What does it matter if Joe High school student is not aware of 5 or 6 rare elements? Most of these, the rare ones, are soon forgetten anyhow. Education is more about learning how to learn, than it is cramming "inert knowledge", as Whitehead would say.
I believe there is too much emphasis of "accurate" (newer) information, and less on the quality of the material or instruction. I am of the belief that a more traditional education serves the individual far better, even in today's high tech environment, than the more modern/"accurate" education. Furthermore, in the attempt to obtain the latest materials, they effectively dumb it down, ignoring the quality of the material. I think most every modern text book is pretty horrible. I'd rather have an older and outdated one (not to mention less P.C. stuff), than what is normally seen today.
The same can be said for "computers in the classroom". There is such an emphasis in education these days in "technology", that they ignore the important stuff. In one particular inner city system that i'm familiar with, the district spent a couple million dollars wiring each room with ISDN lines and the like, yet a good many of them were unable to use it because their electrical system couldn't even support the computers. In this same system, the kids are not even remotely literate. WTF are these educators thinking? A computer, or any technology for that matter, is not a cure all. Maybe, past a certain stage it can help. But for kids who can't read and write or do basic arithmatic, it is a poor return on dollars. Meanwhile, when you examine most private schools, they frequently have lower spending per student, and they pay their faculty significantly less across the board, yet they send the %95 to top schools.
Our public education system simply isn't rigourous enough; not enough is demanded of the students or teachers. It is premature, and most likely entirely unnecessary to worry about how old these text books are. The question is, does the system make students THINK and LEARN. It must be challenging above all else.
I've already posted to this thread numerous times, and it's getting tiresome. Short and sweet, most all of these things you mention ARE in fact credit. Thus they belong on a credit report. It is as simple as that.
You are taking credit for granted. Credit bureaus perform a valid and important function (as I've explained elsewhere in this thread).
There is nothing to explain. The countries which hold to such stringent credit laws are plagued with problems. It is significantly harder to get credit anywhere in Europe, more so in countries which are 'stricter'. Furthermore, these banks make most of their money from businesses, and relatively safe bets at that.
Think about it this way, who would you extend credit to:
a) Joe Schmoe who earns 20 dollars an hour, but has never held a job longer than 6months. Period.
b) Joe Schmoe who holds the same job, with a long history of prompt credit repayments...
Obviously, you would choose B, information is key. Those who are superficially (e.g., job, education, looks, dress, etc) closer to the fringes are FAR more likely to be turned down in such a system, or charged far higher interest rates. Bankers are risk averse, particularly given much of EU's relatively weak economy. This have been demonstrated and charted numerous times.
Citibank makes a significant amount of money in Europe (mostly in the truely prosperous countries, not Belgium (et. al)), but nothing compared to the credit generated profits from Americans, proportionately speaking. My "theory " holds plenty of water, and is a well known fact amongst anyone who really knows banking. Yes, the American credit bureaus could be improved in regards to its approach to the individual; some without significant cost; many, though, are not without substancial economic costs.
There is nothing to explain. The countries which hold to such stringent credit laws, are plagued with problems. It is significantly harder to get credit any where in Europe, more so in countries which are 'stricter'. Furthermore, these banks make most of their money from businesses, and relatively safe bets at that.
Think about it this way, who would you lend credit to:
a) Joe Schmoe who earns 20 dollars an hour, but has never held a job longer than 6months. Period.
b) Joe Schmoe who holds the same job, with a long history of prompt credit repayments.
Obviously, you would choose B, information is key. Those who are superficially (e.g., job, education, looks, dress, etc) closer to the fringes are FAR more likely to be turned down in such a system, or charged far higher interest rates. Bankers are risk averse, particularly given much of EU's relatively weak economy. This have been demonstrated and charted numerous times.
Citibank makes a significant amount of money in Europe (mostly in the truely prosperous countries, not Belgium (et. al)), but nothing compared to the credit generated profits from Americans, proportionately speaking. My "theory " holds plenty of water, and is a well known fact amongst anyone who really knows banking. Yes, the American credit bureaus could be improved in regards to its approach to the individual; some without significant cost; many, though, are not without substancial economic costs.
It is possible to not have your spending habits show up in a credit report; don't use credit. Credit cards are not the only form of credit, if you're recieving services before you've paid for it, that is in fact credit (e.g., most utility bills). The fact of the matter is that people take credit for granted, they don't realize that they are being extended credit.
Europe is not doing "just fine". Those countries which enforce such stringent credit reporting laws, are, invariably, much harder to obtain credit in (relative to the US). The truely prosperous EU countries do not have such laws.
