And the 11.5 million New York State residents who do not live in NYC all have the same (or similar) options? I think not. Not to mention all the people that don't live in on the (densely populated) east coast. A huge portion of this country lives in suburbs or even the so-called country. Cities are not the beginning and end of discussion.
I live in upstate New York (for you folks that don't know what that means, I'm roughly a 30 minute drive north of Albany, near Saratoga Springs). Personally, I have the choice of Time Warner cable or the local DSL. Time Warner has somewhat reasonable service and is overpriced. The DSL is crap (and not much cheaper than Time Warner). No tech person with half a brain would choose it. Even non-tech people can easily tell the difference in service once they try them both.
The companies that control the infrastructure should be different from the companies that sell service to the customers, which should both be different from the companies that provide the content. Actually, it's not that they SHOULD be different. They NEED to be different. This is ridiculous.
You're modded funny, but why not think about what activities could be moved outside? Video games may not be the best choice to do it with, but it's not a terrible idea to at least consider it. Now that I think about it, it might be nice to go sit under a tree with my laptop somewhere (if it weren't winter).
Really though, the bigger issue is that the majority of these cases are probably caused by poor diet more than (or at least as much as) lack of sun exposure.
I don't even have a guess where you might live, but it's definitely not typical. Some cities might get that kind of coverage, but not the vast majority of the US.
Here in upstate New York, I have the choice of Time Warner (which I have now and it's... decent) or Frontier DSL, which is pretty terrible. I'm sure satellite and dialup are available, but I doubt any serious computer user will want to try those.
I used to be a reasonably fast typer when I was in school, but less so these days because I don't type continuous text like that very often. Nearly everything I type is either a short message to a friend or bottlenecked by my thought processes. I just tried it out and I came in at about 2:45 typing at typical speed for me. If I tried to go fast, I could maybe shave up to 15 seconds off that, but that's still probably nothing spectacular.
I imagine I'm faster than a random non-computer person, but younger kids and more hardcore computer folks will most likely beat me.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but there's not really any innovation going on with email these days. As new technologies emerge, it will probably be replaced by something else. Until then, it'll be the same old thing. Go play with something else if you want to innovate.
That said, I do tend to laugh when I see an AOL email address. If I'm hiring for a tech-oriented position, I might ask WHY they have an AOL email, just to be sure they can cope with this decade. I wouldn't let that keep me from hiring someone that is qualified for a job, though.
I don't go so far as to act coldly to them, but I've noticed the same thing. I grew up heavily involved in the local soccer program and have refereed and coached for years. I'm a single guy in my mid twenties, so I'm also around the age where I'm thinking about settling down and having kids of my own.
As a result of the above, I've become used to dealing with and being friendly with children. Young children especially should be exposed to friendly social interaction for their own mental development. However, because of the overreaction by some parents just because I've SMILED at their child, I no longer feel completely comfortable in my role as a coach and mentor, despite the nice things my players (and their parents) say to me.
I was even asked to join the board that runs the program and said no, partly because those same people can't understand why a single guy would be involved in a volunteer-run kids' program other than to take advantage of children.
It's a sad state of affairs when you're no longer encouraged or even allowed to be involved in your community. If I were a religious man, I'd pray to the flying spaghetti monster or whatever equivalent for people to get their heads on straight. Since I'm not, it seems far more likely that I'll end up giving up on a sport I love and a program that desperately needs volunteers just so I can stop feeling weird and guilty about it.
Not that I disagree with you, but I personally don't believe that ethics education is very effective (unless the people are already have an 'appropriate' value system), especially if the engineering ethics classes I was forced to take were anything like other institutions/fields of study. I don't think any amount of education can force people to be ethical.
I think it's more about the fact that people who bother to go through that much effort to become medical professionals truly want to help people and thus are less likely to be a problem than some random guy off the street.
Be careful though. This can lead to undesirable things being said to higher-ups. In some cases, it may also lead to loss of pants, hand cuffs, and insufficient amounts of lube.
Maybe you're trying to make a joke that I'm not getting, but of the dozens or more engineers I've known, I think maybe two of them actually use OS X on a regular basis.
I'm an engineer as well. I've always questioned authority and the status quo, and the more I learn about science and engineering, the more I question them. Maybe there's a generational gap or personality differences at work here, but very few of the engineers I know take anything for granted. We question everything, ESPECIALLY conventional wisdom.
Granted, it can be difficult to change our minds once they're made up, but that's because our opinions are based on facts and can only be changed with more facts.
