally...
Japan-SK
Japan-Taiwan
UK-India
Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.
Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.
The salaries are not that much lower, and the cost of living is so significantly lower that you'd net more in Pittsburgh. I live in Pittsburgh and have had several jobs that pay over $100k. You can rent an apartment in the nicest hippest area here for $800/month (or less). You can own a home in a reasonable area for under $100k.
I speak from experience as sure my paycheck was larger when I lived in DC, but I could never afford to own a single family home. Now I own what would be the equivalent of a mansion in DC for less then what my suburban Maryland townhouse went for.
The really terrible thing is how hard it is to get those contacts OUT of the system. The best part is once you figure out how, they only let you delete 100 at a time (odd they had the capability to upload more than that at once). Just spent an hour last week doing this.
Or Hockey or Soccer? Concussions are common in many sports, soccer which is considered a "safe" alternative to football has the second highest rate. Also not unlikely to occur in Basketball or Baseball.
The biggest thing for me is the aim of the sport. The aim of American football is to stop the opposing team using your body; soccer and hockey both involve pretty intense strategy to get the ball/puck in the net.
Hockey does have some body-body impact (through checks). I haven't played much hockey, so I don't know how severe it is.
I think the general overemphasis on sports in this country (are other countries as bad?) is ridiculous. Resulting in things like parents getting into fights over it. And parents ignoring doctors recommendations to pull the child out because of a concussion ("But they need to get back in the game!" "My son is no quitter!"). Its just insane. Is it really that important that you be the best at throwing a fucking ball around?
Me personally, I'd rather be the best at creating something.
Easy problem to solve, so many entire /8 blocks are owned by single corporations, which should either be forced to sell or give up this outdated privilege. Does Xerox really need all of 13.x.x.x? Or Ford Motor Company all of 19.x.x.x?
Between 2008 and 2010, IANA was allocating 10 /8s per year. In 2010, they allocated 20 /8s. There are only 256 total in the system, and not all of those are even usable.
Rapidly-developing Asia already has about as many people as there are IP addresses by itself.
Where are you going to find enough /8s, how are you going to recover them fast enough to do any good, and who's going to pay the massive legal bills from the ensuing litigation?
They probably assign static IPs in their range all the time. They just aren't publicly routable. Taking away their /8 would require a huge amount of reconfiguration work, so not sure what the motive would be, until the prices get really high.
And how long will that last? And there's a presumption here that businesses with lots of IPs that got in early aren't already selling them for fun and profit. They, such as Nortel, already are.
"and make their profit on the Internet because it costs so little to provide once the basic cable plant is built."
That's some big hand waving, because laying the cable costs a fortune, and takes many years to recoup the cost which is why there is so few are competing for this "super profitable" business.
Without knowing the specific numbers, I'm pretty comfortable saying that the costs to an ISP to get the bits all the way until they reach the peering point is much less than the costs to an ISP to continually upgrade their network.
Alibaba took off long before Mayer arrived. Regardless of financial improvements, the products have seen more innovation than the previous 10 years. I now have 3 Yahoo apps on my phone! Some improvements have been for the better, some for the worse, but she seems to have at least broken the "do nothing" attitude at Yahoo previously.
Yahoo Weather is popular one (and an Apple Design Award winner). There's a pretty big set, most of which I've never tried. From a quick search: Yahoo, Mail, News Digest, Finance, Messenger, Weather, Sports, Fantasy Sports, Cricket, and Screen.
Then there's the Yahoo owned services like Flickr, if you want to count them.
Edit: I just installed Yahoo Weather, and it's great. It uses photos to represent weather conditions at each of your saved locations, which are all pulled from Flickr. I doubt it has photos specific to every weather condition in every location, but I got them for all the locations I tried. And the animation in the interface (parallax scrolling between locations, spinning windmills for windspeed, and maybe more I didn't notice) is smooth and well done.
Pulling up a weather app and seeing a local landmark with a cloudy sky in the background is a really neat user experience, so props to Yahoo on successfully integrating Flickr with this. I like it a lot.
It explicitly says: "100% customized for comfort Settle into complete comfort with our fully customized 2014 Ford Explorers." So unless they are only accepting applicants who have 2014 Ford Explorers, it seems like they are providing the car here which seems like a substantial change...
When I was bootstrapping my startup while working a day job, I used to wonder how to answer that question. My product was bringing in more money then the company's costs, so it felt "profitable", yet not enough to employ me full-time. Seems like there is a difference between that and something that is just plain unprofitable (where the burn rate will eventually cause the bank account to go to zero).
The software doesn't write and maintain itself. So if the revenue can't cover the expense to write/maintain the codebase (i.e., dev salaries), then the app isn't profitable because one of the major costs can't be met out of revenue at 100%.
But then I suppose you'd also need to compare the quality? Is the free healthcare paid for taxes as good as the paid healthcare after taxes? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just makes it hard to compare. If someone doesn't take advantage of the free education what then?
Also so much of US taxes goes to military, which countries like Canada benefit from, in a sense our military spending subsidizes Canadian healthcare.
The WHO tends to rank US healthcare quite poorly compared to most other developed countries. Last report I saw, it placed around 37th place worldwide, and pretty much all of the countries above the US have universal, government funded healthcare systems.
It's worth pointing out too, that the US government actually pays more per capita for healthcare than most governments that provide universal healthcare, so US taxpayers pay more and need private insurance..
WHO healthcare ratings were torn apart to no end because of poor methodology. Jeez, they used literacy rates and "income inequality" for some of their metrics on judging healthcare.
The WHO ratings were more about politics than healthcare.
