Apparently you haven't watched video. It's too slow and too loud for any kind of recon. Maybe one day, after many refinements, it will get there but not anytime soon. It does look like a damn fine pack mule though for a small, mobile squad.
As someone with no degree, who makes a shitload of money as a software developer, I can safely state that your 99% figure is pulled straight from your degreed ass. I'm even an independent contractor and I don't seem to have a problem getting gigs. I don't work with many other non-degreed developers (which are pretty rare) but I do work with people with all sorts of degrees that have little or nothing to do with Comp. Sci. Most people I have worked with in this business don't even look at the degree information unless they are hiring someone straight out of school because they realize it's worthless to determine worthiness. Degrees are used as a barrier to entry and nothing more. If you can find a way around the barrier, you're golden.
You need to read a lot more carefully than you currently do. Don't feel bad though because that's true with 95% of the people on this planet. There's a difference between RAPE, sexual assault, and sexual harrassment. Rape involves oral, genital, or anal penetration. Sexual assault can be anything from grabbing a woman's ass to rape. Harrassment can be a lewd whistle or look or inappropriate comment. The woman you quoted originally stated 30% had been RAPED. Not only that, the links you just posted contradict what she says by saying it's about 15% for all three of those things combined. Here, I'll post the quote since it seems you'll miss it if I don't: "A VA study found that about 15 percent of female veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who use VA health care experienced sexual assault or harassment during their military service." I assume you don't equate rape with whistles?
This is a liberal blog who, if anything, would have a anti-military slant. In their report they state the military received 2923 reports of sexual assault (which includes rape, of course). Keep in mind that's female AND male victims. There are over 200,000 women alone in the US military. Even if I'm willing to ignore the fact the stat includes men, 200000/2920 does not equal 30% of anything let alone just rapes. Oh and since you like the BBC, here's the same report from their mouths: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950439.stm. So I'm guessing she decided to take the approximation that up to 90% of sexual assaults are never reported and come up with 30% of all women are raped by multiplying 90 by 2920. Which still gets you to only a little over 26%. She playing very fast and loose with the numbers and calling everything rape instead of using the broader term of sexual assault.
To me it looks like Helen Benedict jazzed up the numbers to sell books. Low rape rates just aren't controversial enough for a military at war so she attacks a country who's not likely to ever hear of her bullshit. According to this: http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/stats.html civilian sexual assaults in the US are about 10% and again most sexual assaults (including rape) are not reported.
Don't believe everything you read especially when the person selling you the information is making money on its sale. I'm not denying there's a problem that needs to be solved but this woman is full of shit.
If the rapes aren't reported than how do you know how many there are? Are military rapes occurring at a higher rate than they do in civilian populations? Most civilian rapes and sexual assaults don't get reported either. As for the prosecutions of such cases, I offer no defense.
re: the MiG-25, just because there's no public record of it doesn't mean the DoD doesn't have a record of it (assuming it even happened). I would think that publishing such a failure could only improve their bottom line since they could use it to develop new planes or missiles to defeat the MiG-25. Oh, and as an Air Force veteran I can vouch for the fact that they are very good about communicating failures such as these. I've been in briefings where such strengths and weaknesses are reported. Ignorance could impede mission success and the Air Force HATES failed missions. It's extremely mission oriented.
Umm...the source of this quote is a Carlos Atkinson who as far as I can tell is some random dude who writes about military aircraft. I can find no source for where he gets this information from. So it hardly counts as "military documentation".
It's heresay. There's no documented official report of that happening. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, merely improbable. You have to also realize that Mach 3.2 is supposedly only possible on recon versions of the aircraft and that's with no weapons or extra fuel tanks mounted (i.e., empty). And seriously, the Sidewinder? Pick the oldest, slowest missile in the arsenal why don't you.
Yeah except for the fact that there's no such thing as an air superiority drone. We're not even close to having such a thing and I'm not even aware of an effort to make one because in truth, it's doubtful it could be done with today's technology.
A lot of US air to air missiles go mach 4. The MiG-25 is good for Mach 2.5. You could push it faster but it would destroy the engines, in which case you're not outrunning anything. Also the MiG-25 had a notoriously small range and to go Mach 2.5 would require full after burners so chances are good the plane would run out of fuel. In short, it's not very realistic to expect it to survive an enemy encounter by outrunning a missile.