Credit cards are not the only form of credit; in fact, many "credit cards" are not credit. These agencies don't check on you because they like to, they check on it because they're extending you credit. Utility companies have, in fact, extended you credit, if they're sending you a bill. You'll be hard pressed to find people who won't accept cash upfront. If you pay in cash, that is not credit, thus it does not go on your credit report. There are in fact ways to completely avoid showing up in a credit report, it's just a pain in the butt (people take credit for granted). If you are still worried about your "credit report", the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Federal law) allows you, the consumer, to both view and refute your credit report.
Credit agencies perform a valuable function in the economy, in that, they serve as a clearing house of information. Before you are extended credit, the creditor must have some idea as to how LIKELY you are to pay. How would you propose they do this, magic? They do it based on the 5 C's of credit: Conditions, Capacity, Collateral, Capital, Character. Your credit HISTORY goes along way towards illuminating many of these. Would you rather be judged on your ACTIONS, or on some artificial criterion (e.g., how you act, talk, dress, etc)? I don't know about you, but i'd rather have them judge me on WHAT i've done. Though I concede that they make some mistakes, many wish are harsh on the individual, it works on the aggregate. The mere fact that you and others have been burnt, does not mean you or creditors would be better off without it. Nor does it even necessarily mean that the system could be further optimized.
One thing you must remember, is that creditors are in the business of making money. This means that they want to lend as much money as they can, and get paid back at the highest rates possible. They worry about the aggregate. If there are enough individuals such as yourself, with only few minor "cosmetic" blemishes (if you are to be believed), the odds are high that someone will look past it, as you represent potential profits. Though I readily concede that the system occasionally hurts the individual, it works on the aggregate. Lacking mindreading devices, you should know that banning of credit reporting in its entirity would cause immeasurable damage on the aggregate.
I do not think the credit rating agencies are perfect, however you do have a choice. You can choose not to participate with credit agencies. Furthermore, did you ever consider that by denying credit reports to financial agencies that you are effectively denying credit opportunities to others. It is a credit history, which speaks volumes for how likely the individual is to pay up. Would you rather loan officers and creditors put more weight in how you act, dress, talk, etc? The 4Cs of credit? The laws in that you describe have serious consequences; a national bank which only discloses >3 missed consecutive payments is NOT enough information. In effect, you would (as EU nations do) remove the choice from the consumer, by removing many good credit opportunities and increasing the number of frauds. Atleast, in the US, you have the choice to participate in the system.
I think this Intel serial number debate is silliness too. I could understand if EU wishes full disclosure of such privacy issues; though, the P3 id is pretty insignificant. The consumer has multiple ways to restrict such information. Identifier is a RESOURCE. One that your software does not need to use. The consumer has a choice, as long as he is provided with pertinant information I have no problem with it. The government argument that it would affect EU national security on the aggregate if Joe Consumer were to buy it....well I just don't buy that. This strikes me as petty nationalism, a strike against Americanism, protectionism, in the name of "privacy". If the US were to take similar steps against, say, Toyota for putting GPS units in their cars (with the possibility for "tracking"), we never hear the end of it. These same people would call it racism and protectionism (et. al)--such hypocrisy.
When we "still" let poor people in, excuse me?
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 3
Not true. US immigration policies haven't stopped admitting poor people, in fact, compared to most other developed nations we're one of the worse (or best, depending on your perspective) in that regard. If anything, the US needs to tighten them up more. Other countries such as Canada atleast have a system in place where immigrants tend to be educated and mobile (or atleast have a good track record of success). Furthermore, when it comes to engineers and what not, we restrict them in the name of protectionism--very stupid. Damn few of our immigrants have much in the way of skills, it's a shame.
Einstein did NOT develop the Atom bomb. You might say he sparked it, and layed __some_ of the fundamental groundwork. Though the development of the Atom bomb was probably inevitable, the Manhattan project was something special. The source of the intellect (e.g., Jewish Germans during WWII) is of little relevance; it is the forces that fostered the development that sets us apart.
I'm not convinced that societies/government, such as China and the USSR, are capable of such fundamental leaps in the scale of the manhattan project. In fact, The USSR did, after all, feel the need to steal our technology. Very little technological advancement came out of the USSR in its prime. The same can be said for China of yesterday. However, I believe China is making fundamental changes towards a more free and open society and towards capitalism, as they approach this, they will become the next superpower.
Well no, supposedly this technology is pretty much the same technology that the Russians and the US used on the 60s. Though I wouldn't put the Chinese beyond "stealing" our technology, I see no reason to believe that this technology necessarily had to come from us directly. Afterall, there was significant technology transfer from the Russia, and alot of the 60s technology is pretty much common knowledge now. Furthermore, the Chinese have some excellent engineers, and significant pockets of technological development.
One question: What do you think people said of Germany before WWI? You're making a very general statement about >1billion people over an extended period of time, extremely foolish. Furthermore, your view of the US is highly distorted. Get Real.
