Albuquerque has only a small percentage black population and much of it is associated with the air base.
Yes, it was a mostly Hispanic neighborhood, but Hispanic neighborhoods in Albuquerque range from the poorest barrios to some of the richest in town.
Your stereotypes don't quite fit there. The divide is more between Hispanics who came recently (mostly Mexican) and those who have been there for 300 years. All us Anglos are late comers compared to both them and the Native Americans.
Ahhhhh...so I was supposed to assume "bad neighborhood", "these people", and "carry guns" referred to non-Anglo/non-Caucasian, non-native American Hispanics of recent Mexican origin?
My bad...see how simple it becomes if you clearly convey your definition of "bad neighborhood" by ethnicity and country of origination when you don't want to use more telling and appropriate data like crime statistics? E.g., this whole discussion on what people are supposed to infer from "bad neighborhood" could have been avoided had you used the term "high-crime neighborhood" instead...
And - and - you wouldn't have been forced to reveal either that you indeed were equating "bad neighborhood" to specific ethnicities and nations of origin (Hispanic Mexicans) or that you expect other people - to include me - to infer "black population" from "bad neighborhood".
lollll...nonetheless, I still reserve my right to mis-infer. And understand that I do not rule out the possibility that you have nary a bigoted bone in your body...but you have revealed that you do recognize that people of a certain character will choose to infer specific ethnicities are responsible for specific behaviors - so you should try to be specific else you'll find yourself quoted (that dreaded "Share" link makes it easy) somewhere on the web as "proof" that specific biases are justified.
No doubt, for example, your "Hispanics who came recently" will be interpreted by some as "illegal immigrants"...which I will assume (as dangerous as that is) is not what you meant.
Guessing that isn't the meaning you meant...so - using the meaning implied by the conversation thus far - nah, don't think those were any more my emails than the ones on "Make her happy..." were yours.
I got a call from a very stressed sounding manager at a store in a bad neighborhood of Albuquerque and explained that the outage was statewide, and I'd already called the next highest level.
His response: "You don't understand! These people carry guns."
Republicans, eh? Since the incident preceded the formation of the Tea Party?
Odd. Germany must not have the same caliber of investors, corporate executives, financial and stock market barons, and politicians that so burden America.
I hope nobody out there believes that workers in the various telecommunications corporations ain't never, ever...never ever never eavesdropped on other people's e-communications...for at least as long as there have been long-haul lines.
So what if the NSA records everything? Intelligence is only as useful as political leaders want to make it. If political leaders want "actionable intelligence" then the reader should already know that if those political leaders are either crooked or of a totalitarian mindset - or both - and they want to "get" you, they will - even if they have to gin up that "actionable intelligence".
If reading of Stalin's and Mao's purges didn't teach you that, then the still-unsatisfied quest for WMDs and al Qaida training camps in Iraq should have.
What Americans should be worrying about is the threat to themselves that will result from the empowering of a wealthy few - the kind who believe that America isn't a "democracy", it is a "republic" and the only people who should be "represented" by its government are the wealthy (or "job creators", as they like to misname themselves now) - if the American people again put their stooges into elected office. The kind of people who want to destroy government's role as the protector of "the people" - the kind of people, that is, who insist that they are entitled to increase their rate of wealth accumulation even if that requires deregulation/the elimination of laws that now protect "the people"...
That's the kind of people who gin up intelligence...who set records for the dozens of times they say a variation of "I do not recall...". That's the kind of people who alter "the evidence"...be it ASCII or videotape.
"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate, and that he would focus on the 5–10% thought to be floating voters, he was articulating a commonly held opinion: that most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty.
Anybody who has ever been around a bunch of individuals who consider themselves to be "of the right", "well-to-do", and "powerful" knows better: Mitt was trying to represent himself as "one of them" by slamming as many of the American people as possible.
lolll...that's what those people holding those beliefs do, especially if they're consuming alcohol. You should hear 'em talk about "unions" (one drink), "labor" (two drinks), and a bizarre mixture of "entitlement spending" and "Perhaps there is something to eugenics..." (three drinks).
The truth is the United States of America doesn't want to be the world's technology leader anymore...our nation's business leaders - and so their pets in Congress - just want to control the world through their control of the dollar.
That goal is, in my opinion, unusually asinine even for a people and society increasingly constrained by greed given that the dollar can be blown to kingdom come with the simple declaration "Sorry, we don't take dollars anymore." (With the caveat that the statement must come from somebody who has the industrial infrastructure and position as a primary supplier in global trade required to back the value of their proposed dollar replacement.)
