Most Christians just go to Church each week and never really learn much from beyond what they hear there (if they're even paying attention). Why are you surprised at that?
Because their professed belief in the truths revealed in these documents affects their life in dramatic ways, and can affect the life of others around them as well. To then confess a happy ignorance of the origin and original meaning of their religious texts is surprising to say the least.
This is critical: lack of resources is not caused by lack of money, it's caused by the lack of capability to create money.
Go try living somewhere with chronic unemployment, and try working yourself out of that hole (perhaps one of the inner cities in your own country) by dint of your 'capability to create money'.
If you're not willing to try that, ask yourself why, if your credo of 'the poor are poor because they're stupid and lazy' is true.
As to your SUV, the rising price of fuel will teach you lessons that apparently 'rationality' can not.
But it's not like anyone can pull up my profile and check
Actually, at various points in thepast, they've been able to do that or similar things (see stuff you thought was private).
Trusting any company on the web with your private info should be a difficult decision, trusting Facebook is insane given the lack of interest in privacy they have shown so far, and the poor attention to security on their site. They're such a juicy target now that you can bet a lot of identity thieves are focussed on breaking their security, and a lot of big companies are interested in buying your surfing habits too.
Rome wasn't built buy polite MBA's who took there teams on ropes courses on a weekly basis it was built by unyielding eccentric assholes who made you think if you screwed up they would have your head.
Err, no, it was built by the strong link between progression in the senatorial elite and military achievement (couldn't have one without the other), and the martial culture of Rome, and that empire building was not good for many of the nations which got in the way and were enslaved.
By the time the kind of eccentric asshole emperors that Hollywood specialises in were in power, it was all over for Rome and nothing left but civil wars and a slow decline.
Are you talking about people buying Dell or Microsoft products (for example)?
People don't buy them because they're tasteful, well designed, or well thought through (they're not). They buy them because they're good enough, and they're cheaper. That was his point.
Hello twitter. I've got to admit this is a deviously clever tactic - post messages under another pseudonym attacking yourself, in the hope of being modded up.
However fortunately we know your game, and we won't let you get away with it. Mods, attack this imposter!
Pardon the sarcasm, but if we had packed up years ago, how long would it have taken to have the next 9/11 with their new nuke program funded by the high price we pay for oil. You appear to believe that 9/11 somehow has something to do with Iraq or Iran. Please elucidate.
I would rather they keep the war overseas instead of letting it start here in my yard. I'm sure you would, but is eternal war with the rest of the world really necessary? Is it a wise move for the United States (setting aside humanitarian issues)?
Buying something forms a contract Obviously I wasn't referring to the de facto contracts which form between buyer and seller when purchasing any item, I was talking about the sort of contract that ties you in for 18 months to paying a high monthly fee every month.
I would never buy a computer with that sort of contract (though I'm sure MS would love to sell it to you), would you?
None the less, you still need a contract with some GSM or 3D operator to be able to use your phone. Well, technically yes, but there are much more advantageous contracts on offer than an 18 month deal. There are plenty of pay as you go options and monthly contract options too here in the UK (for example). Using a phone doesn't mean buying into a lengthy contract like the only ones on offer with the iPhone. Buying an iPhone does. This is a bad move by Apple, and not in their long term interest.
Contracts should be evaluated on their merits (do I want to commit for 18 months to pay x, and what do I get in return), as you suggest happens in Switzerland or France (I suspect because of the laws against bundling - weren't they obliged to sell the first version separately as well?). The only reason the phone operator offers you a shiny gadget with a 'price drop' is to distract you from the benefits (or not) of the plans on offer and stop you evaluating which plan you need/want.
Extensive tying and exclusive contracts lead to unhealthy situations like that with the iPhone where you can only use it with one provider, on a very restricted set of plans. If you think it through from the providers point of view, this is their preferred option - captive customers who will pay a hefty price every month just to use their phone.
You're right to point out that the exclusive contract is a serious problem, but I'd also say tying it to a limited selection of plans is a problem - particularly when the price hike of those plans neatly covers the supposed 'discount' on the iPhone price. In my opinion both should be banned, and Apple is cashing in for the short term at the expense of their customers here.