Following your logic that people should fend for themselves, then so should your son. Tell that slack little fucker to get to work and make his way in the world. He hasn't contributed anything but drain and so long as that drain comes only from you then I'm fine with it. But I don't see why I should have to pay taxes to educate your fucking spawn or provide you with deductions especially when you never asked my permission to have the little shit in the first place.
Perhaps, but the majority of people who home-school do it for religious reasons (at least according to the government surveys). Of the half dozen or so I've ever talked to about it, every last one did it for religious reasons. Just saying...there's a good reason the stereotype exists.
I'm a centrist and don't like either party. As for being left leaning, I like my guns and I think the government should be required to run a balanced budget. Also, I never said Olberman doesn't take cheap shots but I actually almost never watch him. I've seen his show maybe twice ever. Beck I watch for comedic effect. How you can say he's just about basic conservatism is beyond me. He believes in the abolishment of the separation of church and state and says that was never the intention of the founding fathers. The guy's a fucking lunatic. I'm stunned that Fox employs him, even with their right-wing bias.
Beck is more extreme than EVERYONE. Even sensible conservatives admit that. If you cannot see that, I fear for you. The guy is a complete fruitcake. And Palin has taken the spotlight from Obama numerous times.
1) Banks are taken over by the government every year since the inception of the FDIC. The FDIC promptly sells them off (to some other bank). The ownership by the FDIC is for an extremely short period of time and the sale is usually worked out before they even take control of the failing bank.
2) What are all these other private businesses he's taking over?
3) Capitalism is merely ownership of private property (look it up if you don't believe me). Nothing more. Free markets and everything else is shit that's added on to the concept. You may be thinking of " laissez-faire" capitalism but that's not required to be a "capitalist" nation. In any event, there have never ever been truly free markets. It's not possible to have in the real world, only on paper. I can explain why but think it through and I'm sure you can figure it out.
4) The government telling businesses what they can and can't do has occurred since the inception of the country. It has always been and always will be and has occurred in every country that has existed in all of human history. This will never change. The only difference is to the degree that it occurs. Now, you may think that him telling companies like Goldman Sachs that they are in for new regulations is inappropriate but I don't. They fucked over the country and they are being rewarded for doing it. In other words, they are asking for it.
All the regulations that exist on the books exist for one of two reasons: 1) A lobbying group successfully managed buy enough senators/congressmen to get their way, or 2) a business or particular industry fucked over enough people that congress had to do something about it to keep their jobs.
Finally, neither party gives a flying shit about capitalism, they only care about getting re-elected. The Republicans talk a good game but did you think it was a free market, capitalist idea for Bush to require Medicare by law to NOT negotiate and to pay for drugs at the maximum price while simultaneously massively increasing national debt? Bush also had no problem with oil subsidies. Parties are playing a game and that game is to keep you so confused, you don't know which way is up and they are good at it. In the end, they are in it for themselves. And trust me, they need each other. Neither party could survive a year without the other to blame for everything.
Yes, it sounds so controversial to compare Obama to the USCP. However, the USCP isn't even communist, they're socialist. Even with that notion, you're going to have a hard time calling Obama a socialist since as far as I've heard he's never said poo about nationalizing anything. The closest he's come to that is with failing banks where FDIC comes in and takes over a bank. However, this is not new FDIC behavior and has been done since its inception. In any event, FDIC immediately sells off any banks it takes over. The only other thing was potentially with the car companies but again, this would have been a temporary measure. The fact that Obama wants de-emphasize NASA and encourage private investment pretty much puts your whole argument in the trash.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing all of that. I will also add that PACs are targeted for a specific cause whereas a corporation can have many offensive things that they are involved with. I'm not going to form a PAC that scrapes pennies for every possible thing that is offensive.
ROFL...comparing those two things is like comparing the flame on the end of a matchstick and the fusion reaction of the Sun. Nice try dipshit. Your either really fucking stupid or a troll. Either way, you're not worth my time.
"The problem here, again, isn't that corporations can get a lot of pull with their financial resources..."