That goal of controlling the world through the control of the dollar...it is an open admission that Corporate America's leaders and the politicians who represent them are aware that either they're too lazy or they lack the competence and talent to lead in any other way. Or both.
Hard to believe that anything will change. After all, the threat of terrorism was out there and well-known prior to 9/11, but the airlines still shirked all defensive/offensive tactics (even basics like strengthened cockpit doors) in the name of profit - and they got away with it because they liberally dispensed cash to their lobbyists.
I daresay no one will argue an assertion that the liquor industry, as one example of an airport retailer, likewise has a significant lobbying presence in Washington, D.C....et al.
[Cyber Bureau bureaucrat] Ben Yisrael said. 'Anonymous doesn't have the skills to damage the country's vital infrastructure. And if that was its intention, then it wouldn't have announced the time of attack. It wants to create noise in the media about issues that are close to its heart,' he said."
On the one hand, a challenge response...on the other hand, a political response designed to defuse.
I guess they're soliciting a mixed response to their response.
Which is why I anticipate quite well organized resistance to it. It isn't as if those transfers to the Cayman Islands, Panama, and etc. are made in the form of truckloads of rolled-up quarters.
Given the amount of competition there is for the premium jobs and positions, the more states that take their populations out of the running, the merrier!
Well, unless you live in a state like Missouri and so face being culled from the competition before you ever enter school...
True; it is pointless to argue with the followers of Ayn Rand as the way the mass of them interpret and apply Ayn Rand's philosophy is "I'm in it for me and screw [you]!" (albeit "rational self-interest sounds better) where the set "you" contains an individual, a community, a state, a country, all the nations of the world, or the entire human race - whichever is more personally rewarding for the Rand devotee.
That is how they can justify everything from taking government handouts to poisoning you with pollution in an effort to increase their margins to insisting that those who take government handouts are leeches to those who pollute their own air should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; their entire universe encompasses "Me!" and no more.
On the flip side, if they use terms like "patriotism", "responsibility", or "loyalty", you can either try to figure out how they're going to benefit from your/the community's/the state's/the nation's compliance with the intended behavior associated with those terms or just start laughing.
Yes, I rolled on the floor laughing when I read that...if you really want to destroy the utility/flexibility of Linux/Gnome, call some key part of it "Visual Basic" and before you know it, the language snobs will.NET it up...errrh, make it "better".
Methinks Microsoft is blowing up because it is huge, gigantic Microsoft and the guy running it has let that size and power go to his head to the extent that he thinks he not only can but is driving the consumer. I see that attitude in Windows 8, I see it in Office 2013 where people are actually describing Microsoft's attempt to change Office into a fee-based subscription service as "conditioning" the end-user..."conditioning", as if either the consumer were somebody's pet rat or Microsoft were a cult!!!
Somebody forgot to tell Ballmer that putting on the CEO suit of Microsoft is not equivalent to assuming godhead...
(Although come to think of it, that assumption of godhead has become quite common among American CEOs...)
In summary, specialists are pathetically lost when placed into sufficiently unfamiliar situations, but generalists can't do what specialists can do. Either is superior only in a given situation.
I tend to agree with you...a consequence of having had to clean up after too many people who believed that the approach(es) they learned in their specialty were applicable to all other areas/specialties.
Poor people like cash because they can buy "on the sly" avoiding taxation altogether.
Ah...so one should infer that - because it is "poor people" who use cash to "avoid taxation" - that the individuals who keep the tax havens in Panama, Lichtenstein, the Caymans, and so forth in business because of their desire to avoid taxes are the poor?
Or would it be wiser to disregard your assertion in favor of the notion that poor people use cash because they don't have checking accounts or debit and credit cards?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you assumed wrong.
Albuquerque has only a small percentage black population and much of it is associated with the air base.
Yes, it was a mostly Hispanic neighborhood, but Hispanic neighborhoods in Albuquerque range from the poorest barrios to some of the richest in town.
Your stereotypes don't quite fit there. The divide is more between Hispanics who came recently (mostly Mexican) and those who have been there for 300 years. All us Anglos are late comers compared to both them and the Native Americans.
Ahhhhh...so I was supposed to assume "bad neighborhood", "these people", and "carry guns" referred to non-Anglo/non-Caucasian, non-native American Hispanics of recent Mexican origin?
My bad...see how simple it becomes if you clearly convey your definition of "bad neighborhood" by ethnicity and country of origination when you don't want to use more telling and appropriate data like crime statistics? E.g., this whole discussion on what people are supposed to infer from "bad neighborhood" could have been avoided had you used the term "high-crime neighborhood" instead...
