Not different systems (as far as the software is concerned), but different manufacturers. A well specified API/performace spec would mean all of them can make the same software work, but add different nifty things. Maybe better AA, the possibility to play the games in HDTV resolution and really getting it to work, double as other kinds of devices, built in the TV, toaster, lawnmover, pacemaker. There are tons of stuff they can do without having to run different software.
Because I think terrorism should be reserved for what it is. I rather get spam than anthrax. I rather have it that the us goverment battle real terrorist and battle the narcoticts distributers with the same means. The US biggest problem is not really terrorists, as they haven't been able to do even close to the same damage as the gangs and the narcotics.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting rid of spam, heck, I am sick and tired of all the commercials in society, since 99% of them have products and don't give a damn about.
The deals on phones are not as good in the states, and Nokia/Ericsson makes money on selling the phones, not on few phones with expensive deals. Or rather they do, but that is when they sell basestations etc, which I imagine they don't sell much of in North America.
GSM is completely superior to CDMA and I would hope people will start buying more GSM1900 phones, then Nokia/Ericsson will sell their newest phones in North America as well. There isn't much of a problem to get it working with 1900 anyways.
PCs really took off when there became many different manufacturers. Wouldn't it be great if many manufacturers could make the same gaming console? Had to have the same specs and such, so all games would work, but it would definitly be very interesting never the less.
Can we stop terrorism by censoring the net? Will the youth stop becoming criminal if we censor the net? I'm sure all of you knows exactly what I mean.
The problem isn't the net, it's parents, lack of father figure, drugs, gangs, etc, etc. And it can't be solved by censorship. I have ideas of how to solve these things, but that is way beyond this topic at hand.
So, could anyone connected to slashdot make some sort of "poll" where all the _registered_ users of slashdot can vote on what they think of this, and then send that to all newspapers in Australia? It might not be the Rambo solution, but at least it could be something. What do you think?
wouldn't it have been ever nicer if there could have been an international iron chef show? French, Swedish (meatballs! Guess where I am from;), Italian, Greek, Spanish, Mexican, American (your food tastes too damn good!), Japanese, Korean, the list goes on!
Maybe we could hope for a european iron chef program? As posted above, if there is a good show anywhere, it's sure to be copied. Just look at all the Expedition: Robinson (survivors for you non Swedes;))
[I miss a checkbox for "posting while you are ill"]
Ehm, having real actor means paying real actor. Just look at the voice actors/actresses in Japan with them doing anime.
So, what I was _really_ talking about, is how they are going to _totally_ fake voices, hence ridding the industry of actors, making it possible to lower the budgets a lot. Good or bad? I am not sure myself yet.
Karma whore? I am not even that fond of the karma system to begin with, I don't think it weed out uninteresting people efficiently enough...
... software/hardware patents should be reconsidered. Maybe just a year would be enough? Maybe not even at all? The industry is wasting a lot of effort on trying to find out a way of doing things almost the same way as someone else, as to not hit any patents. This is way way stupid if you ask me.
Let's hope it's nervgas, because someone taking that little pride in their jobs... you know what I mean. Whom of us wouldn't go apshit to see our computers fucked up like that? Or just about anyones stuff really. Even with compensation I would be pissed.
Just my little rant, I'm having a major cold and pink eyes (jippie!) at the same time, but I bet I still feel better than the poor sap who used UPS. Or as a former boss said when we got an empty package from Japan (that should have contained an expensive camera). UPS, consider it gone...
Re:Free (capital F) software is NOT Communism!!!
on
SourceForge Drifting
·
· Score: 2
You missed my point that I like free software, it's a great thing. I just don't like elitism and forcefullness of it. The gnome list (sorry if I got this slightly wrong, but I remember it being gnome at least) can't even mention other software with RMS getting on their ass. This sounds a lot like Statsi/GRU/KGB/etc. So again, I love to see people share software, heck, I would probably do it too if I got myself to code something on my spare time. I am totally thrilled about KDE, but I don't see why free and company owned software can't live side by side.
I would effectivly loose 12 hours of my life, while you would do nothing. Would that be fair? I bet you that I rather stay with my girlfriend than do that. It was a general statement, don't spend too much time trying to come up with some case where I am wrong, instead try to figure out what I might have meant. Thinking is good, and opinions are good. I don't totally disagree with you, I just want to broaden the whole thing.