But they do, so why do you pretend to ignore it? Yes, democracy isn't perfect -- there's no such thing as a perfect political system. However, it doesn't mean you can't tweak it to make it less disfunctional. And yes, I've heard all the slippery slope arguments but it's a sham argument used simply to eliminate ideas that are deemed to "sensible".
Finally, stating "once you take the money out of politics it's the media that controls the elections" is an entirely different discussion. I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about who has access to the politicians and can influence them.
"Ultimately, judging by your corporate rhetoric, you obviously will dislike whatever message corporations are likely to spread. Unfortunately, free speech doesn't mean "only speech I like," or at least shouldn't."
That's just it...their "free speech" effectively completely eliminates mine because I'll never be able to compete with them for dollars. To be fair, my free speech is almost nil now but this puts it cleanly and boldly in the "fuck off and die because you matter less than a pile of dog shit" category. But sure, go ahead and defend their rights. Personally, I don't view money as a form of speech but I guess that's anti-American, commie faggotry on my part.
You're not seriously stating that communism is purely a form of economics are you? Really? Interesting. All economic systems are inexplicably intertwined with politics and state vision. Always. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate hot from fire.
As for whether we're responsible for Cuba's current situation. Not directly. However, our stance enables their state to easily promote an us vs. them propaganda and makes it significantly easier to create a closed society. Our embargo policy doesn't work. It doesn't help Cuba and it doesn't help us. The best way to change Cuba is to welcome it to the modern world with open arms and give them a big, fat hug. Anything else is childish, ineffective, and a waste of time. Our policy cements their current state. Isn't it interesting after all these years that we still embargo them? Ever wonder why?
A lot of this is bad or incomplete information. I know for a fact they are airdropping water from helicopters hovering about 10ft above the ground. How do I know? I saw high def video of it in action. I assume the military is doing the same with food but I have not seen video to prove it. Also, Haiti is not Bosnia or Iraq. Haiti is an island so you can't just route a bunch of big-rigs down there and call it a day. Everything has to come through the one airport or come in via ground through the Dominican Republic which is a constantly blocked with traffic. It takes over 12 hours to get shit from the DR into Haiti. Distribution just adds more time onto that number. As for what Cuba is doing, I know they sent 72 doctors and medical supplies at a minimum. In the end, the Haitians are basically screwed. There's no agency of any kind designed to deal with something like this on this scale -- especially to an island with minimal infrastructure. Whatever help they get, they are very lucky to get but after it's all said and done, all they will be left with is just rubble in addition to the misery they had before the quake.
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if two different players generate the exact same data, it will be sent over bit for bit the same. However, the data sent from the players is NEVER THE SAME. They all have different methods for generating that data which is why there are lots of differences between blu-ray players. What is fair to say is that the price of the player doesn't necessarily equate to the best picture. The Oppo BDP-83 is $500 but performs as well as many $2 - 3k players. However, Oppo is a bit of an oddball in that regard and they have a crazy good reputation for high quality at a fair price. There are people who actually test this sort of thing and report what artifacting tests pass and fail between different blu-ray players. If they all generated the same data, they would all pass and fail the exact same tests. What is also fair to say is that, for many people, they don't give a shit since it's still a lot better than what a SD DVD player is going to produce regardless of whether it's the shittiest blu-ray player on the planet.
I have an Oppo BDP-83 and I've heard this claim before about their upscalling players but I think it's bullshit. The reason I think it's bullshit is that it's illegal to skip the FBI/Interpol warnings. All Oppo can do is get you to those warnings faster so you can move on to your movie quicker. Oppos are very fast so it's possible some people weren't looking at their screen when the warning came up but I can guarantee you it did (unless they have some weird bug with some specific disks). The only other possibility is that someone managed to hack the firmware but I haven't seen any hacked Oppo firmware out there.
I hate to break it to him but British chicks have no interest in American men unless they are black. I went there with a couple of friends back before we even tarnished our image so badly as a country under Bush and it was nothing doing. One of my friends was a very attractive guy (of latin decent) who women find easy to talk to and charming and he scores without any hassles in the US but he could barely get a British chick to talk to him. We did some experiments with going up to women in clubs and just asking them to dance to see how much we got rejected. It was quite the laugh comparing notes. In any event, we did notice black Americans didn't have the same problem at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you haven't watched video. It's too slow and too loud for any kind of recon. Maybe one day, after many refinements, it will get there but not anytime soon. It does look like a damn fine pack mule though for a small, mobile squad.