Yours Truly, FallLine (with 2 feet firmly planted on the ground)
China is underestimated, but to say that an attack on the internet is going to cripple the US military is simply foolish. You could fry every backbone on the internet, and the US military would keep on ticking. Even our commercial economy would remain relatively unimpeded (at the current time atleast); the internet represents a relatively small portion of our GDP. Our military industrial capacity is still huge--which is what really determines war (baring nukes); However, something along the lines of an EMP (e.g.: wipe out phone networks, switching stations, etc) is an entirely different story, and has the potential to mess us (or anyone) up badly. Even if all US military hardware is shielded, a complete failure in civilian electronics would cripple our ability to move troops, produce machinery, etc--in short it would be an excellent "first strike"...but an internet attack is nothing close to that.
Anyways, despite China's immense military power and their propensity to trample on their citizen's rights, I don't believe they have any interest in going to war with us. Worst Case: Mutually Assured Destriction, the end. Best Case: Conventional arms war (which strikes me as implausible)--the US has an edge in many ways. Namely, our industrial capacity is significantly larger (e.g.: the ability to turn out more tanks, planes, trucks, bombs, artillery, faster). It would be an ugly war no matter what; not in anyone's best interest. China is probably going to be the world's next great super power (besides the US) if things keep on going the way the way they have been. Why would their stable leadership want to do anything so brash?
What does my email have to do with anything? What do you mean?
When I say "closer", I mean it follows with what I've studied (been a couple years--but it was supported), while your numbers have little support in anything other than certain liberal organizations with political objectives. However, knowing what I know about their general agricultral methods and having a grasp of history (just look at European populations at the same stage in agriculture) can lend itself to some reasonable approximations. Ignoring your so called mathematical models for a second, you mind telling me how they supported 20m people? The earliest settlers simply never did full population counts, it was largely guess work. Previous studies, the world around, have showed just how difficult it was to support populations on next to non-existant agricultural methods (there is no significant evidence to indicate otherwise).
Furthermore, It is a mistake to judge people so many years earlier on today's value system. Yes, I think genocide is a tragedy and wrong, but to say these people are "evil" across the board is a bit of a stretch, particularly when nothing more than a handfull of these murders can be confirmed. The Indians killed people too. That does not mean i'm going to write them off as "bad", no more than I'm going to say "dead white men" are evil. To further stretch this "moral shadow" across to modern generations is an excercise in futility, not to mention it's harmful side-effects. The fact of the matter is that its hard to look at any group and NOT see some huge human rights abuses in its past; holding it to people achieves no good end. We, Americans, do not extoll the virtues of our genetic or cultural makeup (we are not genetically any more benign than anyone else), in our laws and courts we hope to maintain a just society. In contrast, when I attack China, I am attacking their system of law (or lack thereof) and specific individuals that are still very much in power (e.g.: Tieneman square, Mao Tse Tung, Falung Gung (sic^3), etc). I have no problem with similar attacks on our justice system.
Ok, I'll admit Office* isn't horrible. But come on, what have they really done to make life easier for the average user. Sure, they've extended a significant number of features, but I bet that less than %5 of their users really need this. What is the price you pay for this? Continual upgrades--increased software cost. Growing size--more bugs--slower loading times--increased hardware cost--more employee training--wasted man hours shoot through the roof. How many people can really argue that Office2k has really saved them all that much time? It may appear prettier and easier to use, but i'm convinced that the actual learning curve to really using it (not just like "Hello World" of Office documents) has only steepened--the interface has gotten backwards (though their help system is actually pretty decent). And what about all this talk about embedded documents and seemless intergration and what not. To this day, including even O2K, mail merge and embedded documents STILL FAIL about 20% of the time on me on sizable documents. Excel -- Is this really any easier better than Lotus123? Access (sucks)? Powerpoint...well this is actually usefull, but its got tons of bugs (not just like crashing--but like wont-work-no-matter-what-you-do kinda bugs). Outlook -- kinda cool and nice to have bundled --but again, many bugs (try importing and exporting). It is not just me either, I know that in terms of support considerations, life is harder in many ways--things break inextricably in Office.
...sorry for ranting/running on but I feel people give it far too much credit. I've been using spreadsheets and word processing since before Wordstar and Lotus123, and ignoring the snazzier graphics/printing its net effect is pretty much negative. What annoys me most is that it is unnecessary--I know they could do better. Though I admit, they don't have any competition in terms of a complete Office Suite. Maybe Star Office...but they seem to be falling into a similar trap....but I digress....
Gore made that statement to step on as few toes as possible. He didn't say that Microsoft deserves to be split, or anything to that effect. Gore made a general statement about anti-trust law, which will allow him to backout when it is politically expedient. (e.g.: MS did not use its dominance, therefore I now support MS...) While I don't think Gore is as ethically challenged as Clinton, I suspect he'll do the most expedient thing. When and if public opinion shifts, he'll follow it in proportion with the amount of harm that MS can do him (e.g.: by supporting him or his competition). You just watch...
