Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain.
The other, less gloomy, side of this coin is that British employers are keeping their employment levels up during the downturn. There could be several reasons for this, not all bad.
If growth implies higher productivity and not the other way round, as you imply, then it should be a good thing. ie productivity gains are related to the degree to which employers sacked their staff during the recession.
Generally when employers recruit they have an image or specification for the ideal candidate. If at least one of the applicants matches that image they will take that applicant without looking further. As long as you have plenty of applicants for each post, similar kinds of people will get the jobs - at the expense of those that don't match the image and may be just as capable of doing the job.
It's not just people of different race that miss out; it could happen on age, sex, formal education, previous experience, handsomeness of figure, the clothes they are wearing, the way they talk.
First on the efficiency of the US healthcare systems versus European ones. The US system definitely costs more: about twice as much. To be as efficient, the US system would have to deliver twice as much to the patient. Evidence shows slightly poorer health outcomes in the US. Coverage for healthcare is less good too.
Second on the efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid. I wasn't commentating on the efficiency of delivery. Instead I wanted to point out that Medicare and Medicaid are dealing with much sicker patients on the whole than does private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid have more work to do for the same collective cost as private insurance. If American citizens are effectively obligated to take out private insurance and pay taxes for Medicare and Medicai,d then the best place to focus money saving efforts is on the private insurance part.
It's a complex subject. I have made further comments here and here
I have to agree with Uncle Clive. None of these images really stand out compared with many other photographers of the day. Perhaps it's more accurate to describe Atget as the first photographer to be promoted as a great artist.
American officials are investigating allegations that the large donation made to the university in Macau may have been designed to win friends in the government so as to secure future gaming rights—an allegation hotly denied by Mr Wynn’s company.
Tricky one as Mr Okada's objection is presumably that the donation wasn't effective enough in securing future gaming rights.
I think what the article is saying is that European countries, taken as a whole, won't actually face the problem that Paul Ryan is discussing with Tim Geithner. That's because European countries are controlling their healthcare costs in a way that US isn't right now.
By not coming to agreement Mr Ryan is part of the problem, but so are the others not agreeing, including Mr Geithner and Mr Obama. Perhaps this demonstrates the weakness of a political system where you have checks and balances but no sense of responsibility.
"Just because Europe restricts supply to only those procedures which readily procedure "good" results doen't mean their health systems are vastly superior."
Health systems in Europe aren't vastly better than in the US. Health outcomes for a variety of reasons are a bit better in Europe and they are improving faster than in the US. What is incontrovertible is that health systems in Europe are vastly more efficient in delivering quality of treatment for each $, € or £ spent. Those inefficiencies have to be paid for, whether as taxes, insurance or out of pocket. Hence the article.
I thought Ms Azzam made two particularly interesting points. One that the Muslim Brotherhood have survived decades of oppression in Egypt by being politically astute. And the other is that while the generals are the force of reaction in Egypt, Islamists are the party of political change. They want democracy, transparency, competence and alliances with the West - because they see that as the route to success.
I checked just now that the allied Freedom and Justice Party won half the votes in Egypt. They definitely have broad support.
I also want to pick up on the private sector versus public sector share of the pain. The important difference in this case is that the private sector invested in Greece before the effective default on the assumption of lowish risk, while the public sector is being asked to lend money after the effective default.
We can argue whether EU states and institutions should commit money and whether they are doing it in the best way for themselves as well as Greece. One thing I am clear on is that debts prior to the default should be wiped clean and the real default should be admitted as such. Leaving a 25% obligation after the haircut does no favours to Greece, unless the creditors offer something in return. It doesn't benefit the EU states and institutions because it makes their rescue of Greece that much harder and they are likely to have to make up the difference at some point. And it doesn't fundamentally change the situation for the creditors (although 25% is obviously better than nothing).
I have the complete opposite view on this from Richard Woolnough at M&G.
I disagree with you that Medicare and Medicaid are the main problem. The real issue is private healthcare. Premiums are paid by healthy working people for as long as they are healthy. When healthcare is really needed, when they are old poor and sick, citizens fall back on State schemes or do without. The major part of the 9% of GDP spent on private health care is wasted.
Essentially, people are not being wise virgins and saving for when they are in need. Governments can to some extend force their citizens to be "wise".
The more relevant point is that consumers in Europe have the choice of not spending on private health care because they expect it to be provided by the State or through a State managed insurance scheme.
Efficiency is somewhat important especially if you go into debt due to your inefficiency.
Fragmented regions in the first place counts as a "success" in your book?