As someone with no degree, who makes a shitload of money as a software developer, I can safely state that your 99% figure is pulled straight from your degreed ass. I'm even an independent contractor and I don't seem to have a problem getting gigs. I don't work with many other non-degreed developers (which are pretty rare) but I do work with people with all sorts of degrees that have little or nothing to do with Comp. Sci. Most people I have worked with in this business don't even look at the degree information unless they are hiring someone straight out of school because they realize it's worthless to determine worthiness. Degrees are used as a barrier to entry and nothing more. If you can find a way around the barrier, you're golden.
You need to read a lot more carefully than you currently do. Don't feel bad though because that's true with 95% of the people on this planet. There's a difference between RAPE, sexual assault, and sexual harrassment. Rape involves oral, genital, or anal penetration. Sexual assault can be anything from grabbing a woman's ass to rape. Harrassment can be a lewd whistle or look or inappropriate comment. The woman you quoted originally stated 30% had been RAPED. Not only that, the links you just posted contradict what she says by saying it's about 15% for all three of those things combined. Here, I'll post the quote since it seems you'll miss it if I don't: "A VA study found that about 15 percent of female veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who use VA health care experienced sexual assault or harassment during their military service." I assume you don't equate rape with whistles?
Yeah, I call bullshit on that report unless you can find an actual DoD reference to back it up. Here's one reason I shouldn't believe it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html
This is a liberal blog who, if anything, would have a anti-military slant. In their report they state the military received 2923 reports of sexual assault (which includes rape, of course). Keep in mind that's female AND male victims. There are over 200,000 women alone in the US military. Even if I'm willing to ignore the fact the stat includes men, 200000/2920 does not equal 30% of anything let alone just rapes. Oh and since you like the BBC, here's the same report from their mouths: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950439.stm. So I'm guessing she decided to take the approximation that up to 90% of sexual assaults are never reported and come up with 30% of all women are raped by multiplying 90 by 2920. Which still gets you to only a little over 26%. She playing very fast and loose with the numbers and calling everything rape instead of using the broader term of sexual assault.
To me it looks like Helen Benedict jazzed up the numbers to sell books. Low rape rates just aren't controversial enough for a military at war so she attacks a country who's not likely to ever hear of her bullshit. According to this: http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/stats.html civilian sexual assaults in the US are about 10% and again most sexual assaults (including rape) are not reported.
Don't believe everything you read especially when the person selling you the information is making money on its sale. I'm not denying there's a problem that needs to be solved but this woman is full of shit.
If the rapes aren't reported than how do you know how many there are? Are military rapes occurring at a higher rate than they do in civilian populations? Most civilian rapes and sexual assaults don't get reported either. As for the prosecutions of such cases, I offer no defense.
re: the MiG-25, just because there's no public record of it doesn't mean the DoD doesn't have a record of it (assuming it even happened). I would think that publishing such a failure could only improve their bottom line since they could use it to develop new planes or missiles to defeat the MiG-25. Oh, and as an Air Force veteran I can vouch for the fact that they are very good about communicating failures such as these. I've been in briefings where such strengths and weaknesses are reported. Ignorance could impede mission success and the Air Force HATES failed missions. It's extremely mission oriented.
Umm...the source of this quote is a Carlos Atkinson who as far as I can tell is some random dude who writes about military aircraft. I can find no source for where he gets this information from. So it hardly counts as "military documentation".
It's heresay. There's no documented official report of that happening. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, merely improbable. You have to also realize that Mach 3.2 is supposedly only possible on recon versions of the aircraft and that's with no weapons or extra fuel tanks mounted (i.e., empty). And seriously, the Sidewinder? Pick the oldest, slowest missile in the arsenal why don't you.
Yeah except for the fact that there's no such thing as an air superiority drone. We're not even close to having such a thing and I'm not even aware of an effort to make one because in truth, it's doubtful it could be done with today's technology.
A lot of US air to air missiles go mach 4. The MiG-25 is good for Mach 2.5. You could push it faster but it would destroy the engines, in which case you're not outrunning anything. Also the MiG-25 had a notoriously small range and to go Mach 2.5 would require full after burners so chances are good the plane would run out of fuel. In short, it's not very realistic to expect it to survive an enemy encounter by outrunning a missile.