I suspect 1m is a lot closer to the truth. The majority of Indians were still very much in the hunter-gatherer stage at the time. Agriculture was very primitive and rare, they lacked domesticated animals to plow the land. Where is the evidence of vast arrable fields and what not? Most of the land had to be cleared of trees by the settlers, and they didn't have to support 20m people on it even. Are you going to tell me that Western methods were less efficient? These claims go against more than just the statistics themselves, they go against everything we know about the development of agriculture.
The simple fact of the matter is that you can attribute the vast majority of these deaths to inadvertant spreading of diseases. A few cases of bounties (who paid out 100m X $bounty?), or doctors helping the spread of diseases does not justify these numbers. They are simply unnecessary. The Indians lacked simple sanitary and medicinal practices--any exposure could wipe out pockets relatively quickly. It is not that I believe that Europeans were totally benign, but rather there are far more probable reasons and conditions here--which exclude extreme malice as a cause.
I am not a huge fan of Walt Disney nor do I care for Katz, but every indication I have had is that Walt had a vision which he sincerely believed in. He strove for excellence, not just the bottom line. Gates on the otherhand, strikes me as artless. He is certainly a smart and very driven man, but I've yet to see any evidence of him as a real visionary. I believe he is driven not so driven by a firm destination, but rather a desire sit on top of everyone else, regardless of how many people he must step on to stay there. In short, an opportunist and a bully.
Please name something that Gates has really BROUGHT forth into this world. MSDOS? BASIC? Windows? And no, I'm not talking about mere invention. I am of the belief that merely inventing a concept is relatively minor part, a first step. Though I'm not a huge fan of say Steven Jobs, I respect him for MAKING the GUI (amongst other things) happen even though PARC technically invented it. Just as I respect Ford, and many others. They made definite contributions to this world by force of personality, willingess to take risk, vision, perseverence, and other such qualities. If Gates ever had such a sparc, it was in his early days (e.g.: Altair) and long since gone. The lack of significant improvement in his product line, his business practices, and his desire to do the most expediant thing speak directly to this.
These acts were not committed by modern America. Furthermore, most of these deaths occurred as a result of DISEASE, which is NOT the same at all. Cultural Revolution on the other hand targeted huge sectors of the population in RECENT history.
I'm not going to claim that America is perfect, but to compare us to a bunch of thugs is a load of bullshit. America has simply never, as a country, executed whole groups of people (the Japanese internment is as close as you can get--entirely different). If you don't appreciate the difference you don't deserve to live in the US.
Their population wasn't anywhere even approaching 100million. Ignoring logistics, do your math. There is no way that many could have been killed over a period of so many generations. Furthermore, even if you assume they had populations that size which would enable it, it is still highly highly improbable.
Consider these: a) Their populations were highly distributed--no cities. Makes for a difficult target.
b) A figure this size, over a period of a couple generations requires near holocaust devotion and efficiency. Remember, we lacked automatic rifles and what not at the time. Why would our relatively small populations want to eliminate them with such determination? Consider these facts, you would have to assume that it was the sole objective of the settlers, which is nonsense.
c) Western diseases and habits would have, and did, kill them far swifter than any group at that time could have hoped.
d) Because their mortality rates were too high, a small population could not have procreated that swiftly enough. Especially considering the fact that they're presumably being uprooted.
...I wish people would CHALLENGE what they hear, instead of just swallowing it whole and without inspection. 100million is a LOAD and a half.
I do not believe that all these countries are the same today. Though most still bear witness to communist occupation, some of the greyness has lessed (more so in countries with shorter/weaker soviet rule). I believe that it will take a generation or two before things are back in shape. For capitalism to thrive it requires more than laws which allow for it, it requires: a people who are willing and believe in it, a government which is stable, a system of courts which support it, vital learning institutions, etc. I know some people who are (or who have tried) to conduct business in Russia, and other places, the majority of the people simply lack the necessary work ethic. It is very difficult to conduct business when you can't trust your own employees, let alone your suppliers (et. al).
No, not just people who have moved here. My experiences include students (exchange programs, college, etc) , athletes (traveling here to compete in tournaments) , businessmen, engineers who are working on a visa, and my own travel to eastern europe. Futhermore, if you talk to virtually anyone who has traveled to these communist states in their hayday (even today), they'll describe just how depressing they are...it is a certain joyless/dead existence. This is particularly true for those who've had the pleasure of traveling through berlin, they're polar opposites. It is more than just poverty too, Mexico and much of Latin America is equally poor, yet you don't see the same behavior. The arts, religion, fairs, and other social activities are all crushed in the name of the "people". These observations are decidely one way too. (e.g.: Western travelers are sickened by communisms effect on the people, while Easterners invariably are impressed by capitalism)
Slashdot Mirror
What does it matter if Joe High school student is not aware of 5 or 6 rare elements? Most of these, the rare ones, are soon forgetten anyhow. Education is more about learning how to learn, than it is cramming "inert knowledge", as Whitehead would say.