It happened with my old 8525 to get the $600 phone down to $285, and now it's happening with the iPhone to get the $400 phone down to $200. Only reasonable if you don't realise that $325 price drop was taken out of your fees for the next x years of contract.
We'd be much better off if mobile phones were sold as items like computers or telephones, without contract, and the phone companies concentrated on providing a good service, instead of 'adding value' by gimping phone software, charging insane amounts for data, or tying users into long term contracts.
$500 is a reasonable price for the technological marvel which is a modern cellphone, if you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced monthly contract either.
As it is in the UK the iPhone may be available without a contract from O2 via the Pay as you Go packages, but they're being remarkably coy about that, they probably want to sucker people into signing 18 month contracts for 30-75GBP a month first before unveiling PAYG.
I see why Apple has done this (as you say it's standard practice) but that doesn't make it any more palatable.
PS Can't translate a £ symbol !! WTF Slashdot, this is 2008.
I don't do anything special with my SR macbook, but have had plenty of kernel panics and odd crashes, esp. of iTunes. There's something wrong with your machine, you should get it looked at. I've been running Leopard with no issues since 10.5.1. No kernel panics.
My question is: Does the new version support flash? Can it now use the real internet or is it still locked to the Flashless Safari internet? I chuckle every time I read someone saying this. I surf the internet without flash most of the time - it improves surfing no end. I'd be really annoyed if they added it to safari with no option to turn it off.
Flash really isn't necessary for video if you have a decent browser, which leaves annoying adverts (the worst are these new ones that jump over half the page), annoying all-flash websites (those I am happy to live without), and flash games (meh). The only time I turn it on is for You Tube, and that's only because they don't offer alternative formats. The real internet is getting along just fine without flash, and is (IMHO) moving away from it to more open formats not controlled by one vendor.
Someone else in this thread already disagrees with you: Now you see the problem. If the UK referred to itself officially as 'England', if this was common usage across the UK, or if other countries recognised the agglomeration as 'England', you might have a point. As it is someone using the word 'England' for the UK (or UK+Ireland as that poster does) marks themselves as ignorant, lazy or both.
Or are all "ran"[sic] under the UK? That should be run.
Scotland and Wales were until a few hundred years ago separate countries, and each have their own assemblies nowadays with limited powers. Racially the islands are very mixed, people travel freely, laws are mostly the same (save some areas of Scottish law), and English is spoken almost exclusively, so the UK can be considered one country for most purposes - the name of that country is not England though.
Ah yes, of course, because they already dominate the worlds home computer market Ever considered that perhaps they don't want to dominate the world's home computer market, but simply to make good computers?
Not everyone is Bill Gates (must eliminate all competition!).
I just use them as various words for the same thing This won't make you popular with someone not from England, though English people generally won't care.
UK = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland GB = Old fashioned term for England + Wales + Scotland England = England Commonwealth = lots of former colonies + UK
So you'd generally be safe using the UK where you would normally say 'England'.
Really? What about Darfur? Doesn't the left criticize us Internal criticism is not international hatred.
Many Arabs wanted us to go in and take out Saddam, end the embargo, and rebuild Iraq. And of course, now that we're doing it, For certain values of rebuilding - most of the money seems to have been squandered or plundered, and much of it comes from the Iraqi oil reserves. Electricity, water, education - all these things are worse than pre Saddam aren't they? Presumably you understand why many people aren't happy with an American presence?
Yeah, I have. May of their complaints are based on misinformation Of course much of their propaganda is ridiculous - just as ridiculous as George Bush's 'Crusade' or 'Mission Accomplished'. Perhaps some people even believe it.
However illiterate does not mean stupid, and people can easily see through bullshit about helping the poor people of Iraq (that may be individually what you strive for, but it is not the goal of Rumsfeld etc). Both sides are not stating their real intentions.
To the wider world Iraq stands as testament to American hubris, and in that sense, Al Qaeda has already won there (note they weren't even there to start with, they've just co-opted this invasion as an easy way to wear down the great Satan) - they don't need a military victory, just slow attrition and a constant drain of money and resources.