Following your logic that people should fend for themselves, then so should your son. Tell that slack little fucker to get to work and make his way in the world. He hasn't contributed anything but drain and so long as that drain comes only from you then I'm fine with it. But I don't see why I should have to pay taxes to educate your fucking spawn or provide you with deductions especially when you never asked my permission to have the little shit in the first place.
Perhaps, but the majority of people who home-school do it for religious reasons (at least according to the government surveys). Of the half dozen or so I've ever talked to about it, every last one did it for religious reasons. Just saying...there's a good reason the stereotype exists.
I'm a centrist and don't like either party. As for being left leaning, I like my guns and I think the government should be required to run a balanced budget. Also, I never said Olberman doesn't take cheap shots but I actually almost never watch him. I've seen his show maybe twice ever. Beck I watch for comedic effect. How you can say he's just about basic conservatism is beyond me. He believes in the abolishment of the separation of church and state and says that was never the intention of the founding fathers. The guy's a fucking lunatic. I'm stunned that Fox employs him, even with their right-wing bias.
Beck is more extreme than EVERYONE. Even sensible conservatives admit that. If you cannot see that, I fear for you. The guy is a complete fruitcake. And Palin has taken the spotlight from Obama numerous times.
1) Banks are taken over by the government every year since the inception of the FDIC. The FDIC promptly sells them off (to some other bank). The ownership by the FDIC is for an extremely short period of time and the sale is usually worked out before they even take control of the failing bank.
2) What are all these other private businesses he's taking over?
3) Capitalism is merely ownership of private property (look it up if you don't believe me). Nothing more. Free markets and everything else is shit that's added on to the concept. You may be thinking of " laissez-faire" capitalism but that's not required to be a "capitalist" nation. In any event, there have never ever been truly free markets. It's not possible to have in the real world, only on paper. I can explain why but think it through and I'm sure you can figure it out.
4) The government telling businesses what they can and can't do has occurred since the inception of the country. It has always been and always will be and has occurred in every country that has existed in all of human history. This will never change. The only difference is to the degree that it occurs. Now, you may think that him telling companies like Goldman Sachs that they are in for new regulations is inappropriate but I don't. They fucked over the country and they are being rewarded for doing it. In other words, they are asking for it.
All the regulations that exist on the books exist for one of two reasons: 1) A lobbying group successfully managed buy enough senators/congressmen to get their way, or 2) a business or particular industry fucked over enough people that congress had to do something about it to keep their jobs.
Finally, neither party gives a flying shit about capitalism, they only care about getting re-elected. The Republicans talk a good game but did you think it was a free market, capitalist idea for Bush to require Medicare by law to NOT negotiate and to pay for drugs at the maximum price while simultaneously massively increasing national debt? Bush also had no problem with oil subsidies. Parties are playing a game and that game is to keep you so confused, you don't know which way is up and they are good at it. In the end, they are in it for themselves. And trust me, they need each other. Neither party could survive a year without the other to blame for everything.
Apparently you don't know what fascist or communist means. Really, you should get your education from somewhere other than Fox News.
Yes, it sounds so controversial to compare Obama to the USCP. However, the USCP isn't even communist, they're socialist. Even with that notion, you're going to have a hard time calling Obama a socialist since as far as I've heard he's never said poo about nationalizing anything. The closest he's come to that is with failing banks where FDIC comes in and takes over a bank. However, this is not new FDIC behavior and has been done since its inception. In any event, FDIC immediately sells off any banks it takes over. The only other thing was potentially with the car companies but again, this would have been a temporary measure. The fact that Obama wants de-emphasize NASA and encourage private investment pretty much puts your whole argument in the trash.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing all of that. I will also add that PACs are targeted for a specific cause whereas a corporation can have many offensive things that they are involved with. I'm not going to form a PAC that scrapes pennies for every possible thing that is offensive.
ROFL...comparing those two things is like comparing the flame on the end of a matchstick and the fusion reaction of the Sun. Nice try dipshit. Your either really fucking stupid or a troll. Either way, you're not worth my time.
"The problem here, again, isn't that corporations can get a lot of pull with their financial resources..."
