backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on Feb 8 at 5:12 AM

Dr. Ryuta Kawashima stands with his software  (Source: AFP)
Brain Age professor Kawashima says, "Having fun is not studying."

Thanks to the Nintendo DS, Dr. Ryuta Kawashima is now a household name for anyone who has one of the Brain Age training games. To date, the Brain Age series of games have sold 17 million copies worldwide and is largely credited with bringing a whole new, untapped market to the Nintendo DS.

Given the amazing sales of the short game titles, Dr. Kawashima should be a rich man – but he isn’t. According to the AFP report, royalties from the sales of games based on Kawashima’s brain research amount to 2.4 billion yen ($22 million), of which the 48-year-old professor is entitled to up to half, but taken none for himself.

 “Not a single yen has gone in my pocket,” said Kawashima. “Everyone in my family is mad at me but I tell them that if they want money, go out and earn it.”

Nintendo originally designed the DS as an interim solution between the Game Boy Advance and a next-generation handheld system. Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, however, had an idea to incorporate Dr. Kawashima’s research into a DS program. The result was Brain Age, a game that successfully appealed to both traditional and casual gamers with its simple, but stimulating puzzle activities.

Kawashima appears to be satisfied with his annual salary of around 11 million yen ($100,000) for his own purposes, and directs his Brain Age royalties to research and the construction of new laboratories dedicated to Tohoku University’s Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer.

Ironically, Kawashima does not allow himself any time away from his research to play his own brain training games. In fact, he even restricts the game time of his four sons to only one hour every weekend.

Kawashima is currently studying the brain development of youth, and says that he does not know how children’s minds are affected by long hours of gaming.

“What is scary about games is that you can kill as many hours as you want. I don't think playing games is bad in itself but it makes children unable to do what they should do such as study and communication with the family,” he said.

While some may categorize Brain Age as a mixture of education and entertainment – or edutainment – Kawashima believes that the two concepts should be mutually exclusive.

“Having fun is not studying. Making them study is not to entertain children but to pressure them to make efforts. People fall to lower and lower places unless they are driven to go higher," added Kawashima.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
"Go out and earn it"
By qdemn7 on 2/7/2008 8:20:29 AM , Rating: 5
Nice to hear someone saying that. Some people would have every relative they ever knew, and many they did not, lined up with both hands out DEMANDING a piece of the pie. And selfsame relatives then getting indignant when it was not forthcoming.




RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/7/2008 8:22:20 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, I like his style. Definately good advice, especially for parents who have kids that want hands outs. Teach em young to do it themselves.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Polynikes on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: "Go out and earn it"
By SilthDraeth on 2/7/2008 10:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
"
Still, it's not like he hasn't earned it. It's almost like he's being a hypocrite, except it's not helping him. :)"

Nothing hypocritical at all. He earns his salary, and is entitled to "royalties", his family is upset for not taking the millions in royalties for personal use. He instead donates it to research he believes in, and is happy with the money he is earning.

Royalties are not earned. Its like a lottery ticket. You put in time and if your product sells, we will give you a cut of the profit. If it tanks you get nothing.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:58:54 AM , Rating: 5
> "Royalties are not earned. Its like a lottery ticket"

No, you've wholly misinterpreted his stance. The royalties are earned -- by him. He's spending them in the manner he sees fit, rather than enriching his relatives, and encouraging parasitic behavior among them.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By deeznuts on 2/7/2008 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Royalties are not earned. Its like a lottery ticket. You put in time and if your product sells, we will give you a cut of the profit. If it tanks you get nothing.


Say wah? The lottery is not earned, royalties are most definitely earned. They're not wages as defined by the IRS, but they're still earned in a sense.

I still would have taken the money, even if I was philantropic. Kind of an insurance policy. I don't profess to know anything about their situation or how it is in Japan, but even if I was going to give it all away (which I wouldn't, I'm a greedy bastard) I'd take the money, store it, and then slowly dole it out to charity/causes/university.