Our tactics are working, along with popular support, to defeat AQI. Time will tell, but I don't think American politicians have the stomach for nation building, nor is their army equipped with the skills and manpower to do it and fight a war elsewhere as well. The chaos and lack of planning of the post-invasion period is a good indicator of how seriously Washington took the problem of setting up an Iraqi state, and what they've built may well not survive the pull-out of American troops.
there only a few options for dealing with brutal dictatorships, and we've been hated for doing them all. Absolutely wrong, no one hates on America for not intervening - some journalists wring their hands over lack of intervention, without any firm plans for what it would actually involve, but there is no active hatred as there is for an occupying force(Iraq), or the backers of state sponsored violence (Shah, Musharraf etc).
Supporting dictatorships is the worst possible option, you should just keep out, and use economic and political tools where possible.
In terms of brutal occupation (a pleonasm I know), I was talking about Iraq. In answer to your question on the Mujhadeen, absolutely, doing nothing would have been better than what was done. The Soviets would have been chased out as the Americans will soon leave Iraq.
YOU are what he is talking about. No matter what we do, they are going to try to kill us. Instead of feeling sorry for ourselves and apologizing for the mistakes of the past, we need to realize we are at war. I would look past Al Qaeda propoganda and look at their real power base and why they have support in many parts of the world.
The simple truth is that you cannot defeat terrorism or guerrilla war by military means, unless you are willing to commit genocide. The best alternative is to stop supporting oppresive regimes, stop supporting guerilla war, stop supporting terror groups, stop invading countries, and only provide humanitarian support outside your borders, unless attacked. If attacked (9/11), respond proportionately (i.e. Afghanistan), and make the best attempt you can to set that country straight (West Germany after WWII comes to mind, Afghanistan has been neglected now). None of this has been even attempted by the US, and yet it is at the root of the worldwide distrust of that state.
Iraq and the 'War on Terror' is like a perfect model of what to do wrong in the face of asymmetrical warfare (hit em harder, declare war!), and is a tactical victory for Al Qaeda.
So violence begets violence. Do you have something else in mind that can stop violence? The point, which you are skillfully avoiding, is that the violence done by America (and before them other imperial powers) to the region, including redrawing the boundaries in the first place (GB) and installing puppet governments (US), and funding brutal dictatorships like those of the Shah and Saddam, Musharaf, and Saudi Arabia (US), has provoked the visceral hatred many people feel for American interference, and the desire to see you leave, for good.
Sure, hindsight armchair generals like yourself can point out this was a bad idea, but how was anyone at the time supposed to know what would happen? Because of all the previous examples of exactly the same thing happening?
The point being made is that these groups of dedicated individuals draw their support and motivation from the abuse (economic, military, civic) of American power in the region. From the military bases and puppet governments. Changing the abusive relationship the US has with the rest of the world would do a lot to remove the base of their support. Abusing more countries in the region with a violent occupation will only cause more problems. If the US believed in democracy or freedom or any of the other purported reasons for being in Iraq they wouldn't support the appalling regime in Saudi Arabia (the source of many terrorists), or have supported the Shah, etc etc.
What would you do if your country was occupied by a foreign force which imposed martial law and built military bases, and worst of all allowed the rule of the gun to take over your streets - would you sit back and take it? Would you feel well disposed to that country or her citizens?
PS The only unrelenting global war is the one being waged by the US against an elusive enemy, whose best chance at global influence is to bait you into as many unwinnable occupations as possible. Seems to be working so far.
You guess wrong, at least 3 members of the cabinet are Catholic, and frankly no one cares what religion they believe in, it just doesn't come up (thank goodness).
The only reason it mattered in the UK that is because you're not supposed to mix politics and religion - Blair's former press secretary is on record as saying 'We don't do God'. Because mentioning God would lose them votes, not because anyone cares what brand of Christianity Blair happens to subscribe to.
The emphasis on religion and race in US politics is a scandalous distraction from the real issues.
Do different words that mean the same in different languages The problem with translation is that different words don't mean the same in different languages.
Some words like 'go' can be found in every language with very similar meanings, but for most words which are used less often there are extra connotations and even contradictory meanings depending on the culture, and also who is speaking. For example in American English, British English and French the word liberal has different meanings.