I believe there is too much emphasis of "accurate" (newer) information, and less on the quality of the material or instruction. I am of the belief that a more traditional education serves the individual far better, even in today's high tech environment, than the more modern/"accurate" education. Furthermore, in the attempt to obtain the latest materials, they effectively dumb it down, ignoring the quality of the material. I think most every modern text book is pretty horrible. I'd rather have an older and outdated one (not to mention less P.C. stuff), than what is normally seen today.
The same can be said for "computers in the classroom". There is such an emphasis in education these days in "technology", that they ignore the important stuff. In one particular inner city system that i'm familiar with, the district spent a couple million dollars wiring each room with ISDN lines and the like, yet a good many of them were unable to use it because their electrical system couldn't even support the computers. In this same system, the kids are not even remotely literate. WTF are these educators thinking? A computer, or any technology for that matter, is not a cure all. Maybe, past a certain stage it can help. But for kids who can't read and write or do basic arithmatic, it is a poor return on dollars. Meanwhile, when you examine most private schools, they frequently have lower spending per student, and they pay their faculty significantly less across the board, yet they send the %95 to top schools.
Our public education system simply isn't rigourous enough; not enough is demanded of the students or teachers. It is premature, and most likely entirely unnecessary to worry about how old these text books are. The question is, does the system make students THINK and LEARN. It must be challenging above all else.
I've already posted to this thread numerous times, and it's getting tiresome. Short and sweet, most all of these things you mention ARE in fact credit. Thus they belong on a credit report. It is as simple as that.
You are taking credit for granted. Credit bureaus perform a valid and important function (as I've explained elsewhere in this thread).
There is nothing to explain. The countries which hold to such stringent credit laws are plagued with problems. It is significantly harder to get credit anywhere in Europe, more so in countries which are 'stricter'. Furthermore, these banks make most of their money from businesses, and relatively safe bets at that.
Think about it this way, who would you extend credit to:
a) Joe Schmoe who earns 20 dollars an hour, but has never held a job longer than 6months. Period.
b) Joe Schmoe who holds the same job, with a long history of prompt credit repayments...
Obviously, you would choose B, information is key. Those who are superficially (e.g., job, education, looks, dress, etc) closer to the fringes are FAR more likely to be turned down in such a system, or charged far higher interest rates. Bankers are risk averse, particularly given much of EU's relatively weak economy. This have been demonstrated and charted numerous times.
Citibank makes a significant amount of money in Europe (mostly in the truely prosperous countries, not Belgium (et. al)), but nothing compared to the credit generated profits from Americans, proportionately speaking. My "theory " holds plenty of water, and is a well known fact amongst anyone who really knows banking. Yes, the American credit bureaus could be improved in regards to its approach to the individual; some without significant cost; many, though, are not without substancial economic costs.
There is nothing to explain. The countries which hold to such stringent credit laws, are plagued with problems. It is significantly harder to get credit any where in Europe, more so in countries which are 'stricter'. Furthermore, these banks make most of their money from businesses, and relatively safe bets at that.
Think about it this way, who would you lend credit to:
a) Joe Schmoe who earns 20 dollars an hour, but has never held a job longer than 6months. Period.
b) Joe Schmoe who holds the same job, with a long history of prompt credit repayments.
Obviously, you would choose B, information is key. Those who are superficially (e.g., job, education, looks, dress, etc) closer to the fringes are FAR more likely to be turned down in such a system, or charged far higher interest rates. Bankers are risk averse, particularly given much of EU's relatively weak economy. This have been demonstrated and charted numerous times.
Citibank makes a significant amount of money in Europe (mostly in the truely prosperous countries, not Belgium (et. al)), but nothing compared to the credit generated profits from Americans, proportionately speaking. My "theory " holds plenty of water, and is a well known fact amongst anyone who really knows banking. Yes, the American credit bureaus could be improved in regards to its approach to the individual; some without significant cost; many, though, are not without substancial economic costs.
It is possible to not have your spending habits show up in a credit report; don't use credit. Credit cards are not the only form of credit, if you're recieving services before you've paid for it, that is in fact credit (e.g., most utility bills). The fact of the matter is that people take credit for granted, they don't realize that they are being extended credit.
Europe is not doing "just fine". Those countries which enforce such stringent credit reporting laws, are, invariably, much harder to obtain credit in (relative to the US). The truely prosperous EU countries do not have such laws.
Credit cards are not the only form of credit; in fact, many "credit cards" are not credit. These agencies don't check on you because they like to, they check on it because they're extending you credit. Utility companies have, in fact, extended you credit, if they're sending you a bill. You'll be hard pressed to find people who won't accept cash upfront. If you pay in cash, that is not credit, thus it does not go on your credit report. There are in fact ways to completely avoid showing up in a credit report, it's just a pain in the butt (people take credit for granted). If you are still worried about your "credit report", the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Federal law) allows you, the consumer, to both view and refute your credit report.
