Why do I ask? Well, look at your own statistics:
Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US: 16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950 3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003 2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)
You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.
16 / 3.3 = 4.8 fold decrease in worker:retiree ratio in the US.
And yet, the system hasn't crashed yet.
3.3 / 2.1 is only a further 1.57 fold decrease, much smaller than the last few years
Why hasn't the system collapsed years ago?
1. An increase in general productivity (see http://www.epi.org/publication... for an interesting article in this regard)
2. Don't forget, these people do die and some leave behind considerable inheritances, which are taxed exorbitantly, even in the US.
Of course, some of this is paid for by US borrowing, which will have to taper off.
For POTS, the telephone is at a fixed location (obviously close to the accident in the parent's example), therefore, in an emergency, the person is more likely to be trying to get help for an emergency which happened near or at that location.
Those with POTS are not calling to tell someone that they are going to be late coming home, because they already are home.
In contrast, mobile phone users near such an accident trigger many calls unrelated to reporting the accident (telling someone they are running late) and overload the cell network.
Most people living close enough to such an accident are not home, are not directly affected by the accident or are simply unaware of the emergency, and don't or can't call, therefore, the POTS will generally not overload (although you may overload the number of 911 or 112 operators).
Therefore, for an emergency covering a small area, POTS will almost always be better.
For emergencies covering a larger area that might overload the POTS system (8.5 earthquake, a hurricane or such), you have other problems anyway.
.... then it's not firm.
No, it's too easy
I am not a programmer so could someone explain to me how that is different?
However, I think the question for me is not, should they be allowed to hunt these animals but should they be allowed to hunt them in such an obviously cruel and hideous manner?
Just one example, humans ARE different than even the great apes in terms of their digestive systems.
Humans probably are omnivores but have many special adaptions, including jaw sizes more like herbivores, not (only) because of hard foods but also to allow us to smile, another important element of our evolution (social development).