The very essence of science and engineering is to question things. Progress can never be made if we always stick the old way of thinking/doing things. I've always felt that engineers and scientists that DON'T question things don't deserve their degrees and/or titles. (This is not meant to be directed at you and I hope you don't take it personally...)
You're absolutely right and I doubt the people doing this have thought through it that much, but I think the point of it is more to pound home the idea that AT&T (supposedly) doesn't want to invest in their network.
It's not just that we're getting screwed (though we certainly are, to some extent). A lot of parts of the world don't have the extensive infrastructure the US has for wired phones, which sped their adoption of wireless technology. When enough of your population relies on a technology, progress comes faster. The US population has only recently started to shut off their wired phones and, for some groups, it could be decades before they give them up.
Exactly. I switched my mother to Gmail last year and forced a Firefox/Thunderbird transition earlier this year. After a couple of weeks of discomfort, she's happier now than she ever was before. No more spam, very few suspicious browser issues. My regular upkeep for her has been reduced to double-checking her Windows updates and upgrading/reinstalling antivirus software once a year.
Thunderbird 3 made some big strides in usability, especially for IMAP (and Gmail specifically). If you haven't looked into it, it may be worth a try, though it sounds like you already have the situation settled...
I don't know if it's different there or not. In the US, it's hit and miss. I've had some very good books and others that were complete crap. The language may have something to do with it. Portuguese (and other languages) may be more direct in its vocabulary and rely less on subtleties (sorry, don't know the language).
I've found that it's generally not a matter of how smart the guy is that writes it, but how well they can simplify the material so it can be understood by people who aren't already experts in the field. You could argue that it takes a 'stupider' person to be able to make that connection. (Really, I think I mean someone who's more people-oriented, and often the so-called 'smartest' academic types are not terribly people-oriented.)
Quite right about consumer goods (I work in Quality Assurance).
However, I'm not convinced that software can be treated like regular consumer goods. Cheap consumer crap is obvious because of substandard materials, poor design choices, etc. It can generally be identified for the junk it is by anyone who is remotely perceptive. With software, you typically only see the box (or website) and the GUI, which can be made to look like whatever you want, regardless of whether the actual software is good or not (or even works at all). Even experienced computer/software types can have a tough time picking up on under-the-hood problems (ie. calculation bugs, etc), much less marketing/management types and regular people.
I work in Quality Assurance for a manufacturer (ie. not software), so I have a pretty good idea how things work with physical goods. I think you make a good point about the industry maturing, mass production, etc.
However, one difference I see with regular consumer goods is that a lot of the cheap stuff you buy can be fairly easily repaired (duct tape and super glue can go a long way...) or at least used with some reduced functionality if it breaks. More expensive things can also often be resold or broken down for parts.
When software is broken, often its primary functionality is significantly reduced, with no way for the average person to repair it. Sometimes it's actually completely unusable. Also, how often do you see cheap productivity-type software? It's still usually priced like a boutique item. If it's being mass produced to cut costs, the price should come down, not stay the same. I understand that often they're tacking on more features, but they're just adding a dozen features that very few people will use so their software looks 'complete' and to make more money. Cheap consumer goods generally are focused on doing a specific thing or set of things. New additions to software should not be made arbitrarily if their goal is to cut costs. If the software industry is going to mature like consumer goods (mass production/low costs), they need to stop with that and either provide a solution that works correctly all (most of) the time OR simplify it and price it like the disposable consumer crap they're mimicking.
FDA = Yeah, that's worked out real well [fda.gov]. I trust the UL much more than I trust the FDA. I've yet to have a UL approved appliance burn my house down. I have had FDA approved food put me in the hospital.
Is that a UL emblem I see circled on one of the 200,000 stoves being recalled due to fire hazard?
You guys seem a little too worked up over this and you also seem to expect a lot more from the FDA and UL than they're actually responsible for. I work for a medical device manufacturer, so I know the process of dealing with them and I've heard my share of stories. I'll try to fill in a bit.
These types of organizations (the FDA for sure and I presume UL, though I haven't dealt with them) do not inspect or otherwise deal with any product between manufacturing and use by the consumer. Approval of a product is done during or immediately after the design phase, before any finished product leaves the building.
To do this, the designer/manufacturer has to fill out various forms and prove compliance with set standards by providing documentation of the product design itself and its manufacturing process. This is done primarily through email and phone conversations. It can be a long process (months/years), depending on the complexity of the device/process, intended use, etc.