I still say the anology holds, if you go to the core of the issues. C, good idea, bad execution (I must stop using computing terms all the time...). I fear (and can be wrong) that "free software" could get the same development. Look at some of the exellent replies to my original post. Just take the issues with Emacs and who owns the rights to that... I want to see solutions where everyone wins, instead of the Bin Laden of software saying that there is only one true way.
I like the model with the linux kernel much more. This is the biggest thing Linus (Routsi rules;)) ever did. Everyone owns what they write. Simple right? So if there a large number of people owning different parts of something, who really owns it? It also (Linus explains this way better than I) something which makes it so that you have to give it away as well. Totally cool.
A very important point I made, which got no attention, is the we need all the small profitable companies we can get today. Part because of the bad economy, part to give Microsoft more competition. Heck, they want it, they are going to do their best to win, and I think everyone else should also do so.
About M$ (it's easier, and funny, to write it that way, that's the only reason I do). Yes, commie fear is wellspread in the states, but no, I am not playing into their hands. Isn't the problem that the american people needs to be educated on the world around them, and not that I used a fully valid anology?
The user buys? I never bought free software;) I have never thought the thought of getting linux any other way than via the net. So there are no buying happening there.
Technical quality. I'm a professional software engineer, I run XP legally, I love it. The best OS I've ever had. I would be totally surprised if others don't totally disagree with me, for different reason. There are more to this than technical reasons. And how should a person who is a specialist in something else know what the heck to buy? I must speak with lawyers, doctors, carpenters, as I don't know their fields. Software is sold the same way you sell shampoo or Star Trek. It's not special.
Whoo, that reply was WAY larger than I expected, to the few who read it, I hope it made you think, and to some extemt, disagree with me. Happy hacking everyone.
Wops, I think that you forgot to read between the lines. Though if alls fair fair I do admit to not being as clear as I could have been.
What was implemented (yes yes) in the name of communism was never what Karl Marx envisioned. You are completely correct, and I know very well how it connects. And this was actually my point. Take a great idea, and it gets distorted and destroyed when it happens in real life. I'm afraid that free software could be in the same category.
The open source utopia reminds me of "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. It resultet in Communism, which is a great way of life, if it was at all possible. It's about everyone being happy and sharing (open source). But we know how North Korea is doing, do you remember Sovjet and Cuba? It's just as bad as depotism or the French monrachies before the revolution.
What you have to ask yourself if you would accept open source/communism ideas in your daily life. Do you want to slave 12 hours a day and have the same living standard as someone who is just playing around all day (I rather play all day myself, but nobody is paying me for that)? Think about it some, what is the purpose of free software really?
I think it's a good thing that vA can make some money, they need it, we all need more companies that makes money and gives us jobs and thus feeds us (most of us are involved, or will get involved, in the software business). As long as they give proper support and doesn't stop anyone else from doing a similar system.
Does this mean I hate all free software? Hell no, not at all. I love to see people doing all this work, having fun (the only reason to do something for free), sharing. It's great stuff, and to all who does that, my deepest thanks. If others can make buisiness out of your work it helps us all in these sad times. I just wish that those companies could be nice and send the authors a little gift or two.
I also don't have anything against closed source, as long as they give good support. A lot of very specialist software would never be made unless it was paid for. In some cases it would be no sense in keeping the source closed, in others it would be essential to survive as a business, both are needed.
So what is the bottom line? Jump down from your high horses and write lotsa software instead, do what it takes to make what you want, and make money in any way you can (but be nice) and have fun. Let the best software prevail, try new business models, never stop evolving. If one close sourced project can fund another open source project, isn't that a good thing?
Yes, you can guess how long it could take, and no, there is no formula for it. I can have a great day and produce 10x as much as usual. I can be lucky and my first guess of how to do it is correct, or I can take the wrong one and loose a week. You might predict for some kind of generic person, but I know for experiences that there are very large differences between how fast different people produce code/documents etc.
So it's all a loss? Nope, but you have to remember that it's not an exact science. It involves replanning, knowing your work force, letting the work force plan on their own, more replanning, experince, guesses, and whatever it takes. Honesty is also high up on the list, and not trying to do huge amounts of work in one go. Heck, there is so much about this subject that it would ages to describe them. My suggestion is, go out in reality, work, and learn.