What if my child or wife contracts a horrble/rare disease, and it costs me $2 million dollars? Again, maybe his insurance/university covers it, maybe it doesn't. That's what I would do if I was him. If I were me, I'd of taken the money, spend it all on hookers and blow in Vegas. Ok maybe not, but I'd keep that money for and my family.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Polynikes on 2/7/2008 9:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's sort of like hypocrisy because he's saying do as I say (work for your money), not as I do (work but don't take the money).

Either way, I can't possibly understand why he's not taking the money.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Xodus Maximus on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: "Go out and earn it"
By psychmike on 2/7/2008 11:47:30 AM , Rating: 5
Surely you must be joking. Graduate students and post docs are generally very hard-working people who have devoted significant parts of their lives to following through with a complicated line of thought. They have earned masters degrees and doctorates and their academic careers are based on producing peer-reviewed research, not following through with fanciful ideas. That you equate them with beggers only shows your ignorance. You seem to have a bone to pick with graduate students and post docs. What happened? Didn't make it into grad school? Had a TA you didn't like?

As for finding out that a theory is 'bogus', you obviously have little understanding (whatever your training) of the scientific method. Scientific research involves the development of a testable theory based on existing knowledge, not day-dreaming. The fact that it is TESTABLE, that scientists are actively involved in considering that their ideas are WRONG, they they continually seek alternative explanations for findings is what defines science. A null finding is therefore as valuable as a significant finding, assuming that the theory that was tested offered a plausible explanation for the existing data.

I don't mean to be rude or condescending to you but as individual who spent 6 years of my life as a graduate student and who has many friends who are academics, I find your over-generalizations and characterizations to be totally inaccurate and unfair.

Mike


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By MarkHark on 2/7/2008 12:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
I second this. Couldn't have said it better.
I'd vote you up, but instead chose to post my thoughts here.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Xodus Maximus on 2/7/2008 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 3
Well you made me feel guilty, and I already felt bad that I went off on a tangent. Perhaps I did inject a bit of personal venom when I shouldn't have.

I over-generalized my comments to include all when I should say a few, that I have dealt with. This all stems from back in high school for me, when I had the chance to be in a AP program that let me see a research team in action at our local college, it was only a week but what I saw there made me change my life completely. The professor which might have known what was going on rarely seemed to participate, he had one girl and two guys that did the work. The girl seemed to know what she was doing and her work no questions asked, but the two guys seemed to take a-lot of breaks and generally screw around, but what they were doing as the work disappointed me, it was some molecular study, i'm not sure anymore since this was almost a decade ago.

Anyway, my point is that they had no sequential methodology for reaching their goal, they blindly went through compiling the data from their testing, and only when everything they decided to test at the begining was complete would they reach a conclusion, when it was apparent to even me that an early failure would negate the need for the further testing.

The general impressions I got were that their research existed only as a point for them being alive, they were not alive for the point of researching. Plus little things, like waste of material, electricity, and other bureaucratic BS made me realize that my dream from when I was younger was just a joke, and that grads that were working there spent so many years in school to have a job no different than one flipping burgers at McDonald's under the supervision and limitations of a "prick" as I stated before.

Anyway, hopefully that shed a light to where I came from with this, sorry for the long post, I still stand by my opinion and I am sorry if my opinion offends you. And if you are really objective you must admit that in the context of "Go out and earn it" researchers are beggars, because even if their research benefits mankind, it is a personal goal they perform by using somebody else's money that they ask for. Sorry its semantics but its true.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By psychmike on 2/7/2008 2:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
It takes real maturity to own up to misspeaking. Kudos to you. Also, I'm sorry that you were disappointed when you were younger with the researchers that you saw. As with any significantly large population, you're gonna see the good and bad in humanity reflected in any group.

If you insist that people following their personal goals and asking for money qualifies as begging, I guess you might as well include all professionals who follow a calling and are paid for their services. I'd say the point where you demonstrate merit and get money to do work you are not getting charity (whether the work benefits the payor directly in commercial exhcnages or society generally in the grant system).

Most grants involve submitting proposed research which is judged on its merits by a university or governmental panel. How this looks the same to you as sitting on a sidewalk and asking for change is frankly beyond me.