Credit agencies perform a valuable function in the economy, in that, they serve as a clearing house of information. Before you are extended credit, the creditor must have some idea as to how LIKELY you are to pay. How would you propose they do this, magic? They do it based on the 5 C's of credit: Conditions, Capacity, Collateral, Capital, Character. Your credit HISTORY goes along way towards illuminating many of these. Would you rather be judged on your ACTIONS, or on some artificial criterion (e.g., how you act, talk, dress, etc)? I don't know about you, but i'd rather have them judge me on WHAT i've done.
Though I concede that they make some mistakes, many wish are harsh on the individual, it works on the aggregate. The mere fact that you and others have been burnt, does not mean you or creditors would be better off without it. Nor does it even necessarily mean that the system could be further optimized.
One thing you must remember, is that creditors are in the business of making money. This means that they want to lend as much money as they can, and get paid back at the highest rates possible. They worry about the aggregate. If there are enough individuals such as yourself, with only few minor "cosmetic" blemishes (if you are to be believed), the odds are high that someone will look past it, as you represent potential profits. Though I readily concede that the system occasionally hurts the individual, it works on the aggregate. Lacking mindreading devices, you should know that banning of credit reporting in its entirity would cause immeasurable damage on the aggregate.
I do not think the credit rating agencies are perfect, however you do have a choice. You can choose not to participate with credit agencies. Furthermore, did you ever consider that by denying credit reports to financial agencies that you are effectively denying credit opportunities to others. It is a credit history, which speaks volumes for how likely the individual is to pay up. Would you rather loan officers and creditors put more weight in how you act, dress, talk, etc? The 4Cs of credit? The laws in that you describe have serious consequences; a national bank which only discloses >3 missed consecutive payments is NOT enough information. In effect, you would (as EU nations do) remove the choice from the consumer, by removing many good credit opportunities and increasing the number of frauds. Atleast, in the US, you have the choice to participate in the system.
I think this Intel serial number debate is silliness too. I could understand if EU wishes full disclosure of such privacy issues; though, the P3 id is pretty insignificant. The consumer has multiple ways to restrict such information. Identifier is a RESOURCE. One that your software does not need to use. The consumer has a choice, as long as he is provided with pertinant information I have no problem with it. The government argument that it would affect EU national security on the aggregate if Joe Consumer were to buy it....well I just don't buy that. This strikes me as petty nationalism, a strike against Americanism, protectionism, in the name of "privacy". If the US were to take similar steps against, say, Toyota for putting GPS units in their cars (with the possibility for "tracking"), we never hear the end of it. These same people would call it racism and protectionism (et. al)--such hypocrisy.
Not true. US immigration policies haven't stopped admitting poor people, in fact, compared to most other developed nations we're one of the worse (or best, depending on your perspective) in that regard. If anything, the US needs to tighten them up more. Other countries such as Canada atleast have a system in place where immigrants tend to be educated and mobile (or atleast have a good track record of success). Furthermore, when it comes to engineers and what not, we restrict them in the name of protectionism--very stupid. Damn few of our immigrants have much in the way of skills, it's a shame.
Einstein did NOT develop the Atom bomb. You might say he sparked it, and layed __some_ of the fundamental groundwork. Though the development of the Atom bomb was probably inevitable, the Manhattan project was something special. The source of the intellect (e.g., Jewish Germans during WWII) is of little relevance; it is the forces that fostered the development that sets us apart.
I'm not convinced that societies/government, such as China and the USSR, are capable of such fundamental leaps in the scale of the manhattan project. In fact, The USSR did, after all, feel the need to steal our technology. Very little technological advancement came out of the USSR in its prime. The same can be said for China of yesterday. However, I believe China is making fundamental changes towards a more free and open society and towards capitalism, as they approach this, they will become the next superpower.
Well no, supposedly this technology is pretty much the same technology that the Russians and the US used on the 60s. Though I wouldn't put the Chinese beyond "stealing" our technology, I see no reason to believe that this technology necessarily had to come from us directly. Afterall, there was significant technology transfer from the Russia, and alot of the 60s technology is pretty much common knowledge now. Furthermore, the Chinese have some excellent engineers, and significant pockets of technological development.
topic. =)
One question: What do you think people said of Germany before WWI? You're making a very general statement about >1billion people over an extended period of time, extremely foolish. Furthermore, your view of the US is highly distorted. Get Real.
