>However, high-quality tube amplifiers have one characteristic that class B transistor amplifiers do not: zero negative feedback.
Of course, for the price of an equivalent tube amp, you can comfortably get a class A full wave transistor amplifier, and still have enough money left to take a cruise to (insert expensive european destination here). So, again, we're back to square 1: Using a DSP to emulate tube harmonics in a solid state amplifier. And, according to this PhD, they can.
So, there's not a lot left to argue about, except for soft clipping (which is mentioned in that abstract). This is something which you never worry about, IMHO, in a solid state amplifier, since you can easily afford one with SO much headroom, you'll light the voice coil in your speaker on fire before you get to the point of clipping.
You're telling me a DSP can't handle signals between 20 - 20kHz correctly, when the things are used in the Ghz range? And you want me to take you seriously?
>Just try to design 3kW hifi audio amp and see what will be cheaper...
You have a source for tubes than can handle (assuming we are hooking up some magically-able-to-handle-3kw-home-speaker) 20 amps of current? If so, show me the money. Otherwise, you know the old saying, shut up or put up.
I say this because I am certain I can find transistors that can do that.
Now, since I can't find ANYTHING in a tube amp that can handle 3kw (examples, please), I'll post this example, a 200 watt tube amp running at (*GASP*) $6000!
To show I'm not making those numbers up, here's another (now discontinued) tube amplifier, weighing in at a "hefty" 60 watts RMS (my 30 year old H/K 430 solid state amp beats it! LOL!). MSRP: $1,995.
Now, assuming the usual laws of economics apply, I will again, assume, that a 3kw tube amplifier will cost much more.
I can assure you a 3kw RMS solid state amplifier will cost under $6000. In fact, it'll cost you $1,129. If you bitch you don't like the brand name, I can find others in the same price range. And you'll look silly bitching about it, too, because Peavy definately isn't Yorx quality.
But please, please, do tell me where I can get get a 3000 watt tube amp for that price or lower. I'd love to buy, oh, say, 10,000,000 of them. I'd be richer than Bill Gates when I sell them for, oh, about 1000x the price without a hitch.
Dollar for dollar, transistor amplifiers output far more power before they're overloaded, making this discussion moot.
If you like the distortion tube amps give (remember, you're not getting the audiophile shound, you're getting "nicely" distorted sound) I'm sure a DSP can do it for you. Even an EQ would probably help.
If you have a balcony, get the largest paving/patio stone you can buy (2 ft. x 2 ft. would be a nice size), and mount the base of the roof/wall mount to it using short lag shields and bolts.
Enjoy. I've seen this work reasonably well myself. If you're worried about wind, lay 4 more patio stones over the edges of the one you mounted to.
(Note: Don't try this with anything larger than an 18" dish)
>If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.
Oh, I'm thoroughly familiar with the concept. Heck, I read Thoreau's Waladen. We had entire English classes covering this topic (they were especially exciting, since the teacher was a strong NDP booster [Left wing government in Canada] and I am generally neo-Conservative).
We came to observe that civil disobedience requires that if you are punished for your transgressions, you take it with dignity, and a complete willingness to face any consequences of your actions, no matter how severe, and, most importantly, that you absolutely don't complain. Thoreau appeared quite salient on these points.
Ghandi knew this. That's why he won.
Now, Greenpeace doesn't do this. They break the rules. They play dead when police officers arrest them. They shout insults and threats while being arrested. They need to read the rest of Walden. Then they might have success. A plan half implemented is no plan at all.
It was on Real TV (well, that's what I remember -- I'm not perfect). I suppose you could ask them for the file tape. They don't seem to air Real TV anymore (which is sorta sad... it wasn't a great show, but it had its moments).
FWIW, Real TV was a cross between reality tv and docudrama, since it used reality tv style clips that were actual real life moments.
I really wish I could find a comprehensive page on that show so you could find the tapes, but unfortunately, people have shortened "Reality TV" to "Real TV", poisoning google's results. Google groups returns people discussing past events on the show, though (nothing much on Greenpeace, unfortuantely)...
Oh well. Perhaps if you ask Greenpeace for a copy of their video tapes of the incident?
Of course, Greenpeace's story speaks for itself as far as how "non-violent" the oil rig protests are...
"The Norwegian government owned oil company, Statoil is, according to Norwegian news agency NTB, considering a possible damages claims against Greenpeace of between 2 and 4 million Norwegian Krona ($US 300,000 and 600,000 USD)."
>From what I understood the US went after them because they were nice to people they thought were resposible for the attacks.
Now that's odd, considering Palestinian militants first claimed responsibility for the attacks. The US has often been accused of taking sides, but this is the first time I've heard them being associated with taking sides with Palestinian militants, rather than Isrealis.