Mike


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Xodus Maximus on 2/7/2008 8:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't believe that I am in any way looking down upon academics when I say they are beggars. In my mind there are many types of living by the good will of others, priests are another example, and I can tell you I neither judge or look down upon them the same as I do for researchers, conman and street beggars are the bad side and I do not combine the bad or good side.
In fact in my last post I should have made it clear that although I find the system in which you have to operate as a researcher absolutely intolerable, I do respect those that manage to thrive in that system, and wish you all the best.

At the risk of going off in a tangent again, I try not to come off looking like a jerk, but its just that something inside of me causes me to express my opinion in an assenine manner. You should see me when I deal with the relationship type questions "Do I look fat in this?", response "Yes, but its not the pants, its you"...well maybe not that bad but somehow I always say something to that effect. If you ever get the chance to play Bioshock, listen to "Andrew Ryan"'s ramblings(the ones pertinent to this conversation), that way of thinking actually resonated with me, so you can just say im insane if you want ;)

Dave


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Phynaz on 2/7/2008 1:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let me guess, you don't have an advanced degree.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By AntiM on 2/7/2008 8:27:38 AM , Rating: 5
The World needs more people like this.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By ajdavis on 2/7/2008 8:32:54 AM , Rating: 4
The world has plenty of people like this already. Most aren't in a position to turn down this amount of money though and thus most people aren't aware they exist.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By MrHealer on 2/7/2008 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
i think you’ve hit on one of the critical points that people seem to be glossing over - people's willingness to donate is highly correlated with their ability to do so. in the right situation, most people will do terrible things to others, and it is equally true that in the right situation, most people will act benevolently. situation counts for far more than personality.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By psychmike on 2/7/2008 12:20:33 PM , Rating: 3
I'd like to add something. I know that wealthy people donate for a multitude of reasons including limiting their tax exposure. Also, because they have more disposable income, it makes sense that donating 'hurts' them less.

But wealth is relative and there are many people in the world who would consider all of us on this forum to be extremely wealthy. We have access to electricity and running water and most of us have never missed a meal because of poverty. And yet many of us may still not feel like we make enough to help others out. I think that is the danger in saying that the rich are simply in a better position to give - it diminishes our own responsibility and sense of efficacy.

We should all try to do what we can but too often the sense that we can't do enough results in many people doing nothing.

Mike


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By mooncancook on 2/7/2008 3:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
no, the world has plenty of people who think they are like this and keep believing they are like this because they aren't and can't be in a position like this. The fact is probably 99% of them would tank when given just 1/100 of the amount in the article.

If I'm given that, I may not take them all, but I sure will be driving a Aston Martin DBS or something like that.


RE: "Go out and earn it"
By Proteusza on 2/7/2008 8:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Huge respect to Dr Kawashima for that. The man deserves a medal.


What a moron
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/7/2008 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 1
When you come up with a good idea, it is often influenced by those around you. Surely they deserve something? If you have the chance to rake in 22 million from it, you damn well should take the freakin money.




RE: What a moron
By SlyNine on 2/7/2008 4:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
He is taking the money and donating it to things that can indeed help every one around him one day.

I don't really think he's a saint but I respect his ideals


RE: What a moron
By othercents on 2/7/2008 4:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you damn well should take the freakin money.

People should be careful to judge what someone else feels is rewarding by what they themselves feel rewarding. I'm sure that Kawashima is getting his rewards from his research and can care less about being rich especially since he probably believes it won't make his life any better. Maybe he also thinks taking the money would make him lazy and having a desire to attain less and less in his life which is opposite what he is teaching his kids.

Technology is a double edge sword. At one time everyone had to learn to spell, now we just let Word spell for us. Because of this people who use Word all the time find themselves having to use it more often on words that they use to know how to spell. The dumbing down of society.

Other


RE: What a moron
By TerranMagistrate on 2/7/2008 7:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
It would be better if there was more people like him in the world and less people like you.


I'm confused
By Homerboy on 2/7/2008 9:42:46 AM , Rating: 1
Why has HE not taken a penny of it? He invented it. He deserves his cut.