Even depending who says it, and in what context, the intended meaning may differ radically.
In saying this you're treating language as a conduit for meaning, when in fact it's a medium without which the meaning could not exist. An interesting question nonetheless.
From the perspective of having push messaging, not having it is infuriating. I'm curious, which things about push do you find most useful (I haven't used it, and thus haven't seen it in action)?
Re MMS and SMS I think the idea is people will encourage their friends to get a decent phone which includes email.
a situation where both sides pay, and I think data prices need to drop further still in order to accommodate that. iPhones have unlimited data plans. I wouldn't try using an internet phone without one. So in fact no-one will pay anything (on top of than their fixed fee for data). As opposed to the situation now where (in the UK at least) people pay 30p-50p per picture message, unless their plan is expensive and includes some MMS.
MMS, SMS, etc. are all poor substitutes for email and IM. All these things will die off when phones have real internet access - there's no need for them and it's more costly and inefficient to try to shoe-horn this kind of capability into the cellular system rather than just using IP and associated protocols over that same cellular connection.
If you want to use MMS, go ahead and buy one of the many competitors to the iPhone, but don't misunderstand why it is not offered. MMS is unnecessary and deserves to die, and I imagine that's why it's not in the iPhone, not because it was terribly difficult to put in.
As for push email, I guess if you need to know instantly when email messages have been sent to you, it might be useful. That probably describes less than 5% of the email using public though. For most uses the mail app connecting when you open it to actually check your email (i.e. when *you* have time and are ready) works perfectly well. If you don't set the phone to check every 5 minutes, it's just as battery efficient.
If someone needs to get in touch immediately they can IM,text, or call you.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Christians just go to Church each week and never really learn much from beyond what they hear there (if they're even paying attention). Why are you surprised at that?
Because their professed belief in the truths revealed in these documents affects their life in dramatic ways, and can affect the life of others around them as well. To then confess a happy ignorance of the origin and original meaning of their religious texts is surprising to say the least.
This is critical: lack of resources is not caused by lack of money, it's caused by the lack of capability to create money.
Go try living somewhere with chronic unemployment, and try working yourself out of that hole (perhaps one of the inner cities in your own country) by dint of your 'capability to create money'.
If you're not willing to try that, ask yourself why, if your credo of 'the poor are poor because they're stupid and lazy' is true.
As to your SUV, the rising price of fuel will teach you lessons that apparently 'rationality' can not.
Has the president declared himself a lifetime ruler, appointed by God?
Believes he is appointed by God - check
Believes he is absolute ruler - check
Declares war unanimously - check
Lifetime ruler - no
So no, not a monarchy, more like a theocracy (given the power wielded by various Christian groups in elections), with the trappings of democracy.
But it's not like anyone can pull up my profile and check
Actually, at various points in the past, they've been able to do that or similar things (see stuff you thought was private).
Trusting any company on the web with your private info should be a difficult decision, trusting Facebook is insane given the lack of interest in privacy they have shown so far, and the poor attention to security on their site. They're such a juicy target now that you can bet a lot of identity thieves are focussed on breaking their security, and a lot of big companies are interested in buying your surfing habits too.
Rome wasn't built buy polite MBA's who took there teams on ropes courses on a weekly basis it was built by unyielding eccentric assholes who made you think if you screwed up they would have your head.
Err, no, it was built by the strong link between progression in the senatorial elite and military achievement (couldn't have one without the other), and the martial culture of Rome, and that empire building was not good for many of the nations which got in the way and were enslaved.
By the time the kind of eccentric asshole emperors that Hollywood specialises in were in power, it was all over for Rome and nothing left but civil wars and a slow decline.
I know of a lot more who wouldn't. Your point?
Are you talking about people buying Dell or Microsoft products (for example)?
People don't buy them because they're tasteful, well designed, or well thought through (they're not). They buy them because they're good enough, and they're cheaper. That was his point.
Taste is not entirely subjective.
Hello twitter. I've got to admit this is a deviously clever tactic - post messages under another pseudonym attacking yourself, in the hope of being modded up.