Yours Truly,
FallLine (with 2 feet firmly planted on the ground)
China is underestimated, but to say that an attack on the internet is going to cripple the US military is simply foolish. You could fry every backbone on the internet, and the US military would keep on ticking. Even our commercial economy would remain relatively unimpeded (at the current time atleast); the internet represents a relatively small portion of our GDP. Our military industrial capacity is still huge--which is what really determines war (baring nukes); However, something along the lines of an EMP (e.g.: wipe out phone networks, switching stations, etc) is an entirely different story, and has the potential to mess us (or anyone) up badly. Even if all US military hardware is shielded, a complete failure in civilian electronics would cripple our ability to move troops, produce machinery, etc--in short it would be an excellent "first strike"...but an internet attack is nothing close to that.
Anyways, despite China's immense military power and their propensity to trample on their citizen's rights, I don't believe they have any interest in going to war with us. Worst Case: Mutually Assured Destriction, the end. Best Case: Conventional arms war (which strikes me as implausible)--the US has an edge in many ways. Namely, our industrial capacity is significantly larger (e.g.: the ability to turn out more tanks, planes, trucks, bombs, artillery, faster). It would be an ugly war no matter what; not in anyone's best interest. China is probably going to be the world's next great super power (besides the US) if things keep on going the way the way they have been. Why would their stable leadership want to do anything so brash?
What does my email have to do with anything? What do you mean?
When I say "closer", I mean it follows with what I've studied (been a couple years--but it was supported), while your numbers have little support in anything other than certain liberal organizations with political objectives. However, knowing what I know about their general agricultral methods and having a grasp of history (just look at European populations at the same stage in agriculture) can lend itself to some reasonable approximations. Ignoring your so called mathematical models for a second, you mind telling me how they supported 20m people? The earliest settlers simply never did full population counts, it was largely guess work. Previous studies, the world around, have showed just how difficult it was to support populations on next to non-existant agricultural methods (there is no significant evidence to indicate otherwise).
Furthermore, It is a mistake to judge people so many years earlier on today's value system. Yes, I think genocide is a tragedy and wrong, but to say these people are "evil" across the board is a bit of a stretch, particularly when nothing more than a handfull of these murders can be confirmed. The Indians killed people too. That does not mean i'm going to write them off as "bad", no more than I'm going to say "dead white men" are evil. To further stretch this "moral shadow" across to modern generations is an excercise in futility, not to mention it's harmful side-effects. The fact of the matter is that its hard to look at any group and NOT see some huge human rights abuses in its past; holding it to people achieves no good end. We, Americans, do not extoll the virtues of our genetic or cultural makeup (we are not genetically any more benign than anyone else), in our laws and courts we hope to maintain a just society. In contrast, when I attack China, I am attacking their system of law (or lack thereof) and specific individuals that are still very much in power (e.g.: Tieneman square, Mao Tse Tung, Falung Gung (sic^3), etc). I have no problem with similar attacks on our justice system.
Ok, I'll admit Office* isn't horrible. But come on, what have they really done to make life easier for the average user. Sure, they've extended a significant number of features, but I bet that less than %5 of their users really need this. What is the price you pay for this? Continual upgrades--increased software cost. Growing size--more bugs--slower loading times--increased hardware cost--more employee training--wasted man hours shoot through the roof. How many people can really argue that Office2k has really saved them all that much time? It may appear prettier and easier to use, but i'm convinced that the actual learning curve to really using it (not just like "Hello World" of Office documents) has only steepened--the interface has gotten backwards (though their help system is actually pretty decent). And what about all this talk about embedded documents and seemless intergration and what not. To this day, including even O2K, mail merge and embedded documents STILL FAIL about 20% of the time on me on sizable documents. Excel -- Is this really any easier better than Lotus123? Access (sucks)? Powerpoint...well this is actually usefull, but its got tons of bugs (not just like crashing--but like wont-work-no-matter-what-you-do kinda bugs). Outlook -- kinda cool and nice to have bundled --but again, many bugs (try importing and exporting). It is not just me either, I know that in terms of support considerations, life is harder in many ways--things break inextricably in Office.
...sorry for ranting/running on but I feel people give it far too much credit. I've been using spreadsheets and word processing since before Wordstar and Lotus123, and ignoring the snazzier graphics/printing its net effect is pretty much negative. What annoys me most is that it is unnecessary--I know they could do better. Though I admit, they don't have any competition in terms of a complete Office Suite. Maybe Star Office...but they seem to be falling into a similar trap....but I digress....
Gore made that statement to step on as few toes as possible. He didn't say that Microsoft deserves to be split, or anything to that effect. Gore made a general statement about anti-trust law, which will allow him to backout when it is politically expedient. (e.g.: MS did not use its dominance, therefore I now support MS...) While I don't think Gore is as ethically challenged as Clinton, I suspect he'll do the most expedient thing. When and if public opinion shifts, he'll follow it in proportion with the amount of harm that MS can do him (e.g.: by supporting him or his competition). You just watch...
I suspect 1m is a lot closer to the truth.
