Who wants to actually HEAR the person they are communicating with these days? In today's progressive society, we seek to go backwards with our technology. Soon enough, I'll stop texting and revert to Morse-Code/Smoke Signals to all my friends!
she strikes me as not someone just from a small town, but someone who is small-minded.
As if those two were somehow mutually exclusive? She is small-minded BECAUSE she is from a small town. Welcome to America (or at least the part that doesn't live in a city).
However, if a cell phone is something you frequently use, I have a hard time agreeing that $70 a month is excessive. Other voice + data plans cost more or less the same. My disagreement with your assessment is especially true for somebody who has nearly $4000 per month in disposable income. It simply is not a viable argument to claim $70 a month "adds up" when all it adds up to is me having $4000 a month left over versus $3930. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that this is in anyway remotely relevant to somebody in this situation as related to their budget.
As if spending $200 ONE TIME, and then $70 a month for a service most people need would be considered not "living within your means" when you bring home at least $6,000 A MONTH. I have two iPhones (one for my wife) and make make about the same as both of you guys and that bill doesn't even show up on our debt radar. I have one car payment ($450) and a mortgage ($2000). That leaves us with utilities and food each month...or in other words, nearly $4,000 a MONTH in disposable income. So yeah, I have a hard time accepting $199 + $70/month being considered excessive for anyone in the six-digit salary range.
I take offense. I drive a BMW because I like well engineered cars. It's my money and I don't give a rat's ass what other people think about my car. I'm not trying to make ANY statement whatsoever. That's YOUR hangup (and anyone who drives a Bimmer to be seen, as well).
Here's a hint--Geeks aren't mainstream. So even if every geek gets an android phone, the android phone will still be the niche product--not the iPhone.
Since when does $50,000 a year equal low income? I wouldn't even consider that low income if only one person in the family worked and made that much. The way this article reads, a single guy in his 30s making $50,000 a year is poor. Hell, all he has to do is marry some chick who makes $50,000 and suddenly they are rich?
Oddly enough, this has been my experience with PC gaming in general for the past 15 years. Why blame FO3 or Far Cry 2 for a problem that has existed since the invention of Microsoft Windows 95?
I'll take it back two conflicts earlier (Warcraft II). The most proven tactic for any war is obviously the Peon Rush or the Farm-Farm-Barracks technique! ZUG ZUG!!!!!
Yeah, good point, but when Ghaddafy came crawling back to us on his knees, begging and pleading, we didn't say "we don't talk to dictators!". So since the Cuban embargo has been in place since forever, maybe it's time to talk.
Well, I didn't want to state the obvious, but you already did. Elected officials decide, not the people. So yeah, in some sort of perverse "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" scenario, the people get to decide when wars start and end.
So tell me, other than voting the rascals out, what recourse do the People have to end this war if they don't like it? Most likely you'll just get another status-quo politician anyways.
Our form of government has NEVER been about popular opinion, nor will it, nor should it!
I guess we agree in that context comes from how, when, to whom you say. It appears we just disagree about the interpretation of the context. I'm inclined to believe it was a little of both, but the far left side of the argument only wants to see the PR side, completely dismissing the aspect that appeases the morale and welfare of the troops in theater. It is slightly offensive to say the whole thing was "just a PR stunt" when indeed it was a PR stunt AND a morale booster wrapped into one. You might find it curious that I also find the whole PR stunt aspect to be offensive as well, but I accept that it will always be that way. So yeah, I get a little tired of the slashdot crowd trying to pin me down to their perceptions of me that aren't always correct, even AFTER I put it out there in writing for them to see.
Well you can stick to your extremist view all you want, but most credible sources in the western world believed WMD claims to be true. Perhaps we were wrong (I'm still in the camp of "you'll find them in Syria, but that's another discussion), but one thing we weren't was LYING about it. There are far too many checks and balances and subject matter experts in my field to have allowed such an elaborate ruse to ever unfold. I guess if you are Michael Moore or Oliver Stone, you could drum up an interesting movie plot, however.
"Major combat operations"... I.e. our Army defeated the Army of the Government of Iraq. Everything after that has been a distraction to the original goal, and I won't disagree with most posts on here. The deal is, the two phases of this war are distinctly separate. And yes, feel free to blame our lack of forsight and exit strategies all you want..you'll get no argument here.
The People aren't allowed to decide when wars start or end. When is the last time you voted to start or end a war? The American public's view of the war in Iraq is deeply flawed and thus not credible. Considering most Americans can't even point to Baghdad on a map, how in the world does that qualify them to determine when we should leave Iraq?
I actually agree very much with your post, snark aside. To back track, a military person calling somebody not in the military a "civilian" is not meant to be snarky. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm not sure how many times I can say it, but yes, the whole thing was also a PR attempt. What most people who haven't been around the military don't seem to understand that this sort of "hubris" and "jingoism" plays well with the military demographic. What ever happened to addressing your audience?