However fortunately we know your game, and we won't let you get away with it. Mods, attack this imposter!
I would never buy a computer with that sort of contract (though I'm sure MS would love to sell it to you), would you?
Contracts should be evaluated on their merits (do I want to commit for 18 months to pay x, and what do I get in return), as you suggest happens in Switzerland or France (I suspect because of the laws against bundling - weren't they obliged to sell the first version separately as well?). The only reason the phone operator offers you a shiny gadget with a 'price drop' is to distract you from the benefits (or not) of the plans on offer and stop you evaluating which plan you need/want.
Extensive tying and exclusive contracts lead to unhealthy situations like that with the iPhone where you can only use it with one provider, on a very restricted set of plans. If you think it through from the providers point of view, this is their preferred option - captive customers who will pay a hefty price every month just to use their phone.
You're right to point out that the exclusive contract is a serious problem, but I'd also say tying it to a limited selection of plans is a problem - particularly when the price hike of those plans neatly covers the supposed 'discount' on the iPhone price. In my opinion both should be banned, and Apple is cashing in for the short term at the expense of their customers here.
We'd be much better off if mobile phones were sold as items like computers or telephones, without contract, and the phone companies concentrated on providing a good service, instead of 'adding value' by gimping phone software, charging insane amounts for data, or tying users into long term contracts.
$500 is a reasonable price for the technological marvel which is a modern cellphone, if you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced monthly contract either.
As it is in the UK the iPhone may be available without a contract from O2 via the Pay as you Go packages, but they're being remarkably coy about that, they probably want to sucker people into signing 18 month contracts for 30-75GBP a month first before unveiling PAYG.
I see why Apple has done this (as you say it's standard practice) but that doesn't make it any more palatable.
PS Can't translate a £ symbol !! WTF Slashdot, this is 2008.
Flash really isn't necessary for video if you have a decent browser, which leaves annoying adverts (the worst are these new ones that jump over half the page), annoying all-flash websites (those I am happy to live without), and flash games (meh). The only time I turn it on is for You Tube, and that's only because they don't offer alternative formats. The real internet is getting along just fine without flash, and is (IMHO) moving away from it to more open formats not controlled by one vendor.
Now you see the problem. If the UK referred to itself officially as 'England', if this was common usage across the UK, or if other countries recognised the agglomeration as 'England', you might have a point. As it is someone using the word 'England' for the UK (or UK+Ireland as that poster does) marks themselves as ignorant, lazy or both.
Scotland and Wales were until a few hundred years ago separate countries, and each have their own assemblies nowadays with limited powers. Racially the islands are very mixed, people travel freely, laws are mostly the same (save some areas of Scottish law), and English is spoken almost exclusively, so the UK can be considered one country for most purposes - the name of that country is not England though.
Not everyone is Bill Gates (must eliminate all competition!).
UK = England + Wales + Scotland + Northern Ireland
GB = Old fashioned term for England + Wales + Scotland
England = England
Commonwealth = lots of former colonies + UK
So you'd generally be safe using the UK where you would normally say 'England'.
However illiterate does not mean stupid, and people can easily see through bullshit about helping the poor people of Iraq (that may be individually what you strive for, but it is not the goal of Rumsfeld etc). Both sides are not stating their real intentions.
To the wider world Iraq stands as testament to American hubris, and in that sense, Al Qaeda has already won there (note they weren't even there to start with, they've just co-opted this invasion as an easy way to wear down the great Satan) - they don't need a military victory, just slow attrition and a constant drain of money and resources. Our tactics are working, along with popular support, to defeat AQI. Time will tell, but I don't think American politicians have the stomach for nation building, nor is their army equipped with the skills and manpower to do it and fight a war elsewhere as well. The chaos and lack of planning of the post-invasion period is a good indicator of how seriously Washington took the problem of setting up an Iraqi state, and what they've built may well not survive the pull-out of American troops.
Supporting dictatorships is the worst possible option, you should just keep out, and use economic and political tools where possible.