The majority of Indians were still very much in the hunter-gatherer stage at the time. Agriculture was very primitive and rare, they lacked domesticated animals to plow the land. Where is the evidence of vast arrable fields and what not? Most of the land had to be cleared of trees by the settlers, and they didn't have to support 20m people on it even. Are you going to tell me that Western methods were less efficient? These claims go against more than just the statistics themselves, they go against everything we know about the development of agriculture.
The simple fact of the matter is that you can attribute the vast majority of these deaths to inadvertant spreading of diseases. A few cases of bounties (who paid out 100m X $bounty?), or doctors helping the spread of diseases does not justify these numbers. They are simply unnecessary. The Indians lacked simple sanitary and medicinal practices--any exposure could wipe out pockets relatively quickly. It is not that I believe that Europeans were totally benign, but rather there are far more probable reasons and conditions here--which exclude extreme malice as a cause.
I am not a huge fan of Walt Disney nor do I care for Katz, but every indication I have had is that Walt had a vision which he sincerely believed in. He strove for excellence, not just the bottom line. Gates on the otherhand, strikes me as artless. He is certainly a smart and very driven man, but I've yet to see any evidence of him as a real visionary. I believe he is driven not so driven by a firm destination, but rather a desire sit on top of everyone else, regardless of how many people he must step on to stay there. In short, an opportunist and a bully.
Please name something that Gates has really BROUGHT forth into this world. MSDOS? BASIC? Windows? And no, I'm not talking about mere invention. I am of the belief that merely inventing a concept is relatively minor part, a first step. Though I'm not a huge fan of say Steven Jobs, I respect him for MAKING the GUI (amongst other things) happen even though PARC technically invented it. Just as I respect Ford, and many others. They made definite contributions to this world by force of personality, willingess to take risk, vision, perseverence, and other such qualities. If Gates ever had such a sparc, it was in his early days (e.g.: Altair) and long since gone. The lack of significant improvement in his product line, his business practices, and his desire to do the most expediant thing speak directly to this.
These acts were not committed by modern America. Furthermore, most of these deaths occurred as a result of DISEASE, which is NOT the same at all. Cultural Revolution on the other hand targeted huge sectors of the population in RECENT history.
I'm not going to claim that America is perfect, but to compare us to a bunch of thugs is a load of bullshit. America has simply never, as a country, executed whole groups of people (the Japanese internment is as close as you can get--entirely different). If you don't appreciate the difference you don't deserve to live in the US.
Hi, I'm curious, where do you live now? =)
...small world?
Their population wasn't anywhere even approaching 100million. Ignoring logistics, do your math. There is no way that many could have been killed over a period of so many generations. Furthermore, even if you assume they had populations that size which would enable it, it is still highly highly improbable.
Consider these:
a) Their populations were highly distributed--no cities. Makes for a difficult target.
b) A figure this size, over a period of a couple generations requires near holocaust devotion and efficiency. Remember, we lacked automatic rifles and what not at the time. Why would our relatively small populations want to eliminate them with such determination? Consider these facts, you would have to assume that it was the sole objective of the settlers, which is nonsense.
c) Western diseases and habits would have, and did, kill them far swifter than any group at that time could have hoped.
d) Because their mortality rates were too high, a small population could not have procreated that swiftly enough. Especially considering the fact that they're presumably being uprooted.
...I wish people would CHALLENGE what they hear, instead of just swallowing it whole and without inspection. 100million is a LOAD and a half.
I do not believe that all these countries are the same today. Though most still bear witness to communist occupation, some of the greyness has lessed (more so in countries with shorter/weaker soviet rule). I believe that it will take a generation or two before things are back in shape. For capitalism to thrive it requires more than laws which allow for it, it requires: a people who are willing and believe in it, a government which is stable, a system of courts which support it, vital learning institutions, etc. I know some people who are (or who have tried) to conduct business in Russia, and other places, the majority of the people simply lack the necessary work ethic. It is very difficult to conduct business when you can't trust your own employees, let alone your suppliers (et. al).
100m my ass, there we were never 100m indians in America, they simply couldn't sustain populations that size.
No, not just people who have moved here. My experiences include students (exchange programs, college, etc) , athletes (traveling here to compete in tournaments) , businessmen, engineers who are working on a visa, and my own travel to eastern europe. Futhermore, if you talk to virtually anyone who has traveled to these communist states in their hayday (even today), they'll describe just how depressing they are...it is a certain joyless/dead existence. This is particularly true for those who've had the pleasure of traveling through berlin, they're polar opposites. It is more than just poverty too, Mexico and much of Latin America is equally poor, yet you don't see the same behavior.
The arts, religion, fairs, and other social activities are all crushed in the name of the "people". These observations are decidely one way too. (e.g.: Western travelers are sickened by communisms effect on the people, while Easterners invariably are impressed by capitalism)