RE: I'm confused
By Aarnando on 2/7/2008 10:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
Read the article and you will learn that he gets his deserved cut, but does not put it towards personal use.

quote:
...directs his Brain Age royalties to research and the construction of new laboratories dedicated to Tohoku University’s Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer.


RE: I'm confused
By m0mentary on 2/7/2008 10:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Because he is content with his situation the way it is. He already loves his job and has a nice paycheck. Not everyone has a desire to be rich, some are quite happy with a comfortable and stable life.


By SiliconAddict on 2/7/2008 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 3
Just a thought....




By Ringold on 2/7/2008 11:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever heard of Warren Buffet, perhaps?

He kept some, sure enough, but some of the greatest charitable/non-profit orgs in the world were founded by American capitalists.


By aos007 on 2/7/2008 8:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not because he's not taking any money for himself (and presumably leaving some for the kids later on). But because he's denying them their childhood (which sounds like traditional japanese parenting). Not only he's restricting them from playing games (which is hypocritical) but judging by his tone he's aggresively pushing them to study and otherwise be "achievers". It's probably going to end up like one of those families I read about in classic russian novels... or maybe more likely what you'd see in an anime (there's a reason there's so much teenage angst in there).




it's kind of like
By inperfectdarkness on 2/7/2008 3:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
wes cherry. well not really.

poor mr. cherry was totally shafted by microshit--who usurped his work as an often used program on windows.

mr. cherry recieved no royalties whatsoever.

that's what i thought when i first saw the title.




I feel bad for his family & especially children..
By Hafgrim on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
By StillPimpin on 2/7/2008 9:06:21 AM , Rating: 3
You sir, are an idiot.


By FishTankX on 2/7/2008 9:06:51 AM , Rating: 4
First of all, in the article it states that his salary is 100,000 dollars a year. Not too shabby by any countries standards.

Second of all, Japan has a state health insurance program and their medical care system, while often overloaded, is affordable in the event that something bad should happen.

So, on a salary of 100,000 a year, I don't see why he should be in a bad spot anytime soon. He can probably care for his family, no prob.


By BladeVenom on 2/7/2008 10:39:53 AM , Rating: 3
Thirdly, he's putting the money towards Tohoku University’s laboratories. He's helping all mankind. You don't get more compassionate than that.


By SilthDraeth on 2/7/2008 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Humans are the only creatures that combine intelligence and compassion regularly. All other animals just look out for themselves or immediate family. Humans on the other hand will often be compassionate about all other living creatures, countries etc.


By OdinX on 2/7/2008 11:01:01 AM , Rating: 1
I begrudgingly admire this man for his vow of middleclassness. However if it came between padding the coffers of nintendo or possibly putting it away in a trust somewhere, I would be at a a loss. Because honestly does the world need more trustafarians? But the world could always use a wii with better graphics amirite?


By psychmike on 2/7/2008 12:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that empathy and compassion are defining human characteristics but so likely is sadism and minimization and willful blindness. We may have our Mother Teresas but we also have our Adolph Hitlers. What does it say about our species that we've initiated the greatest wave of species extinction in history? What does it say about us that we're so good at killing each other or at least letting each other die?

In my view, humans simply have a greater mental capacity than other animals both to do good and to do harm. I wouldn't be so quick to pat ourselves on the back. For all of our phenomonological experience of empathy - it hasn't translated well into general stewardship. Many, many, species would likely do much better if we were gone for all of our compassion.

Mike


By eyebeeemmpawn on 2/7/2008 11:02:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I Hope none of his REAL children ever get sick or
in a bad accident. Then he will wonder why all the money
he could have had dosnt come back to him from all those
lab dedications.


Like most other first world countries on this earth, Japan has a universal healthcare system in place. Strange how we haven't figured it out here in the US.

Your statement is very telling of the public feelings about healthcare here. In other places in the world healthcare is seen the same way as Fire and Rescue, and Police protection.

I guess there are just too many greedy people in power that benefit from underprivileged people in desperate situations. Medical Debt accounts for over half of personal bankruptcies here in the united states. I'm sure the current sub-prime mortgage crisis will serve to compound this problem.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like most other first world countries on this earth, Japan has a universal healthcare system in place. Strange how we haven't figured it out here in the US.