To quote myself from one of my comment on an older thread about cancer treatement difference between France and the USA for a rich family [1]
This quote and the study it talks about is relevant, because it directly aims at the access and quality of treatment for the poor and middle class.
>In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the French health system as the best over all in the world. Do you agree?
>I question the W.H.O. methodology, which has serious problems with data reliability and the standards of comparison. A study I would take more seriously is one published last year by Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee in the journal Health Affairs. They examined avoidable mortality — that is, deaths whose risk of occurrence would be far lower if the population had access to appropriate health care interventions. In that study, based on data for the year 2000, France was also ranked No. 1, with the lowest rate of avoidable deaths. The United States was last, in 19th place, with the highest rate of avoidable deaths. That’s a severe indictment of our health care system in my judgment and calls attention, quite justifiably, to the high performance of the French health care system.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/health-car....
Just in that first paragraph, the author goes way off course creating a straw man about what his opponents find objectionable about the ACA.
I'll bookmark it and read through it later, but from what I glanced at in the first half, it didn't get much better after that straw man. I especially like where it tried to say that government decisions are better because they're made on "evidence". Okay.
"in a sense our military spending subsidizes Canadian healthcare"
In the nonsense sense, yes. Your military spending subsidizes American defence contractors, who subsidize American politicians.
"Free" healthcare beats no healthcare. In 2007, 33 million Canadians had "free" healthcare. In 2007, 45.7 million Americans had no healthcare. It's nice to see Obamacare getting people coverage.
Rather than try to spin the story to make America look good, it would be more constructive to consider why America is declining and what it can do to reverse that trend.
In the software world, we're better at fixing bugs when we stop calling them undocumented features. That philosophy can work in the real world too.
No, it's certainly been true. Many world economics have avoided military buildups by piggy-backing on the back of the US buildup. In fact I've seen credible arguments that it has actually contributed to world peace significantly to have the US building up the way it has, yes, even despite the wars the US sometimes engaged in, by making it not worth it for anybody else of significant size. The rule about "democracies not going to war" may in fact have been false... it may merely have been Pax Americana happening to coincide with a lot of democracies.
As America becomes "enlightened" (heavy scare quotes) and withdraws its military umbrella, a strange world is left behind... how does Europe feel about having effectively no military with which to counter Russia's growing imperial ambitions? It's officially all smiles (or forced grins) while they're stuck depending on Russia now, but I'm sure wheels are spinning behind closed doors even now. If the US elects another President with ambitions to back off the foreign involvement even more, or if the situation deteriorates enough more on this one's watch, what are the odds that Europe has to start building up? And how many other places will have to follow?
And how will a social-benefit-addicted continent react to having to fund a military again? They certainly won't be able to maintain the current level of social commitments everywhere.
Maybe the US shouldn't be enforcing Pax Americana depending on your own personal values, but don't think for one second it hasn't had its benefits even outside of the US, and don't think that the end of Pax Americana is somehow going to occur with a burst of rainbows and puppies, where we go from one dominantly-powerful military to zero. The number can only go up.
That's a slight overstatement - the countries of the EU spend 38% of what the US spend on it's military - which given the arguable massive overspend of the US doesn't look completely unreasonable to me.
Now of course what Europe doesn't have is strong unified leadership in these areas - which, given our history, is probably no bad thing although not the greatest thing to have at the moment.
Russia spends less that the UK and France combined on defense:
The real difference between militaries is projection power. The US can credibly project most of its power all over the world. The European military certainly exists, but it's projection capabilities are greatly less than the US', even on a per-dollar/per-Euro basis. It could defend itself against a straight-up Russian attack (which is precisely why that will not be happening anytime soon), but it leaves Europe without pieces when Russia is playing chess on the world stage [1]. If Europe would be starting to assert itself more thoroughly in the world, against credible threats, it would need to spend a great deal more money to do so.
[1]: Diplomacy is not chess, but it has chess-like elements (along with the poker-like elements). Trying to play diplomacy without the ability to threaten anything, even with no real intent or prospect of following through on the threat, leaves you with a proportionally much weaker portion.
Pray tell, is your threat model a revanchist, bankrupt Russia from the 90s making a daring lunge across Alaska? Canada's only credible threat is, well, America.
>In fact I've seen credible arguments that it has actually contributed to world peace significantly to have the US building up the way it has,
Within the context of the Cold War, and say, NATO buildup in post war central Europe this may or may not be true. It was certainly a boost to West German/French economies that didn't have to invest quite so heavily in fending off the Warsaw pact.
Outside of the European theatre, that's a significantly weaker argument given the proxy wars the US/USSR engaged in throughout the third world.
> In fact I've seen credible arguments that it has actually contributed to world peace significantly to have the US building up the way it has, yes, even despite the wars the US sometimes engaged in, by making it not worth it for anybody else of significant size.
This claim is only true if Canadian military spending were to increase if the United States decreased its military spending and if such increase in Canadian military spending came at the expense of its healthcare spending. Do you have evidence that this is the case? In the 90s there was a downsizing of the U.S. military. Did Canada correspondingly increase it's military spending? I don't know but I doubt it.
Given that the U.S. healthcare system ranks behind many countries with public healthcare and that the U.S. spends way more as a percent of GDP on healthcare than any other country it's quite reasonable to believe that taxpayer healthcare is as good as paid healthcare after taxes and is cheaper.
Plus, short of maintaining the high cost of global force projection that no one but the US has been paying since the end of the Cold War, no country is positioned to invade Canada except the United States (which, you might note, has been the source of all previous invasions of Canada.) Defending against remote invaders without US-like projection capacity is fairly cheap.