The overall Quality System is also subject to investigation. The FDA does periodically audit manufacturing plants, though not necessarily how you would expect. These audits usually consist of a cursory walkthrough of the facility, which doesn't generally lead to anything unless there are obvious, visible problems. They will then proceed to review your records for 3-5 days. If there are inconsistencies, they might go look at things in more detail, but for a well-run company, that won't happen (much).
That's it. They have minimal, if any, direct contact with an actual product before it goes out the door to the consumer. The manufacturer/designer proves that it meets the relevant standards and they're off to the races. The FDA has no further involvement. It's up to the manufacturer to take care of everything. If they screw up, you can be sure the FDA will be knocking on the door, but usually only after the shit hits the fan.
Now for UL... As with ISO, various engineering organizations, and similar, UL does not directly oversee anything. They merely set up standards and certify things based on documentation provided by the manufacturer. That means that they have no direct control over the company and product. Now, the process for this certification is almost certainly very similar to what I described for the FDA above, with somewhat less of a risk of mass deaths and huge lawsuits (not saying it's impossible, just not as big of a deal in most peoples' eyes as medical devices and food).
Now, think about practicality here... No oversight/standards organization can be directly involved in everything. It's just not feasible, so you can't look to them for that. You need to trust the company you're buying from. If you get a bad product, it's their fault and they need to fix it. If it's a food or medical device issue, the FDA will make them fix it and can/will follow up with some huge penalties if necessary (ie. company shut-down, and jail time). UL and other organizations cannot. They can only remove their certification.
Note: After rereading this, I did seem to make the approval process sound somewhat trivial. I can assure you that it is generally far from easy to get FDA approval for a medical device. I can't speak to how difficult it is for food, but I don't imagine it's easy.
I appreciate the input, but I still think it's the way I want to go.
The Atom is a low-power solution for embedded machines and things that don't need speed. A fileserver/MythTV box doesn't need a lot of processor power, since almost all of the work will be done by the tuner card and video card (except for commercial flagging, which doesn't need to be fast). Since I'll be leaving it on all the time, I want to save some electricity.
Quite right. I'm currently tossing around the idea of building a small server/MythTV box out of barebones Atom or Nano system. Very few or none of these have decent video integrated. The ones that do have acceptable video don't have the outputs I'm looking for. They also don't have AGP or PCIe. Solid 2d support out of the box for a PCI Nvidia card would a definite bonus for this build.
Similarly, I have an ancient Dell that is currently being used as a headless server. If/when I get the new one running, I'll likely want to put a graphics card in that for use as a MythTV frontend. That will have to be a PCI card as well.
If you're against closed drivers, all I will say is good luck.
If you're okay with using proprietary drivers, any Nvidia card should work fine. If you don't need fancy games or similar, the run-of-the-mill $50 cards will be plenty.
I know anecdotes are not evidence, but I haven't had any issues in the last 2 years or so getting Nvidia cards to work on my personal computers (three separate machines). My one ATI machine though, still barely manages 2d and crashes if I install the proprietary driver. I've heard and read many similar stories.
I've heard some absolutely nightmarish stories about getting ATI cards to work properly in Linux and they haven't gotten much better. In the most recent releases, they may have even gotten worse.
They might be more Linux-friendly now than they were in the past, but that doesn't make them good. They're certainly nowhere near as Linux-friendly as Nvidia.
Compare the US response to 9/11 (anger, hatred, vitriol, grief)
with the British response to 7/7 (this isn't going to stop us living out our lives, are they stupid, did they really think this would work?, we're not going to give in etc.)
That's just a matter of perspective and your choice of adjectives. I live in New York state and the response I saw here in the US was much more like your description of 7/7 than 9/11. It was hardly the undirected anger you imply. Not to mention, you really can't compare the two incidents so easily; the scale of the attacks was too different.
Note: The above is not meant to be personal or have anything to do with Britain/US stereotypes. I just think your comparison is flawed.
Now, as for your actual point... I do think I'd have to disagree about the response, at least on an individual level. Admittedly, I don't have a huge sample of people to pull from, but I've known a number of folks from across the pond and I've found them to be generally more expressive (not necessarily more emotional) than my American friends. Between the small sample size and obvious filtering of people based on my preferences for friends, this may not mean anything, but I just wanted to throw what I've observed.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong about the meaning of the phrase or about the emotion stereotypes.
Slashdot Mirror
And the 11.5 million New York State residents who do not live in NYC all have the same (or similar) options? I think not. Not to mention all the people that don't live in on the (densely populated) east coast. A huge portion of this country lives in suburbs or even the so-called country. Cities are not the beginning and end of discussion.