Not strange at all. Those countries have very high tax rates to handle such a system and it still has plenty of problems. If you want the U.S. to raise the federal tax around 15-20% to support such a system vote or it. I will vote against it since I like my taxes lower.

quote:
Your statement is very telling of the public feelings about healthcare here. In other places in the world healthcare is seen the same way as Fire and Rescue, and Police protection.

Not really. Many people would like a universal healthcare system, but if you told them how much more they would be required to pay in taxes to support it, you would see many back down. Especially since this is largely a system of welfare. The Rich and middle classes would pay more money into a universal healthcare system, which would really only exist to benefit the poor. Most people with white collar jobs have health insurance, and the rich certaintly do as well. Many service jobs now have some form of healthcare as well. Sorry, screwing the middle and upper class to help the lower class doesn't fly with most Americans.

quote:
I guess there are just too many greedy people in power that benefit from underprivileged people in desperate situations.

That is a very bleeding heart statement. Yea it might sound good and all but those that work hard to get ahead have earned it. Those that are lazy do not deserve to benefit from those that are busting their chops to get where they are.

quote:
I'm sure the current sub-prime mortgage crisis will serve to compound this problem.

Don't stretch too far and get adjustable rates for mortgages they can't afford. The housing situation was also strained by people buying and flipping houses on the market. Their objective was to buy the houses and resell them for higher prices quickly. Well the market stopped and people got stuck holding the bag and now they are screwed. Yea, families were affected but they shouldn't have been getting massive loans knowing they couldn't pay them. This is a case of banks relaxing lending requirements and reps telling people it will be ok, using teaser rates for people who don't read the fine print. It was a completely manufactured problem by the mortgage market and it will take time to clean up the mess.


By psychmike on 2/7/2008 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Universal healthcare doesn't just benefit the poor. Practically, it makes sense to provide early intervention and promote preventative care rather than dealing with expensive acute problems in emergency.

I believe in fairness but many people, especially children, cannot be held responsible for their circumstances. If they are burdened with poor health and education early in life, we all pay the costs in increased crime, decreased productivity, and a more socially improversihed society.

Private healthcare also tends to raise costs because it must by definition generate a profit that doesn't go into service provision. Administrative costs for healthcare also tend to be higher in private settings than public ones (Canada in fact has both). It also tends to emphasize expensive, cost-generating, industrialized technologies that can be applied widely (imagining, medication) rather than individual consultation and prevention. If you're a GP that gets paid per visit, would you rather write a script or spend an hour looking into your patient's lifestyle and working to change their poor habits? Hence the US spends more on healthcare per capita than many countries with public healthcare but has poorer health outcomes. Sure, we Canucks may come down to Buffalo for the odd MRI to cut the wait list from 6 months to a week but almost everyone here has access to a GP and free walk-in clinics. In general, our healthcare outcomes are better (infant mortality, birth weight, chronic illness, etc.) but the US has more access to high technology. As I've often said, capitalism is wonderful for promoting innovation and local efficiency but not so good at promoting the common good.

Another concern with private healthcare is that the pursuit of profits can interfere with service provision. I work in healthcare and with private insurance. Adjusters are non-experts who are mandated to cap costs. When they deny a service, it often isn't hard for the less ethical ones to go to their regular roster of experts who will write a report substantiating a pre-existing impairment. They may lose in court arbitration but in the meantime YEARS have gone by, patients have died, or grown tired or dealing with the system.

Forget ethics - some things are just required for a good and just society - police, fire services, education, and healthcare. Without those things, it's hard to have a level enough foundation on which merit and hardwork can be rewarded.

Mike


By Ringold on 2/7/2008 11:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wont take on anything you said in particular, but I'll point out there might be a better way of achieving universal health care, or semi-universal health care; the Massachusetts model, which isn't too different from that of Switzerland.

Higher costs, but it retains the free market competitive component, allows the government to subsidize way down the cost of insurance for the poor and is less likely, with the system out of the hands of government, to lead to service shortages. Again, higher costs, but a mere government capture of the current system would probably in the long run have even higher costs unless it reduced services.