And - and - you wouldn't have been forced to reveal either that you indeed were equating "bad neighborhood" to specific ethnicities and nations of origin (Hispanic Mexicans) or that you expect other people - to include me - to infer "black population" from "bad neighborhood".
lollll...nonetheless, I still reserve my right to mis-infer. And understand that I do not rule out the possibility that you have nary a bigoted bone in your body...but you have revealed that you do recognize that people of a certain character will choose to infer specific ethnicities are responsible for specific behaviors - so you should try to be specific else you'll find yourself quoted (that dreaded "Share" link makes it easy) somewhere on the web as "proof" that specific biases are justified.
No doubt, for example, your "Hispanics who came recently" will be interpreted by some as "illegal immigrants"...which I will assume (as dangerous as that is) is not what you meant.
Huh...Encyclo says:
... (05 Mar 2000) ...
Look up: Trans Love
transference love
Love expressed by the patient for the psychoanalyst as a manifestation of transference.
Found op http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?transference+love
transference love
Type: Term
Definitions: 1. love expressed by the patient for the psychoanalyst as a manifestation of transference (3).
Found op http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=93242
Guessing that isn't the meaning you meant...so - using the meaning implied by the conversation thus far - nah, don't think those were any more my emails than the ones on "Make her happy..." were yours.
Crap...now I have to look up "translove".
Equally funny...although I'm not sure why you jumped in to explain what I'm supposed to assume. Have you heard a Whoooosssshhhhh! lately?
Funny, to me...the reader is supposed to assume something from "bad neighborhood", "these people", and "carry guns"...so I did.
Wow...that's my address, too; maybe that explains why I'm getting all of these emails about "Make her happy by growing your...".
I got a call from a very stressed sounding manager at a store in a bad neighborhood of Albuquerque and explained that the outage was statewide, and I'd already called the next highest level.
His response: "You don't understand! These people carry guns."
Republicans, eh? Since the incident preceded the formation of the Tea Party?
The German economies capacity for goods and services is less because of their inefficient energy strategy than it otherwise would be.
So Germany's economic capacity is crippled by their energy costs - and Germany pays their workers twice as much as America does - and Germany still produces twice as many cars as the U.S. does?? And Germany serves as Europe's de facto banker?
Odd. Germany must not have the same caliber of investors, corporate executives, financial and stock market barons, and politicians that so burden America.
I hope nobody out there believes that workers in the various telecommunications corporations ain't never, ever...never ever never eavesdropped on other people's e-communications...for at least as long as there have been long-haul lines.
lolll...QA and QC, donchaknow.
So what if the NSA records everything? Intelligence is only as useful as political leaders want to make it. If political leaders want "actionable intelligence" then the reader should already know that if those political leaders are either crooked or of a totalitarian mindset - or both - and they want to "get" you, they will - even if they have to gin up that "actionable intelligence".
If reading of Stalin's and Mao's purges didn't teach you that, then the still-unsatisfied quest for WMDs and al Qaida training camps in Iraq should have.
What Americans should be worrying about is the threat to themselves that will result from the empowering of a wealthy few - the kind who believe that America isn't a "democracy", it is a "republic" and the only people who should be "represented" by its government are the wealthy (or "job creators", as they like to misname themselves now) - if the American people again put their stooges into elected office. The kind of people who want to destroy government's role as the protector of "the people" - the kind of people, that is, who insist that they are entitled to increase their rate of wealth accumulation even if that requires deregulation/the elimination of laws that now protect "the people"...
That's the kind of people who gin up intelligence...who set records for the dozens of times they say a variation of "I do not recall...". That's the kind of people who alter "the evidence"...be it ASCII or videotape.
"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate, and that he would focus on the 5–10% thought to be floating voters, he was articulating a commonly held opinion: that most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty.
Anybody who has ever been around a bunch of individuals who consider themselves to be "of the right", "well-to-do", and "powerful" knows better: Mitt was trying to represent himself as "one of them" by slamming as many of the American people as possible.
lolll...that's what those people holding those beliefs do, especially if they're consuming alcohol. You should hear 'em talk about "unions" (one drink), "labor" (two drinks), and a bizarre mixture of "entitlement spending" and "Perhaps there is something to eugenics..." (three drinks).
Can you think of any other field other than IT where being willing to put in the long hours that excellence sometimes demands results in efforts to dock your pay - but not those hours? That is incredible to me...to deliberately attempt to destroy the motivation of some of America's best and brightest. The results are easy to predict: Just project the same miserly approach upon America's research and development...upon American innovation, which an apt analog as so much of IT's efforts are aimed at doing something "better".