I live in upstate New York (for you folks that don't know what that means, I'm roughly a 30 minute drive north of Albany, near Saratoga Springs). Personally, I have the choice of Time Warner cable or the local DSL. Time Warner has somewhat reasonable service and is overpriced. The DSL is crap (and not much cheaper than Time Warner). No tech person with half a brain would choose it. Even non-tech people can easily tell the difference in service once they try them both.
The companies that control the infrastructure should be different from the companies that sell service to the customers, which should both be different from the companies that provide the content. Actually, it's not that they SHOULD be different. They NEED to be different. This is ridiculous.
You're modded funny, but why not think about what activities could be moved outside? Video games may not be the best choice to do it with, but it's not a terrible idea to at least consider it. Now that I think about it, it might be nice to go sit under a tree with my laptop somewhere (if it weren't winter).
Really though, the bigger issue is that the majority of these cases are probably caused by poor diet more than (or at least as much as) lack of sun exposure.
I don't even have a guess where you might live, but it's definitely not typical. Some cities might get that kind of coverage, but not the vast majority of the US.
Here in upstate New York, I have the choice of Time Warner (which I have now and it's... decent) or Frontier DSL, which is pretty terrible. I'm sure satellite and dialup are available, but I doubt any serious computer user will want to try those.
I used to be a reasonably fast typer when I was in school, but less so these days because I don't type continuous text like that very often. Nearly everything I type is either a short message to a friend or bottlenecked by my thought processes. I just tried it out and I came in at about 2:45 typing at typical speed for me. If I tried to go fast, I could maybe shave up to 15 seconds off that, but that's still probably nothing spectacular.
I imagine I'm faster than a random non-computer person, but younger kids and more hardcore computer folks will most likely beat me.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but there's not really any innovation going on with email these days. As new technologies emerge, it will probably be replaced by something else. Until then, it'll be the same old thing. Go play with something else if you want to innovate.
That said, I do tend to laugh when I see an AOL email address. If I'm hiring for a tech-oriented position, I might ask WHY they have an AOL email, just to be sure they can cope with this decade. I wouldn't let that keep me from hiring someone that is qualified for a job, though.
I don't go so far as to act coldly to them, but I've noticed the same thing. I grew up heavily involved in the local soccer program and have refereed and coached for years. I'm a single guy in my mid twenties, so I'm also around the age where I'm thinking about settling down and having kids of my own.
As a result of the above, I've become used to dealing with and being friendly with children. Young children especially should be exposed to friendly social interaction for their own mental development. However, because of the overreaction by some parents just because I've SMILED at their child, I no longer feel completely comfortable in my role as a coach and mentor, despite the nice things my players (and their parents) say to me.
I was even asked to join the board that runs the program and said no, partly because those same people can't understand why a single guy would be involved in a volunteer-run kids' program other than to take advantage of children.
It's a sad state of affairs when you're no longer encouraged or even allowed to be involved in your community. If I were a religious man, I'd pray to the flying spaghetti monster or whatever equivalent for people to get their heads on straight. Since I'm not, it seems far more likely that I'll end up giving up on a sport I love and a program that desperately needs volunteers just so I can stop feeling weird and guilty about it.
Not that I disagree with you, but I personally don't believe that ethics education is very effective (unless the people are already have an 'appropriate' value system), especially if the engineering ethics classes I was forced to take were anything like other institutions/fields of study. I don't think any amount of education can force people to be ethical.
I think it's more about the fact that people who bother to go through that much effort to become medical professionals truly want to help people and thus are less likely to be a problem than some random guy off the street.
Be careful though. This can lead to undesirable things being said to higher-ups. In some cases, it may also lead to loss of pants, hand cuffs, and insufficient amounts of lube.
It's popular among engineers?
Maybe you're trying to make a joke that I'm not getting, but of the dozens or more engineers I've known, I think maybe two of them actually use OS X on a regular basis.
Is there reliable data somewhere?
I'm an engineer as well. I've always questioned authority and the status quo, and the more I learn about science and engineering, the more I question them. Maybe there's a generational gap or personality differences at work here, but very few of the engineers I know take anything for granted. We question everything, ESPECIALLY conventional wisdom.
Granted, it can be difficult to change our minds once they're made up, but that's because our opinions are based on facts and can only be changed with more facts.