In terms of brutal occupation (a pleonasm I know), I was talking about Iraq. In answer to your question on the Mujhadeen, absolutely, doing nothing would have been better than what was done. The Soviets would have been chased out as the Americans will soon leave Iraq. YOU are what he is talking about. No matter what we do, they are going to try to kill us. Instead of feeling sorry for ourselves and apologizing for the mistakes of the past, we need to realize we are at war. I would look past Al Qaeda propoganda and look at their real power base and why they have support in many parts of the world.
The simple truth is that you cannot defeat terrorism or guerrilla war by military means, unless you are willing to commit genocide. The best alternative is to stop supporting oppresive regimes, stop supporting guerilla war, stop supporting terror groups, stop invading countries, and only provide humanitarian support outside your borders, unless attacked. If attacked (9/11), respond proportionately (i.e. Afghanistan), and make the best attempt you can to set that country straight (West Germany after WWII comes to mind, Afghanistan has been neglected now). None of this has been even attempted by the US, and yet it is at the root of the worldwide distrust of that state.
Iraq and the 'War on Terror' is like a perfect model of what to do wrong in the face of asymmetrical warfare (hit em harder, declare war!), and is a tactical victory for Al Qaeda.
The point being made is that these groups of dedicated individuals draw their support and motivation from the abuse (economic, military, civic) of American power in the region. From the military bases and puppet governments. Changing the abusive relationship the US has with the rest of the world would do a lot to remove the base of their support. Abusing more countries in the region with a violent occupation will only cause more problems. If the US believed in democracy or freedom or any of the other purported reasons for being in Iraq they wouldn't support the appalling regime in Saudi Arabia (the source of many terrorists), or have supported the Shah, etc etc.
What would you do if your country was occupied by a foreign force which imposed martial law and built military bases, and worst of all allowed the rule of the gun to take over your streets - would you sit back and take it? Would you feel well disposed to that country or her citizens?
PS The only unrelenting global war is the one being waged by the US against an elusive enemy, whose best chance at global influence is to bait you into as many unwinnable occupations as possible. Seems to be working so far.
You guess wrong, at least 3 members of the cabinet are Catholic, and frankly no one cares what religion they believe in, it just doesn't come up (thank goodness).
The only reason it mattered in the UK that is because you're not supposed to mix politics and religion - Blair's former press secretary is on record as saying 'We don't do God'. Because mentioning God would lose them votes, not because anyone cares what brand of Christianity Blair happens to subscribe to.
The emphasis on religion and race in US politics is a scandalous distraction from the real issues.
Easy way to find out
Some words like 'go' can be found in every language with very similar meanings, but for most words which are used less often there are extra connotations and even contradictory meanings depending on the culture, and also who is speaking. For example in American English, British English and French the word liberal has different meanings.
Even depending who says it, and in what context, the intended meaning may differ radically.
In saying this you're treating language as a conduit for meaning, when in fact it's a medium without which the meaning could not exist. An interesting question nonetheless.
Re MMS and SMS I think the idea is people will encourage their friends to get a decent phone which includes email. a situation where both sides pay, and I think data prices need to drop further still in order to accommodate that. iPhones have unlimited data plans. I wouldn't try using an internet phone without one. So in fact no-one will pay anything (on top of than their fixed fee for data). As opposed to the situation now where (in the UK at least) people pay 30p-50p per picture message, unless their plan is expensive and includes some MMS.
MMS, SMS, etc. are all poor substitutes for email and IM. All these things will die off when phones have real internet access - there's no need for them and it's more costly and inefficient to try to shoe-horn this kind of capability into the cellular system rather than just using IP and associated protocols over that same cellular connection.
If you want to use MMS, go ahead and buy one of the many competitors to the iPhone, but don't misunderstand why it is not offered. MMS is unnecessary and deserves to die, and I imagine that's why it's not in the iPhone, not because it was terribly difficult to put in.
As for push email, I guess if you need to know instantly when email messages have been sent to you, it might be useful. That probably describes less than 5% of the email using public though. For most uses the mail app connecting when you open it to actually check your email (i.e. when *you* have time and are ready) works perfectly well. If you don't set the phone to check every 5 minutes, it's just as battery efficient.
If someone needs to get in touch immediately they can IM,text, or call you.