The EU is a glass half full kind of setup. But we do need to discuss against the alternatives. Those that complain of an glass somewhat empty should be aware that the alternative is actually an empty glass.
As A Maher points out above, Germany has done pretty well out of the Euro. He doesn't draw what I think is the obvious conclusion from it though.
Does anyone have any experience of the GP Consortia, now that they are up and running? I have only seen arguments before the event: that they are simply replacement bureaucracies for PCTs with no net effect except the cost of disruption; that they are the liberating agent for physicians; that they are a Trojan Horse for the fragmentation of the health service.
It would be interesting to know what's happening in practice.
By the way, you describe Nick Bosanquet as "a health-policy expert at Imperial College". To clarify, he's a board member of the Reform Think Tank, closely aligned with the Conservative Party, and he powerfully promotes his agenda for maximum competition in the Health Service. Just in case readers got the impression that he was neutral observer.
The correspondent said the grievances, albeit "limited", were justified. Not the rhetoric of Geert Wilders who uses those grievances as the pretext for his "unabashed hate-mongering and discrimination." Clear difference.
Whether or not you agree with those grievances, Mr Wilders is one slippery character. Bad and dangerous to know, as I suspect Mark Rutte might accept in his private moments.
Given enough time, these measures might restore the zone to health. But they might first push some countries off the ledge.
The logic of your argument is that they must first push some countries off the ledge.
Then it's not a question of "rescuing" Greece or defending against contagion after a default. But rather how to manage the inevitable default and contagion so they are least damaging to Greece and the Euro zone generally.
Wegelin also seem to have dealt with the threat by shifting the non-US portion of its operation and client list to a separate bank. This leaves Wegelin as an empty shell that isn't worth pursuing:
Actually, they are not currently complying with US law. They failed to show up in court a few days ago.
The US has some powerful sanctions against individual banks, particularly global outfits like UBS that can't afford not to have a presence in the US. They also can sanction Switzerland as a country by, for example, cancelling double taxation treaties. Customers with bona fide non-US income won't deposit it in a Swiss bank if the IRS are going to tax it anyway.
The other, less gloomy, side of this coin is that British employers are keeping their employment levels up during the downturn. There could be several reasons for this, not all bad.
If growth implies higher productivity and not the other way round, as you imply, then it should be a good thing. ie productivity gains are related to the degree to which employers sacked their staff during the recession.
Generally when employers recruit they have an image or specification for the ideal candidate. If at least one of the applicants matches that image they will take that applicant without looking further. As long as you have plenty of applicants for each post, similar kinds of people will get the jobs - at the expense of those that don't match the image and may be just as capable of doing the job.
It's not just people of different race that miss out; it could happen on age, sex, formal education, previous experience, handsomeness of figure, the clothes they are wearing, the way they talk.
Super_Drool, two points.
First on the efficiency of the US healthcare systems versus European ones. The US system definitely costs more: about twice as much. To be as efficient, the US system would have to deliver twice as much to the patient. Evidence shows slightly poorer health outcomes in the US. Coverage for healthcare is less good too.
Second on the efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid. I wasn't commentating on the efficiency of delivery. Instead I wanted to point out that Medicare and Medicaid are dealing with much sicker patients on the whole than does private insurance. Medicare and Medicaid have more work to do for the same collective cost as private insurance. If American citizens are effectively obligated to take out private insurance and pay taxes for Medicare and Medicai,d then the best place to focus money saving efforts is on the private insurance part.
It's a complex subject. I have made further comments here and here
I'm not sure Republican voters are looking for Mr Right. It seems to me they are quite happy with a bunch of Mr Wrongs.
I have to agree with Uncle Clive. None of these images really stand out compared with many other photographers of the day. Perhaps it's more accurate to describe Atget as the first photographer to be promoted as a great artist.
American officials are investigating allegations that the large donation made to the university in Macau may have been designed to win friends in the government so as to secure future gaming rights—an allegation hotly denied by Mr Wynn’s company.
Tricky one as Mr Okada's objection is presumably that the donation wasn't effective enough in securing future gaming rights.
I think what the article is saying is that European countries, taken as a whole, won't actually face the problem that Paul Ryan is discussing with Tim Geithner. That's because European countries are controlling their healthcare costs in a way that US isn't right now.
By not coming to agreement Mr Ryan is part of the problem, but so are the others not agreeing, including Mr Geithner and Mr Obama. Perhaps this demonstrates the weakness of a political system where you have checks and balances but no sense of responsibility.
"Just because Europe restricts supply to only those procedures which readily procedure "good" results doen't mean their health systems are vastly superior."