But they do, so why do you pretend to ignore it? Yes, democracy isn't perfect -- there's no such thing as a perfect political system. However, it doesn't mean you can't tweak it to make it less disfunctional. And yes, I've heard all the slippery slope arguments but it's a sham argument used simply to eliminate ideas that are deemed to "sensible".
Finally, stating "once you take the money out of politics it's the media that controls the elections" is an entirely different discussion. I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about who has access to the politicians and can influence them.
"Ultimately, judging by your corporate rhetoric, you obviously will dislike whatever message corporations are likely to spread. Unfortunately, free speech doesn't mean "only speech I like," or at least shouldn't."
That's just it...their "free speech" effectively completely eliminates mine because I'll never be able to compete with them for dollars. To be fair, my free speech is almost nil now but this puts it cleanly and boldly in the "fuck off and die because you matter less than a pile of dog shit" category. But sure, go ahead and defend their rights. Personally, I don't view money as a form of speech but I guess that's anti-American, commie faggotry on my part.
You're not seriously stating that communism is purely a form of economics are you? Really? Interesting. All economic systems are inexplicably intertwined with politics and state vision. Always. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate hot from fire.
As for whether we're responsible for Cuba's current situation. Not directly. However, our stance enables their state to easily promote an us vs. them propaganda and makes it significantly easier to create a closed society. Our embargo policy doesn't work. It doesn't help Cuba and it doesn't help us. The best way to change Cuba is to welcome it to the modern world with open arms and give them a big, fat hug. Anything else is childish, ineffective, and a waste of time. Our policy cements their current state. Isn't it interesting after all these years that we still embargo them? Ever wonder why?
A lot of this is bad or incomplete information. I know for a fact they are airdropping water from helicopters hovering about 10ft above the ground. How do I know? I saw high def video of it in action. I assume the military is doing the same with food but I have not seen video to prove it. Also, Haiti is not Bosnia or Iraq. Haiti is an island so you can't just route a bunch of big-rigs down there and call it a day. Everything has to come through the one airport or come in via ground through the Dominican Republic which is a constantly blocked with traffic. It takes over 12 hours to get shit from the DR into Haiti. Distribution just adds more time onto that number. As for what Cuba is doing, I know they sent 72 doctors and medical supplies at a minimum. In the end, the Haitians are basically screwed. There's no agency of any kind designed to deal with something like this on this scale -- especially to an island with minimal infrastructure. Whatever help they get, they are very lucky to get but after it's all said and done, all they will be left with is just rubble in addition to the misery they had before the quake.
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, if two different players generate the exact same data, it will be sent over bit for bit the same. However, the data sent from the players is NEVER THE SAME. They all have different methods for generating that data which is why there are lots of differences between blu-ray players. What is fair to say is that the price of the player doesn't necessarily equate to the best picture. The Oppo BDP-83 is $500 but performs as well as many $2 - 3k players. However, Oppo is a bit of an oddball in that regard and they have a crazy good reputation for high quality at a fair price. There are people who actually test this sort of thing and report what artifacting tests pass and fail between different blu-ray players. If they all generated the same data, they would all pass and fail the exact same tests. What is also fair to say is that, for many people, they don't give a shit since it's still a lot better than what a SD DVD player is going to produce regardless of whether it's the shittiest blu-ray player on the planet.
I have an Oppo BDP-83 and I've heard this claim before about their upscalling players but I think it's bullshit. The reason I think it's bullshit is that it's illegal to skip the FBI/Interpol warnings. All Oppo can do is get you to those warnings faster so you can move on to your movie quicker. Oppos are very fast so it's possible some people weren't looking at their screen when the warning came up but I can guarantee you it did (unless they have some weird bug with some specific disks). The only other possibility is that someone managed to hack the firmware but I haven't seen any hacked Oppo firmware out there.
I hate to break it to him but British chicks have no interest in American men unless they are black. I went there with a couple of friends back before we even tarnished our image so badly as a country under Bush and it was nothing doing. One of my friends was a very attractive guy (of latin decent) who women find easy to talk to and charming and he scores without any hassles in the US but he could barely get a British chick to talk to him. We did some experiments with going up to women in clubs and just asking them to dance to see how much we got rejected. It was quite the laugh comparing notes. In any event, we did notice black Americans didn't have the same problem at all.