Especially if you could plug the same VM into a BSD kernel or whatever you might want/make. I'd like to see a more modular way of building OSes, so that we can get a more dynamic way of doing things and not lock everything in the Linux kernel and go "if you want it changed, change it", is if everyone only codes kernels...
The pitfall would probably be how to define the APIs and how to handle their aging...
to know how XPs kernel would do, and how the different *BSDs, QNX, whatever you have under your sleave.
Heck, know what would be the best? A pluggable kernel system, where anyone could switch WM. Hmm, hurd? Anyways, it's nice to see 2.4 making progress, but we all kinda guessed that.
After all, if we know what is "best", then people could try to break that and become even better. And who could loose from that?;)
Of course all of this would be great for open source / free software, but it would also be great for the whole software industry. I enjoy both free and non free software, and I don't see why everything has to be black and white. Let who ever has the best business idea be the most successful, compete by having the best software, not the most extreme fundamentalist views.
Because what open formats would do is to put the playing field slightly more level. And to loose w3 from the open standards would be a serious blow if you ask me (even though I think HTML is going in the wrong direction).
Another question is if many different formats are a good thing or not. That one, you have to philosophise (is that even a word?) about yourself;)
Say what you want, but this is not really about w3s standards, but about limiting the choice in software. I didn't care when Microsoft made a better and integrated browser, but it made me uneasy when they stopped non IE browsers from MSN. The same with AOL/Time Warners actions.
What the industry needs is free standards, so that one companies software/media can work with another companies software/media. And if you want to, you can see the different makers of the different forms of free software as companies as well. So what if I can't copy windows legally nor read their source code as long as I could switch to another companies software and still use my media / plug-ins / etc.
What the free software would need to do (and I don't see you guys doing it;)) is to make more standards. For example for plug-ins for web browsers. Mozilla/Konqi would only profit from this in the long run.
The wider these standards would spread, the harder it would be for closed formats to penetrate the market. So I hope that we can see many more open formats in the future, for graphics, 3d models, sound, video, documents, whatever you might think of. For everything that there is a closed format, there should be a better and open format! See it as a challange.
But all of this is completely useless unless someone is using these standards. Here is where you come in, the reader of my little rambling. Do you use formats that others own, or free ones? Mp3s instead of ogg? GIF instead of PNG? Search yourself...
We are not talking about just any source here, we are talking about very high quality rendered animations. It's beyond me how they can release these in anything but the higest possible quality (anything less than DVD quality is a shame).
Small crappy video might be nifty for modems and not that terribly gr8 sources, but in this case I would argue that the highest possible quality (that everyone can watch) should be the goal. I rather have them put these on their DVDs (which reminds me that I need to buy more of those) than in low quality
Couldn't it be the other way around? The media will bring forth anything containing the buzzwords of the time. As I understood it, there are a bunch of people with radically different theories, all claiming they are correct, yet we don't see all of their theories in the media.
I figure the media figures out what it wants, and then wraps the truth and lies around it. And add a HUGE portion of ignorance and lack of knowledge to this... Just make a little experiment, take something you have very good knowledge about and check that against anything you find in the media today. Could it be that they are horribly wrong sometimes?
Maybe you made a little mistake there. First of all I don't live in the states. And do you somehow imply that the British were knowing about the camps and the holocaust all along? News travelled slow back then, no CNN green video even. That was the problem of the past, you didn't get to know anything about it until it was history. Now we get so much information that almost nothing affects us and we don't even know about the truth in the news.
Re:The human mind is a good filter
on
The Hypermedia Hazard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The news you get is already filtered and colored by nationality, religion, or political interests. How easy can it be to truly filter it on your own? Neither of us has seen the news ourselves, and many of the news agencies rely on other news agencies in turn. The problem used to be that you never got to hear about it (1939-1945...), now it's that you don't know if you can trust the news. What is the most terrifying?
The americans I've met in person hasn't been ignorant, but then again, I don't like to be around morons. I've met plenty of complete morons in Sweden as of yet. You can't save yourself from them, because let's face it, most people are morons (and before you flaimbait me as well, do you consider yourself a moron or do you agree with me;)).
Slashdot Mirror
Not different systems (as far as the software is concerned), but different manufacturers. A well specified API/performace spec would mean all of them can make the same software work, but add different nifty things. Maybe better AA, the possibility to play the games in HDTV resolution and really getting it to work, double as other kinds of devices, built in the TV, toaster, lawnmover, pacemaker. There are tons of stuff they can do without having to run different software.
Why not?
Because I think terrorism should be reserved for what it is. I rather get spam than anthrax. I rather have it that the us goverment battle real terrorist and battle the narcoticts distributers with the same means. The US biggest problem is not really terrorists, as they haven't been able to do even close to the same damage as the gangs and the narcotics.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for getting rid of spam, heck, I am sick and tired of all the commercials in society, since 99% of them have products and don't give a damn about.
The deals on phones are not as good in the states, and Nokia/Ericsson makes money on selling the phones, not on few phones with expensive deals. Or rather they do, but that is when they sell basestations etc, which I imagine they don't sell much of in North America.
GSM is completely superior to CDMA and I would hope people will start buying more GSM1900 phones, then Nokia/Ericsson will sell their newest phones in North America as well. There isn't much of a problem to get it working with 1900 anyways.
If you could fool the goverment into thinking that spam is terrorism, I bet they would definitly do something about it;)
[Disclaimer, don't even try to take that seriously]
PCs really took off when there became many different manufacturers. Wouldn't it be great if many manufacturers could make the same gaming console? Had to have the same specs and such, so all games would work, but it would definitly be very interesting never the less.
Can we stop terrorism by censoring the net? Will the youth stop becoming criminal if we censor the net? I'm sure all of you knows exactly what I mean.
The problem isn't the net, it's parents, lack of father figure, drugs, gangs, etc, etc. And it can't be solved by censorship. I have ideas of how to solve these things, but that is way beyond this topic at hand.
So, could anyone connected to slashdot make some sort of "poll" where all the _registered_ users of slashdot can vote on what they think of this, and then send that to all newspapers in Australia? It might not be the Rambo solution, but at least it could be something. What do you think?
/J
wouldn't it have been ever nicer if there could have been an international iron chef show? French, Swedish (meatballs! Guess where I am from;), Italian, Greek, Spanish, Mexican, American (your food tastes too damn good!), Japanese, Korean, the list goes on!
Maybe we could hope for a european iron chef program? As posted above, if there is a good show anywhere, it's sure to be copied. Just look at all the Expedition: Robinson (survivors for you non Swedes;))
[I miss a checkbox for "posting while you are ill"]
Ehm, having real actor means paying real actor. Just look at the voice actors/actresses in Japan with them doing anime.
So, what I was _really_ talking about, is how they are going to _totally_ fake voices, hence ridding the industry of actors, making it possible to lower the budgets a lot. Good or bad? I am not sure myself yet.
Karma whore? I am not even that fond of the karma system to begin with, I don't think it weed out uninteresting people efficiently enough...
I've never met a moviestar in my life, so I wouldn't know the difference between a real one, and a fake one;)
... software/hardware patents should be reconsidered. Maybe just a year would be enough? Maybe not even at all? The industry is wasting a lot of effort on trying to find out a way of doing things almost the same way as someone else, as to not hit any patents. This is way way stupid if you ask me.
Let's hope it's nervgas, because someone taking that little pride in their jobs... you know what I mean. Whom of us wouldn't go apshit to see our computers fucked up like that? Or just about anyones stuff really. Even with compensation I would be pissed.
Just my little rant, I'm having a major cold and pink eyes (jippie!) at the same time, but I bet I still feel better than the poor sap who used UPS. Or as a former boss said when we got an empty package from Japan (that should have contained an expensive camera). UPS, consider it gone...
You missed my point that I like free software, it's a great thing. I just don't like elitism and forcefullness of it. The gnome list (sorry if I got this slightly wrong, but I remember it being gnome at least) can't even mention other software with RMS getting on their ass. This sounds a lot like Statsi/GRU/KGB/etc. So again, I love to see people share software, heck, I would probably do it too if I got myself to code something on my spare time. I am totally thrilled about KDE, but I don't see why free and company owned software can't live side by side.
I would effectivly loose 12 hours of my life, while you would do nothing. Would that be fair? I bet you that I rather stay with my girlfriend than do that. It was a general statement, don't spend too much time trying to come up with some case where I am wrong, instead try to figure out what I might have meant. Thinking is good, and opinions are good. I don't totally disagree with you, I just want to broaden the whole thing.
I still say the anology holds, if you go to the core of the issues. C, good idea, bad execution (I must stop using computing terms all the time...). I fear (and can be wrong) that "free software" could get the same development. Look at some of the exellent replies to my original post. Just take the issues with Emacs and who owns the rights to that... I want to see solutions where everyone wins, instead of the Bin Laden of software saying that there is only one true way.
I like the model with the linux kernel much more. This is the biggest thing Linus (Routsi rules;)) ever did. Everyone owns what they write. Simple right? So if there a large number of people owning different parts of something, who really owns it? It also (Linus explains this way better than I) something which makes it so that you have to give it away as well. Totally cool.
A very important point I made, which got no attention, is the we need all the small profitable companies we can get today. Part because of the bad economy, part to give Microsoft more competition. Heck, they want it, they are going to do their best to win, and I think everyone else should also do so.
About M$ (it's easier, and funny, to write it that way, that's the only reason I do). Yes, commie fear is wellspread in the states, but no, I am not playing into their hands. Isn't the problem that the american people needs to be educated on the world around them, and not that I used a fully valid anology?
The user buys? I never bought free software;) I have never thought the thought of getting linux any other way than via the net. So there are no buying happening there.
Technical quality. I'm a professional software engineer, I run XP legally, I love it. The best OS I've ever had. I would be totally surprised if others don't totally disagree with me, for different reason. There are more to this than technical reasons. And how should a person who is a specialist in something else know what the heck to buy? I must speak with lawyers, doctors, carpenters, as I don't know their fields. Software is sold the same way you sell shampoo or Star Trek. It's not special.
Whoo, that reply was WAY larger than I expected, to the few who read it, I hope it made you think, and to some extemt, disagree with me. Happy hacking everyone.
//J
Wops, I think that you forgot to read between the lines. Though if alls fair fair I do admit to not being as clear as I could have been.
What was implemented (yes yes) in the name of communism was never what Karl Marx envisioned. You are completely correct, and I know very well how it connects. And this was actually my point. Take a great idea, and it gets distorted and destroyed when it happens in real life. I'm afraid that free software could be in the same category.
The open source utopia reminds me of "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. It resultet in Communism, which is a great way of life, if it was at all possible. It's about everyone being happy and sharing (open source). But we know how North Korea is doing, do you remember Sovjet and Cuba? It's just as bad as depotism or the French monrachies before the revolution.
What you have to ask yourself if you would accept open source/communism ideas in your daily life. Do you want to slave 12 hours a day and have the same living standard as someone who is just playing around all day (I rather play all day myself, but nobody is paying me for that)? Think about it some, what is the purpose of free software really?
I think it's a good thing that vA can make some money, they need it, we all need more companies that makes money and gives us jobs and thus feeds us (most of us are involved, or will get involved, in the software business). As long as they give proper support and doesn't stop anyone else from doing a similar system.
Does this mean I hate all free software? Hell no, not at all. I love to see people doing all this work, having fun (the only reason to do something for free), sharing. It's great stuff, and to all who does that, my deepest thanks. If others can make buisiness out of your work it helps us all in these sad times. I just wish that those companies could be nice and send the authors a little gift or two.
I also don't have anything against closed source, as long as they give good support. A lot of very specialist software would never be made unless it was paid for. In some cases it would be no sense in keeping the source closed, in others it would be essential to survive as a business, both are needed.
So what is the bottom line? Jump down from your high horses and write lotsa software instead, do what it takes to make what you want, and make money in any way you can (but be nice) and have fun. Let the best software prevail, try new business models, never stop evolving. If one close sourced project can fund another open source project, isn't that a good thing?
Yes, you can guess how long it could take, and no, there is no formula for it. I can have a great day and produce 10x as much as usual. I can be lucky and my first guess of how to do it is correct, or I can take the wrong one and loose a week. You might predict for some kind of generic person, but I know for experiences that there are very large differences between how fast different people produce code/documents etc.
So it's all a loss? Nope, but you have to remember that it's not an exact science. It involves replanning, knowing your work force, letting the work force plan on their own, more replanning, experince, guesses, and whatever it takes. Honesty is also high up on the list, and not trying to do huge amounts of work in one go. Heck, there is so much about this subject that it would ages to describe them. My suggestion is, go out in reality, work, and learn.
Especially if you could plug the same VM into a BSD kernel or whatever you might want/make. I'd like to see a more modular way of building OSes, so that we can get a more dynamic way of doing things and not lock everything in the Linux kernel and go "if you want it changed, change it", is if everyone only codes kernels...
The pitfall would probably be how to define the APIs and how to handle their aging...
to know how XPs kernel would do, and how the different *BSDs, QNX, whatever you have under your sleave.
Heck, know what would be the best? A pluggable kernel system, where anyone could switch WM. Hmm, hurd? Anyways, it's nice to see 2.4 making progress, but we all kinda guessed that.
After all, if we know what is "best", then people could try to break that and become even better. And who could loose from that?;)
Of course all of this would be great for open source / free software, but it would also be great for the whole software industry. I enjoy both free and non free software, and I don't see why everything has to be black and white. Let who ever has the best business idea be the most successful, compete by having the best software, not the most extreme fundamentalist views.
Because what open formats would do is to put the playing field slightly more level. And to loose w3 from the open standards would be a serious blow if you ask me (even though I think HTML is going in the wrong direction).
Another question is if many different formats are a good thing or not. That one, you have to philosophise (is that even a word?) about yourself;)
Say what you want, but this is not really about w3s standards, but about limiting the choice in software. I didn't care when Microsoft made a better and integrated browser, but it made me uneasy when they stopped non IE browsers from MSN. The same with AOL/Time Warners actions.
What the industry needs is free standards, so that one companies software/media can work with another companies software/media. And if you want to, you can see the different makers of the different forms of free software as companies as well. So what if I can't copy windows legally nor read their source code as long as I could switch to another companies software and still use my media / plug-ins / etc.
What the free software would need to do (and I don't see you guys doing it;)) is to make more standards. For example for plug-ins for web browsers. Mozilla/Konqi would only profit from this in the long run.
The wider these standards would spread, the harder it would be for closed formats to penetrate the market. So I hope that we can see many more open formats in the future, for graphics, 3d models, sound, video, documents, whatever you might think of. For everything that there is a closed format, there should be a better and open format! See it as a challange.
But all of this is completely useless unless someone is using these standards. Here is where you come in, the reader of my little rambling. Do you use formats that others own, or free ones? Mp3s instead of ogg? GIF instead of PNG? Search yourself...
Higher quality? Give me a break...
We are not talking about just any source here, we are talking about very high quality rendered animations. It's beyond me how they can release these in anything but the higest possible quality (anything less than DVD quality is a shame).
Small crappy video might be nifty for modems and not that terribly gr8 sources, but in this case I would argue that the highest possible quality (that everyone can watch) should be the goal. I rather have them put these on their DVDs (which reminds me that I need to buy more of those) than in low quality
Don't go qoute me on this, but doesn't Konqi in KDE play just about everything since it can use just about any plug-ins you can come up with?
;)
Hmm, two solutions here:
1. Kill of Proprietary formats so anyone can code plug ins
2. Generic plug-in format with open API specs.
I propose 1 && 2
Couldn't it be the other way around? The media will bring forth anything containing the buzzwords of the time. As I understood it, there are a bunch of people with radically different theories, all claiming they are correct, yet we don't see all of their theories in the media.
I figure the media figures out what it wants, and then wraps the truth and lies around it. And add a HUGE portion of ignorance and lack of knowledge to this... Just make a little experiment, take something you have very good knowledge about and check that against anything you find in the media today. Could it be that they are horribly wrong sometimes?
So basically the post above says it all...
Early morning in the nordic countries means a whole lot of people checking slashdot out at work or at home ^_~
Maybe you made a little mistake there. First of all I don't live in the states. And do you somehow imply that the British were knowing about the camps and the holocaust all along? News travelled slow back then, no CNN green video even. That was the problem of the past, you didn't get to know anything about it until it was history. Now we get so much information that almost nothing affects us and we don't even know about the truth in the news.
The news you get is already filtered and colored by nationality, religion, or political interests. How easy can it be to truly filter it on your own? Neither of us has seen the news ourselves, and many of the news agencies rely on other news agencies in turn. The problem used to be that you never got to hear about it (1939-1945...), now it's that you don't know if you can trust the news. What is the most terrifying?
The americans I've met in person hasn't been ignorant, but then again, I don't like to be around morons. I've met plenty of complete morons in Sweden as of yet. You can't save yourself from them, because let's face it, most people are morons (and before you flaimbait me as well, do you consider yourself a moron or do you agree with me;)).