Health systems in Europe aren't vastly better than in the US. Health outcomes for a variety of reasons are a bit better in Europe and they are improving faster than in the US. What is incontrovertible is that health systems in Europe are vastly more efficient in delivering quality of treatment for each $, € or £ spent. Those inefficiencies have to be paid for, whether as taxes, insurance or out of pocket. Hence the article.
I thought Ms Azzam made two particularly interesting points. One that the Muslim Brotherhood have survived decades of oppression in Egypt by being politically astute. And the other is that while the generals are the force of reaction in Egypt, Islamists are the party of political change. They want democracy, transparency, competence and alliances with the West - because they see that as the route to success.
I checked just now that the allied Freedom and Justice Party won half the votes in Egypt. They definitely have broad support.
I also want to pick up on the private sector versus public sector share of the pain. The important difference in this case is that the private sector invested in Greece before the effective default on the assumption of lowish risk, while the public sector is being asked to lend money after the effective default.
We can argue whether EU states and institutions should commit money and whether they are doing it in the best way for themselves as well as Greece. One thing I am clear on is that debts prior to the default should be wiped clean and the real default should be admitted as such. Leaving a 25% obligation after the haircut does no favours to Greece, unless the creditors offer something in return. It doesn't benefit the EU states and institutions because it makes their rescue of Greece that much harder and they are likely to have to make up the difference at some point. And it doesn't fundamentally change the situation for the creditors (although 25% is obviously better than nothing).
I have the complete opposite view on this from Richard Woolnough at M&G.
Interesting interview. Well worth a watch.
I disagree with you that Medicare and Medicaid are the main problem. The real issue is private healthcare. Premiums are paid by healthy working people for as long as they are healthy. When healthcare is really needed, when they are old poor and sick, citizens fall back on State schemes or do without. The major part of the 9% of GDP spent on private health care is wasted.
Essentially, people are not being wise virgins and saving for when they are in need. Governments can to some extend force their citizens to be "wise".
The more relevant point is that consumers in Europe have the choice of not spending on private health care because they expect it to be provided by the State or through a State managed insurance scheme.
Efficiency is somewhat important especially if you go into debt due to your inefficiency.
Fragmented regions in the first place counts as a "success" in your book?
The EU is a glass half full kind of setup. But we do need to discuss against the alternatives. Those that complain of an glass somewhat empty should be aware that the alternative is actually an empty glass.
As A Maher points out above, Germany has done pretty well out of the Euro. He doesn't draw what I think is the obvious conclusion from it though.
Does anyone have any experience of the GP Consortia, now that they are up and running? I have only seen arguments before the event: that they are simply replacement bureaucracies for PCTs with no net effect except the cost of disruption; that they are the liberating agent for physicians; that they are a Trojan Horse for the fragmentation of the health service.
It would be interesting to know what's happening in practice.
By the way, you describe Nick Bosanquet as "a health-policy expert at Imperial College". To clarify, he's a board member of the Reform Think Tank, closely aligned with the Conservative Party, and he powerfully promotes his agenda for maximum competition in the Health Service. Just in case readers got the impression that he was neutral observer.
The correspondent said the grievances, albeit "limited", were justified. Not the rhetoric of Geert Wilders who uses those grievances as the pretext for his "unabashed hate-mongering and discrimination." Clear difference.
Whether or not you agree with those grievances, Mr Wilders is one slippery character. Bad and dangerous to know, as I suspect Mark Rutte might accept in his private moments.
Given enough time, these measures might restore the zone to health. But they might first push some countries off the ledge.
The logic of your argument is that they must first push some countries off the ledge.
Then it's not a question of "rescuing" Greece or defending against contagion after a default. But rather how to manage the inevitable default and contagion so they are least damaging to Greece and the Euro zone generally.
Other EU leaders and officials justifiably mistrust their Greek equivalents. So they make demands on Greece that are profoundly unreasonable.
Wegelin also seem to have dealt with the threat by shifting the non-US portion of its operation and client list to a separate bank. This leaves Wegelin as an empty shell that isn't worth pursuing:
http://citywire.co.uk/global/swiss-investors-hot-under-the-collar-over-w...
Actually, they are not currently complying with US law. They failed to show up in court a few days ago.
The US has some powerful sanctions against individual banks, particularly global outfits like UBS that can't afford not to have a presence in the US. They also can sanction Switzerland as a country by, for example, cancelling double taxation treaties. Customers with bona fide non-US income won't deposit it in a Swiss bank if the IRS are going to tax it anyway.