The very essence of science and engineering is to question things. Progress can never be made if we always stick the old way of thinking/doing things. I've always felt that engineers and scientists that DON'T question things don't deserve their degrees and/or titles. (This is not meant to be directed at you and I hope you don't take it personally...)
I'm sure there are plenty of people running compromised virtual machines, but if they're using WINE, it's not really a virtual machine...
You're absolutely right and I doubt the people doing this have thought through it that much, but I think the point of it is more to pound home the idea that AT&T (supposedly) doesn't want to invest in their network.
It's not just that we're getting screwed (though we certainly are, to some extent). A lot of parts of the world don't have the extensive infrastructure the US has for wired phones, which sped their adoption of wireless technology. When enough of your population relies on a technology, progress comes faster. The US population has only recently started to shut off their wired phones and, for some groups, it could be decades before they give them up.
Exactly. I switched my mother to Gmail last year and forced a Firefox/Thunderbird transition earlier this year. After a couple of weeks of discomfort, she's happier now than she ever was before. No more spam, very few suspicious browser issues. My regular upkeep for her has been reduced to double-checking her Windows updates and upgrading/reinstalling antivirus software once a year.
Thunderbird 3 made some big strides in usability, especially for IMAP (and Gmail specifically). If you haven't looked into it, it may be worth a try, though it sounds like you already have the situation settled...
I don't know if it's different there or not. In the US, it's hit and miss. I've had some very good books and others that were complete crap. The language may have something to do with it. Portuguese (and other languages) may be more direct in its vocabulary and rely less on subtleties (sorry, don't know the language).
I've found that it's generally not a matter of how smart the guy is that writes it, but how well they can simplify the material so it can be understood by people who aren't already experts in the field. You could argue that it takes a 'stupider' person to be able to make that connection. (Really, I think I mean someone who's more people-oriented, and often the so-called 'smartest' academic types are not terribly people-oriented.)
Quite right about consumer goods (I work in Quality Assurance).
However, I'm not convinced that software can be treated like regular consumer goods. Cheap consumer crap is obvious because of substandard materials, poor design choices, etc. It can generally be identified for the junk it is by anyone who is remotely perceptive. With software, you typically only see the box (or website) and the GUI, which can be made to look like whatever you want, regardless of whether the actual software is good or not (or even works at all). Even experienced computer/software types can have a tough time picking up on under-the-hood problems (ie. calculation bugs, etc), much less marketing/management types and regular people.
I work in Quality Assurance for a manufacturer (ie. not software), so I have a pretty good idea how things work with physical goods. I think you make a good point about the industry maturing, mass production, etc.
However, one difference I see with regular consumer goods is that a lot of the cheap stuff you buy can be fairly easily repaired (duct tape and super glue can go a long way...) or at least used with some reduced functionality if it breaks. More expensive things can also often be resold or broken down for parts.
When software is broken, often its primary functionality is significantly reduced, with no way for the average person to repair it. Sometimes it's actually completely unusable. Also, how often do you see cheap productivity-type software? It's still usually priced like a boutique item. If it's being mass produced to cut costs, the price should come down, not stay the same. I understand that often they're tacking on more features, but they're just adding a dozen features that very few people will use so their software looks 'complete' and to make more money. Cheap consumer goods generally are focused on doing a specific thing or set of things. New additions to software should not be made arbitrarily if their goal is to cut costs. If the software industry is going to mature like consumer goods (mass production/low costs), they need to stop with that and either provide a solution that works correctly all (most of) the time OR simplify it and price it like the disposable consumer crap they're mimicking.
FDA = Yeah, that's worked out real well [fda.gov]. I trust the UL much more than I trust the FDA. I've yet to have a UL approved appliance burn my house down. I have had FDA approved food put me in the hospital.
Is that a UL emblem I see circled on one of the 200,000 stoves being recalled due to fire hazard?
You guys seem a little too worked up over this and you also seem to expect a lot more from the FDA and UL than they're actually responsible for. I work for a medical device manufacturer, so I know the process of dealing with them and I've heard my share of stories. I'll try to fill in a bit.
These types of organizations (the FDA for sure and I presume UL, though I haven't dealt with them) do not inspect or otherwise deal with any product between manufacturing and use by the consumer. Approval of a product is done during or immediately after the design phase, before any finished product leaves the building.
To do this, the designer/manufacturer has to fill out various forms and prove compliance with set standards by providing documentation of the product design itself and its manufacturing process. This is done primarily through email and phone conversations. It can be a long process (months/years), depending on the complexity of the device/process, intended use, etc.