I did say only semi-universal health care, but only because, like Obama, I don't see where the constitution yields the power to the federal government to force citizens to buy anything.

You're right that capitalism often doesn't lead to the production of an optimal amount of public goods, in the lingo, but here we can mix the best power of government (oversight) with the best attribute of free markets (competition). Another couple years and we'll know for certain how it's going in MA. With it being such a small market I don't expect cost-savings miracles, but if everyone is able to get insurance then I'll call it a victory.

To be honest, don't know how similar those two are to Obama's plan, so can't comment on that directly.


By sweetsauce on 2/7/2008 1:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that universal health care will raise taxes per year more than the average american pays in premiums. It will definately affect the ones that already pay higher taxes due to higher wages. While i do disagree with having to pay more taxes to have universal health care, i do think that with the amount we are taxes already pay, we can easy have universal health care. All it takes is trimming the fat on all these stupid government agencies that do nothing but eat up tax revenue. Ending this stupid war for iraqi democracy won't hurt either.


By Ringold on 2/7/2008 11:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All it takes is trimming the fat on all these stupid government agencies that do nothing but eat up tax revenue. Ending this stupid war for iraqi democracy won't hurt either.


Entitlements make up the lions share of the federal budget as it is, and most of the budget has deeply entrenched interest groups. Want to cut farm subsidies? You'll have to claw it from the farmers cold, dead hands. Want to cut welfare? Feel free to volunteer for the riot police, things could get hot on Martin Luther King Blvd. Social Security? Bush tried what economists viewed to be the best long term solution, and was utterly ignored.

Unfortunately from your perspective, the party most likely to take an AK-47 to bloated, antiquated government programs and the party most likely to retreat from Iraq are not the same. ;) If it makes you feel better from a budget perspective though, Iraq is completely irrelevant in the rest of the budget process and, asides from favor-swapping, probably has no impact on the rest of the budget. Even if we were there another decade, it pales in comparison to the cost of Social Security over the vast time spans with which we must plan for. If I'm not mistaken, the 75-year unfunded liabilities of S.S. and Medicare, in their present forms, is around 100 trillion dollars. That's just the unfunded portion, god only knows how many hundreds of trillions their total cost is.


By robinthakur on 2/8/2008 5:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree wholeheartedly with alot of your sentiments, I still think that a certain level of care should be provided by the state. In the UK where I live, this is a given, but the National Health Service is also perceived as wasteful, dirty and basically not what you see on ER...

Where I think it proves its worth is when for example you contract HIV or cancer or something else which is essentially uncurable, requires hugely expensive drugs to control or requires hugely expensive operations. I don't know about the situation in America but with the private health care in the UK most do not cover the cost of drugs or treatment for lots and lots of problems which are likely to be ongoing even if its not a pre-existing condition. The list of exclusions is so long, if I didn't get 2 types of private healthcare through my job, I probably wouldn't pay for it. On the NHS, each prescrition costs the equivalent of about $13 whatever the medication!!

Mind you I'm always pissed off when you know you need to be referred to see a specialist and the waiting time for non-emergency stuff is more than a month, regardless of the complaint.

What makes this more annoying is how people who don't pay tax/are morbidly obese have equal rights on the NHS. I pay over $4000 in tax per month, stay fit and that should buy me a better service than those who rely on welfare. Unfortunately, the basic tennets of the NHS were created long before you had mass immigration and an established under-class who find it more convenient to have babies, live in free housing and spend other people's money.

Therefore, I think the US system is better until you actually get seriously (and expensively) ill :)

Props to Dr Kawashima, I honestly don't get how people on here who criticise him think. He is a truly civilised, intelligent and successful man whose generosity and idealism is sadly counterintuitive and incomprehensible to alot of you.


By m0mentary on 2/7/2008 11:21:45 AM , Rating: 1
Why?

Hes already able to provide for his family with what he has. Its arguable that any additional money would be superfluous to his chosen lifestyle.

If thats the case he would teaching his kids an extremely valuable lesson of work ethnic and self reliance.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki