Capitalism and democracy sucks, but it's the best thing that's out there so far. Socialism and a controlled market failed to be strong enough to stand up to it and didn't show much promise, anyways.
I don't know what country you're touting as a superior planner that caters to the poor and needy here, but I'd be interested to know. This does not describe a lot of, if any, countries, I think.
So, far the winning strategy is a mixture of both ideas, with a slight favor towards capitalism.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand that; my experience with anglo-saxons is that they are utterly incapable of understanding some other people's wiewpoints.
And what strange irony in the fact that you think that.
I hope simplifying our "anglo-saxon" (I'm of Russian birth, BTW) countries makes it easier for you to "understand some other people's wiewpoints".
Well, first of all, Napoleon was not exactly an impartial observer.
Second of all, it is hard to stereotype France as "static and rigid". They certainly have a tradition of innovation in the arts, philosophy and mathematics. But, "beaurocratic", I could probably agree with. They are, after all, one of the more tumultuous democracies out there.
That's because the brits, a nation of shopkeepers, are dominated by the bourgeois.
What a mind-boggling conclusion. The mind reels at trying to find the beginning of the thread of thought that lead to this stereotype.
I'm not British. I can only maybe stereotype them as being good at politics for a long time.
If anything, it would be the French that I could stereotype as being hung up on material things. And that is only because they seem to care about the beauty of things a bit more.
You cannot expect men with weapons to rebuild anything. That's a silly notion.
I seriously hope you're not expecting a platoon to be driving semis through Iraq. Or, having someone from the Army erecting a building and fixing wiring. This isn't exactly their forte. They are warriors with side vocations and nothing more. And they are certainly doing their jobs well as warriors.
We, the civilians of America and the civilians of Iraq, have to rebuild Iraq.
That is the way it has always been and I don't see a reason for it to change.
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing. Most were likely just poor, were trying to escape a bad household, or just were not suited for a regular school. Some were just fooled into believing that the military is just piloting million dollar equipment and having honor.
They took the risk of having to hurt someone to get what they wanted. There is no way you can blame their youthful ambition or ignorance. If you are young, you have it. And if you are older, you laugh at yourself for having so much of it (but you still miss it).
Lots of fish may not necessarily be an indicator of a positive effect on the environment. When the environment changes, all the weights and balances readjust and all the creatures re-adapt. The entirety of the outcome is fairly unpredictable, I'd guess.
Of course, nature can tolerate small shifts. We just have to make sure they are not too great as to harm too much and end up harming ourselves.
This is the ying and the yang of every decision. There is a side effect to everything.
The question is whether this kind of pollution is better than the carbon dioxide/refrigerant chemicals/coal power plant pollution. It is likely the answer is "yes".
Ummm, no, Mac hasn't budged in marketshare and I'm sure you could stand on any corner and ask 99.999% of the people who walk by "What is Linux?" and they'll keep walking.
Computer geeks are so ubiquitous that I am sure you would have a whole troop of them over at your house that very evening, eating pizza and installing Gentoo Linux while watching Simpsons DVDs.
Which is really what MS will probably do. They'll find the spyware, inform you of it, and tell you that the service pack can't be installed until it is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
They could make a whole RoboRat.
Capitalism and democracy sucks, but it's the best thing that's out there so far. Socialism and a controlled market failed to be strong enough to stand up to it and didn't show much promise, anyways.
I don't know what country you're touting as a superior planner that caters to the poor and needy here, but I'd be interested to know. This does not describe a lot of, if any, countries, I think.
So, far the winning strategy is a mixture of both ideas, with a slight favor towards capitalism.
Of course, I don't expect you to understand that; my experience with anglo-saxons is that they are utterly incapable of understanding some other people's wiewpoints.
And what strange irony in the fact that you think that.
I hope simplifying our "anglo-saxon" (I'm of Russian birth, BTW) countries makes it easier for you to "understand some other people's wiewpoints".
So why am supposed to believe I will be allowed to form a line at the bar?
The bar probably won't be near the cockpit. And no one much minds if you shiv the barkeep, so long as you tip well.
Well, first of all, Napoleon was not exactly an impartial observer.
Second of all, it is hard to stereotype France as "static and rigid". They certainly have a tradition of innovation in the arts, philosophy and mathematics. But, "beaurocratic", I could probably agree with. They are, after all, one of the more tumultuous democracies out there.
Bowling on a plane would be rather challenging, no? Are they using gyroscopes or something?
I need one seat for me and one for my SUV.
Maybe two. If you strap one on the roof.
That's because the brits, a nation of shopkeepers, are dominated by the bourgeois.
What a mind-boggling conclusion. The mind reels at trying to find the beginning of the thread of thought that lead to this stereotype.
I'm not British. I can only maybe stereotype them as being good at politics for a long time.
If anything, it would be the French that I could stereotype as being hung up on material things. And that is only because they seem to care about the beauty of things a bit more.
Don't forget raping orphans and poor old people. Or is that in the agenda for the next meeting?
Those bastards, don't "spoil the innocent", refrigerate them! Quick!
Why does this make me want to gag?
By "you", I meant "you, as a human". It wasn't a personal insult... ...stupid asshole moderators.
Then why did you evolve?
You cannot expect men with weapons to rebuild anything. That's a silly notion.
I seriously hope you're not expecting a platoon to be driving semis through Iraq. Or, having someone from the Army erecting a building and fixing wiring. This isn't exactly their forte. They are warriors with side vocations and nothing more. And they are certainly doing their jobs well as warriors.
We, the civilians of America and the civilians of Iraq, have to rebuild Iraq.
That is the way it has always been and I don't see a reason for it to change.
Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing. Most were likely just poor, were trying to escape a bad household, or just were not suited for a regular school. Some were just fooled into believing that the military is just piloting million dollar equipment and having honor.
They took the risk of having to hurt someone to get what they wanted. There is no way you can blame their youthful ambition or ignorance. If you are young, you have it. And if you are older, you laugh at yourself for having so much of it (but you still miss it).
Lots of fish may not necessarily be an indicator of a positive effect on the environment. When the environment changes, all the weights and balances readjust and all the creatures re-adapt. The entirety of the outcome is fairly unpredictable, I'd guess.
Of course, nature can tolerate small shifts. We just have to make sure they are not too great as to harm too much and end up harming ourselves.
This is the ying and the yang of every decision. There is a side effect to everything.
The question is whether this kind of pollution is better than the carbon dioxide/refrigerant chemicals/coal power plant pollution. It is likely the answer is "yes".
Well, it may be a good system for security. But support centers will be inundated with phone calls.
Ummm, no, Mac hasn't budged in marketshare and I'm sure you could stand on any corner and ask 99.999% of the people who walk by "What is Linux?" and they'll keep walking.
Computer geeks are so ubiquitous that I am sure you would have a whole troop of them over at your house that very evening, eating pizza and installing Gentoo Linux while watching Simpsons DVDs.
I hope you are joking.
Which is why they have spyware on their computer in the first place.
You can't expect that much from people.
Greece or Georgia?
Yeah, and complete redos are painful things, as all the delays and problems make obvious. I do not envy the developers.
Yes. That is exactly what that means.
Which is really what MS will probably do. They'll find the spyware, inform you of it, and tell you that the service pack can't be installed until it is gone.
Oh, man. You don't want grandma calling you every day going "my [insert stupid software] won't work/install".