The truth is the United States of America doesn't want to be the world's technology leader anymore...our nation's business leaders - and so their pets in Congress - just want to control the world through their control of the dollar.
That goal is, in my opinion, unusually asinine even for a people and society increasingly constrained by greed given that the dollar can be blown to kingdom come with the simple declaration "Sorry, we don't take dollars anymore." (With the caveat that the statement must come from somebody who has the industrial infrastructure and position as a primary supplier in global trade required to back the value of their proposed dollar replacement.)
That goal of controlling the world through the control of the dollar...it is an open admission that Corporate America's leaders and the politicians who represent them are aware that either they're too lazy or they lack the competence and talent to lead in any other way. Or both.
Hard to believe that anything will change. After all, the threat of terrorism was out there and well-known prior to 9/11, but the airlines still shirked all defensive/offensive tactics (even basics like strengthened cockpit doors) in the name of profit - and they got away with it because they liberally dispensed cash to their lobbyists.
I daresay no one will argue an assertion that the liquor industry, as one example of an airport retailer, likewise has a significant lobbying presence in Washington, D.C....et al.
[Cyber Bureau bureaucrat] Ben Yisrael said. 'Anonymous doesn't have the skills to damage the country's vital infrastructure. And if that was its intention, then it wouldn't have announced the time of attack. It wants to create noise in the media about issues that are close to its heart,' he said."
On the one hand, a challenge response...on the other hand, a political response designed to defuse.
I guess they're soliciting a mixed response to their response.
a commitment to a “free and unfettered internet.”
We had a "free and unfettered internet"...and then the spammers-, virus coders-, and hackers-for-profit moved in.
Which is why I anticipate quite well organized resistance to it. It isn't as if those transfers to the Cayman Islands, Panama, and etc. are made in the form of truckloads of rolled-up quarters.
Depends on who you know.
But again, you're dealing with your average consumer who's as ignorant about the technology as this reporter, if not moreso.
Exactly! That's why the personal computer and the cell phone failed.
Given the amount of competition there is for the premium jobs and positions, the more states that take their populations out of the running, the merrier!
Well, unless you live in a state like Missouri and so face being culled from the competition before you ever enter school...
True; it is pointless to argue with the followers of Ayn Rand as the way the mass of them interpret and apply Ayn Rand's philosophy is "I'm in it for me and screw [you]!" (albeit "rational self-interest sounds better) where the set "you" contains an individual, a community, a state, a country, all the nations of the world, or the entire human race - whichever is more personally rewarding for the Rand devotee.
That is how they can justify everything from taking government handouts to poisoning you with pollution in an effort to increase their margins to insisting that those who take government handouts are leeches to those who pollute their own air should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; their entire universe encompasses "Me!" and no more.
On the flip side, if they use terms like "patriotism", "responsibility", or "loyalty", you can either try to figure out how they're going to benefit from your/the community's/the state's/the nation's compliance with the intended behavior associated with those terms or just start laughing.
It's Visual Basic all over again!
Yes, I rolled on the floor laughing when I read that...if you really want to destroy the utility/flexibility of Linux/Gnome, call some key part of it "Visual Basic" and before you know it, the language snobs will .NET it up...errrh, make it "better".
Methinks Microsoft is blowing up because it is huge, gigantic Microsoft and the guy running it has let that size and power go to his head to the extent that he thinks he not only can but is driving the consumer. I see that attitude in Windows 8, I see it in Office 2013 where people are actually describing Microsoft's attempt to change Office into a fee-based subscription service as "conditioning" the end-user..."conditioning", as if either the consumer were somebody's pet rat or Microsoft were a cult!!!
Somebody forgot to tell Ballmer that putting on the CEO suit of Microsoft is not equivalent to assuming godhead...
(Although come to think of it, that assumption of godhead has become quite common among American CEOs...)
In summary, specialists are pathetically lost when placed into sufficiently unfamiliar situations, but generalists can't do what specialists can do. Either is superior only in a given situation.
I tend to agree with you...a consequence of having had to clean up after too many people who believed that the approach(es) they learned in their specialty were applicable to all other areas/specialties.
Poor people like cash because they can buy "on the sly" avoiding taxation altogether.
Ah...so one should infer that - because it is "poor people" who use cash to "avoid taxation" - that the individuals who keep the tax havens in Panama, Lichtenstein, the Caymans, and so forth in business because of their desire to avoid taxes are the poor?
Or would it be wiser to disregard your assertion in favor of the notion that poor people use cash because they don't have checking accounts or debit and credit cards?
What does Microsoft do? "Promote" people who design clunkers like Windows Millennium and Vista into their PR department?