The overall Quality System is also subject to investigation. The FDA does periodically audit manufacturing plants, though not necessarily how you would expect. These audits usually consist of a cursory walkthrough of the facility, which doesn't generally lead to anything unless there are obvious, visible problems. They will then proceed to review your records for 3-5 days. If there are inconsistencies, they might go look at things in more detail, but for a well-run company, that won't happen (much).
That's it. They have minimal, if any, direct contact with an actual product before it goes out the door to the consumer. The manufacturer/designer proves that it meets the relevant standards and they're off to the races. The FDA has no further involvement. It's up to the manufacturer to take care of everything. If they screw up, you can be sure the FDA will be knocking on the door, but usually only after the shit hits the fan.
Now for UL... As with ISO, various engineering organizations, and similar, UL does not directly oversee anything. They merely set up standards and certify things based on documentation provided by the manufacturer. That means that they have no direct control over the company and product. Now, the process for this certification is almost certainly very similar to what I described for the FDA above, with somewhat less of a risk of mass deaths and huge lawsuits (not saying it's impossible, just not as big of a deal in most peoples' eyes as medical devices and food).
Now, think about practicality here... No oversight/standards organization can be directly involved in everything. It's just not feasible, so you can't look to them for that. You need to trust the company you're buying from. If you get a bad product, it's their fault and they need to fix it. If it's a food or medical device issue, the FDA will make them fix it and can/will follow up with some huge penalties if necessary (ie. company shut-down, and jail time). UL and other organizations cannot. They can only remove their certification.
Note: After rereading this, I did seem to make the approval process sound somewhat trivial. I can assure you that it is generally far from easy to get FDA approval for a medical device. I can't speak to how difficult it is for food, but I don't imagine it's easy.
I appreciate the input, but I still think it's the way I want to go.
The Atom is a low-power solution for embedded machines and things that don't need speed. A fileserver/MythTV box doesn't need a lot of processor power, since almost all of the work will be done by the tuner card and video card (except for commercial flagging, which doesn't need to be fast). Since I'll be leaving it on all the time, I want to save some electricity.
Quite right. I'm currently tossing around the idea of building a small server/MythTV box out of barebones Atom or Nano system. Very few or none of these have decent video integrated. The ones that do have acceptable video don't have the outputs I'm looking for. They also don't have AGP or PCIe. Solid 2d support out of the box for a PCI Nvidia card would a definite bonus for this build.
Similarly, I have an ancient Dell that is currently being used as a headless server. If/when I get the new one running, I'll likely want to put a graphics card in that for use as a MythTV frontend. That will have to be a PCI card as well.
If you're against closed drivers, all I will say is good luck.
If you're okay with using proprietary drivers, any Nvidia card should work fine. If you don't need fancy games or similar, the run-of-the-mill $50 cards will be plenty.
I know anecdotes are not evidence, but I haven't had any issues in the last 2 years or so getting Nvidia cards to work on my personal computers (three separate machines). My one ATI machine though, still barely manages 2d and crashes if I install the proprietary driver. I've heard and read many similar stories.
I've heard some absolutely nightmarish stories about getting ATI cards to work properly in Linux and they haven't gotten much better. In the most recent releases, they may have even gotten worse.
They might be more Linux-friendly now than they were in the past, but that doesn't make them good. They're certainly nowhere near as Linux-friendly as Nvidia.
i wish there was a tractable way of making lying in an ad a criminal offense punishable by death for all those responsible...
He's obviously not completely serious, but he makes a good point. We do need more enforcement and harsher penalties for misleading advertising.
Compare the US response to 9/11 (anger, hatred, vitriol, grief)
with the British response to 7/7 (this isn't going to stop us living out our lives, are they stupid, did they really think this would work?, we're not going to give in etc.)
That's just a matter of perspective and your choice of adjectives. I live in New York state and the response I saw here in the US was much more like your description of 7/7 than 9/11. It was hardly the undirected anger you imply. Not to mention, you really can't compare the two incidents so easily; the scale of the attacks was too different.
Note: The above is not meant to be personal or have anything to do with Britain/US stereotypes. I just think your comparison is flawed.
Now, as for your actual point... I do think I'd have to disagree about the response, at least on an individual level. Admittedly, I don't have a huge sample of people to pull from, but I've known a number of folks from across the pond and I've found them to be generally more expressive (not necessarily more emotional) than my American friends. Between the small sample size and obvious filtering of people based on my preferences for friends, this may not mean anything, but I just wanted to throw what I've observed.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong about the meaning of the phrase or about the emotion stereotypes.