I also have to admit to misunderstanding "hubris". I thought it meant someone who acts smarter than they really are, when in fact, now that I know the real definition, the whole thing WAS indeed hubris. What I'm saying is that it is a fact of politics, and it has always happened and always will, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of the conflict.
I'm not defending the PR aspect of the deal, as I've clearly stated. I've even pretty much said I found it to be distasteful. However, there is a huge portion of the populace that sees it differently. Yes, it was PR. Yes it bolstered the morale of the military worldwide. Yes, it pissed off the anti-war crowd. I agree that it was political. But as a realist, that is the nature of our government. The military is pretty much just the muscle behind the mouthpiece.
It was a morale and welfare meeting. It was for the troops. And yes, as I already stated, it doubled nicely as PR. That's what politicians do, on both sides of the aisle..even sitting Presidents and wartime Commanders-in-Chief. Happens every conflict and will always happen.
Again, I'm not defending the war. Anyone is free to criticize/support as they see fit. I'll will, however, point out the factual errors and misconception both sides when I spot them. This holds especially true for tired, irksome cliched criticisms that are completely out of line, like "no blood for oil" and "Mission Accomplished".
Said by someone who undoubtedly doesn't understand the military. I do. I work in the Defense industry. I served in OIF and OEF. I'm not an overtly patriotic, jingoistic ditto-head either--it just irks me that the civilian population wants to take words out of their proper context and plop them into their own personal, biased, cynical world views and use them to meet ther needs. Your perception does not make something true.
Yes, it is ridiculously jingo-istic and distasteful. I never claimed to support the activity. I'm merely stating that it was targeted for the audience and those outside of the target audience misinterpreted it to mean something it didn't. And yes, I think Bush would do it again. The whole thing is incredibly popular with the more jingo-ish populace in this country, unfortunately. (Again, unfortunately is MY editorial comment, and not meant to be held as absolute truth...even though it is...sorta...heh).
Speaking of hubris, perhaps you aren't as smart as you think on military affairs? Ok, so yes, I set up a false-dillemma--perhaps there is another explanation. I'm just throwing my 2-cents out there, helping the discussion by contributing my military expertise to counter common misconceptions about how the military works.
What you don't understand, and what everyone in the military does understand is that "Mission Accomplished" does not depend on the end of the war. Wars consist of several smaller operations. Each operation has a specific mission statement. As the requirements for an operation are met, the mission becomes accomplished...NEXT mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to actually HEAR the person they are communicating with these days? In today's progressive society, we seek to go backwards with our technology. Soon enough, I'll stop texting and revert to Morse-Code/Smoke Signals to all my friends!
she strikes me as not someone just from a small town, but someone who is small-minded.
As if those two were somehow mutually exclusive? She is small-minded BECAUSE she is from a small town. Welcome to America (or at least the part that doesn't live in a city).
Most Appropriate tag I've seen on slashdot in a while: "Loser"
However, if a cell phone is something you frequently use, I have a hard time agreeing that $70 a month is excessive. Other voice + data plans cost more or less the same. My disagreement with your assessment is especially true for somebody who has nearly $4000 per month in disposable income. It simply is not a viable argument to claim $70 a month "adds up" when all it adds up to is me having $4000 a month left over versus $3930. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that this is in anyway remotely relevant to somebody in this situation as related to their budget.
As if spending $200 ONE TIME, and then $70 a month for a service most people need would be considered not "living within your means" when you bring home at least $6,000 A MONTH. I have two iPhones (one for my wife) and make make about the same as both of you guys and that bill doesn't even show up on our debt radar. I have one car payment ($450) and a mortgage ($2000). That leaves us with utilities and food each month...or in other words, nearly $4,000 a MONTH in disposable income. So yeah, I have a hard time accepting $199 + $70/month being considered excessive for anyone in the six-digit salary range.
I take offense. I drive a BMW because I like well engineered cars. It's my money and I don't give a rat's ass what other people think about my car. I'm not trying to make ANY statement whatsoever. That's YOUR hangup (and anyone who drives a Bimmer to be seen, as well).
You are an absolute tightwad if you think $199 for an iPhone is some sort of excess--ESPECIALLY if you make $100k a year!
Here's a hint--Geeks aren't mainstream. So even if every geek gets an android phone, the android phone will still be the niche product--not the iPhone.
Since when does $50,000 a year equal low income? I wouldn't even consider that low income if only one person in the family worked and made that much. The way this article reads, a single guy in his 30s making $50,000 a year is poor. Hell, all he has to do is marry some chick who makes $50,000 and suddenly they are rich?
Oddly enough, this has been my experience with PC gaming in general for the past 15 years. Why blame FO3 or Far Cry 2 for a problem that has existed since the invention of Microsoft Windows 95?
I'll take it back two conflicts earlier (Warcraft II). The most proven tactic for any war is obviously the Peon Rush or the Farm-Farm-Barracks technique! ZUG ZUG!!!!!
Yeah, good point, but when Ghaddafy came crawling back to us on his knees, begging and pleading, we didn't say "we don't talk to dictators!". So since the Cuban embargo has been in place since forever, maybe it's time to talk.
Well, I didn't want to state the obvious, but you already did. Elected officials decide, not the people. So yeah, in some sort of perverse "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" scenario, the people get to decide when wars start and end.
So tell me, other than voting the rascals out, what recourse do the People have to end this war if they don't like it? Most likely you'll just get another status-quo politician anyways.
Our form of government has NEVER been about popular opinion, nor will it, nor should it!
And here I was hoping to be modded "funny" but I got modded "flamebait"...sigh.
I guess we agree in that context comes from how, when, to whom you say. It appears we just disagree about the interpretation of the context. I'm inclined to believe it was a little of both, but the far left side of the argument only wants to see the PR side, completely dismissing the aspect that appeases the morale and welfare of the troops in theater. It is slightly offensive to say the whole thing was "just a PR stunt" when indeed it was a PR stunt AND a morale booster wrapped into one. You might find it curious that I also find the whole PR stunt aspect to be offensive as well, but I accept that it will always be that way. So yeah, I get a little tired of the slashdot crowd trying to pin me down to their perceptions of me that aren't always correct, even AFTER I put it out there in writing for them to see.
Well you can stick to your extremist view all you want, but most credible sources in the western world believed WMD claims to be true. Perhaps we were wrong (I'm still in the camp of "you'll find them in Syria, but that's another discussion), but one thing we weren't was LYING about it. There are far too many checks and balances and subject matter experts in my field to have allowed such an elaborate ruse to ever unfold. I guess if you are Michael Moore or Oliver Stone, you could drum up an interesting movie plot, however.
"Major combat operations"... I.e. our Army defeated the Army of the Government of Iraq. Everything after that has been a distraction to the original goal, and I won't disagree with most posts on here. The deal is, the two phases of this war are distinctly separate. And yes, feel free to blame our lack of forsight and exit strategies all you want..you'll get no argument here.
The People aren't allowed to decide when wars start or end. When is the last time you voted to start or end a war? The American public's view of the war in Iraq is deeply flawed and thus not credible. Considering most Americans can't even point to Baghdad on a map, how in the world does that qualify them to determine when we should leave Iraq?
I actually agree very much with your post, snark aside. To back track, a military person calling somebody not in the military a "civilian" is not meant to be snarky. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm not sure how many times I can say it, but yes, the whole thing was also a PR attempt. What most people who haven't been around the military don't seem to understand that this sort of "hubris" and "jingoism" plays well with the military demographic. What ever happened to addressing your audience?
I also have to admit to misunderstanding "hubris". I thought it meant someone who acts smarter than they really are, when in fact, now that I know the real definition, the whole thing WAS indeed hubris. What I'm saying is that it is a fact of politics, and it has always happened and always will, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of the conflict.
I'm not defending the PR aspect of the deal, as I've clearly stated. I've even pretty much said I found it to be distasteful. However, there is a huge portion of the populace that sees it differently. Yes, it was PR. Yes it bolstered the morale of the military worldwide. Yes, it pissed off the anti-war crowd. I agree that it was political. But as a realist, that is the nature of our government. The military is pretty much just the muscle behind the mouthpiece.
It was a morale and welfare meeting. It was for the troops. And yes, as I already stated, it doubled nicely as PR. That's what politicians do, on both sides of the aisle..even sitting Presidents and wartime Commanders-in-Chief. Happens every conflict and will always happen.
Again, I'm not defending the war. Anyone is free to criticize/support as they see fit. I'll will, however, point out the factual errors and misconception both sides when I spot them. This holds especially true for tired, irksome cliched criticisms that are completely out of line, like "no blood for oil" and "Mission Accomplished".
Said by someone who undoubtedly doesn't understand the military. I do. I work in the Defense industry. I served in OIF and OEF. I'm not an overtly patriotic, jingoistic ditto-head either--it just irks me that the civilian population wants to take words out of their proper context and plop them into their own personal, biased, cynical world views and use them to meet ther needs. Your perception does not make something true.
Yes, it is ridiculously jingo-istic and distasteful. I never claimed to support the activity. I'm merely stating that it was targeted for the audience and those outside of the target audience misinterpreted it to mean something it didn't. And yes, I think Bush would do it again. The whole thing is incredibly popular with the more jingo-ish populace in this country, unfortunately. (Again, unfortunately is MY editorial comment, and not meant to be held as absolute truth...even though it is...sorta...heh).
Speaking of hubris, perhaps you aren't as smart as you think on military affairs? Ok, so yes, I set up a false-dillemma--perhaps there is another explanation. I'm just throwing my 2-cents out there, helping the discussion by contributing my military expertise to counter common misconceptions about how the military works.
What you don't understand, and what everyone in the military does understand is that "Mission Accomplished" does not depend on the end of the war. Wars consist of several smaller operations. Each operation has a specific mission statement. As the requirements for an operation are met, the mission becomes accomplished...NEXT mission.