>If you can point me to an instance in time when this has not been true, please do so, and back up your arguments with facts.
Well, I'll start with the easy stuff then, shall I?
>quiet diplomacy
This wasn't quiet at all. The catcalls, when I watched the video tape [Thanks for making it, Greenpeace!], were designed to incite violence (thanks Real TV!)... Which would violate another few principles, "to raise the level and quality of public debate." and "non-violent conflict".
Sooo, we're left with research and lobbying. I know another company that used those tactics!
A) Greenpeace has become an organization so radically different than what it's founders thought it was that it now shuns them. That loses Greenpeace piles of respect, right there.
or
B) Greenpeace's founders have radically changed and no longer represent Greenpeace.
If you check Paul Watson's biography, he's not changed.
So, we need to go with option (A). That is that Greenpeace is no longer what Greenpeace stood for.
Ghandi didn't take over helpless ships in the ocean.
Eco-Terrorism makes me sick. You absolutely DON'T squat on someone's property if you want my sympathy.
>It doesn't help your argument though.
Oh, it sure does. Google can show you how popular the term is. When the entire world starts saying it (it's almost there now) then Greenpeace will be Eco-Terrorists, no matter how hard they try to deny it.
A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)
"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link)
Care to make me find more examples?
>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?
It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.
>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.
Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.
>We have many worthwhile causes.
Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?
>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.
>or the illegal logging in the Amazon
Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.
You can't be serious.
>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal
You have to go back 2 decades to find something decent Greenpeace did?
That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:
"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."
At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?
Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."
"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and
>And storming a ship is worse than pouring tonnes of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down rivers and the air?
That type of fallacy has been used to justify many long, bloody, and, in hindsight, absolutely wrongheaded actions.
Modern history examples: By Canadians putting Japanese in concentration camps, Americans supporting the vietnam war, and the Taliban blowing up the twin towers, amongst many others others.
Presently debateable issues such as the present US war against Iraq will likely turn out to be, in, say, 20 years hindsight, extremely foolish too.
Eco-terrorists should take a page from Ghandi's book.
>Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws.
I'd like to see you lose your job because greenpeace has deemed it bad for the environment while you're trying to feed and clothe that kid. Works both ways, huh?
Anyways, I'd like, just for once, for an Eco-Terrorist to think with their mind, rather than their heart. You'd be surprised how much farther you can get when people don't hate your guts. Odd how the Greenpeace webpages are cleansed of incidents like that. I wonder how many times the locals have shown their displeasure with Greenpeace, and Greenpeace, a supposedly trustworthy organization, has just covered them up?
Plenty.
BTW: Watch the last episode of season 1, Penn and Teller's Bullshit! You might learn something about these nuts. Like the fact they, overall, want to ban water. Yup, most greenies are too dumb to know about DHMO (I believe that most Grade 8 classes beat 'em). Don't believe me?
I'm sure you can find a copy somewhere to verify it. Ask your library.
>I'm curious to how you came to the conclusion that IBM wouldn't have improved their architecture without pressure from the clones.
No problem, I can put it simple for you (seems you like to use titles to insult, beats me why, but that usually means I have to spell things out simply, rather than in depth).
I went by past expereiences of the computer age. Competition vs. none. The wildcard being Apple -- however, they definately do NOT follow a standard economic model -- what kind of company hires a soda pop marketer to run a computer company.
Here's my past experience with companies that had no competition either failing or getting out of the home computer market.
>They might have a slightly different perspective.
Yes, the IBM PC XT was a complete POS that couldn't compete with anything else out at the time. Almost nobody used it, apart from a handful of people. That garbage computer didn't even include a decent sound system, for crying out loud!
Then the clones came.
And the XT architecture became popular.
And IBM sold more PCs than they ever thought possible.
>Except most people with a sound system powerfull enough to do that likely have a large disc changer in their trunk, broadcasting over short range to their car radio
No way. That would sound like hell at only 1/4 watt broadcast power and miss most of the upper frequencies of the audio (even FM is crap for that).
Most of such systems have cables that are run under the cable runners of the doors.
Besides... without those cables, how would the CD changer system be powered?
Politics is a science (albeit not an exact one), and so, as people become better informed, their opinions, and therefore their votes on matters will change.
A minister unwilling to change their vote in some manner when they discover they were misinformed on an issue would be practicing religion, not science.
That's not to say the results of some votes shouldn't normally be binding, however, those that are binding should still be reversible in some manner (ex: passing overriding legislation) if they turn out to be ill decisions. When they aren't, you end up with situations like Canada's (Section 93), where we are required, by locally un-reversible laws, to support religious school systems, despite us now being informed that this is definately not a good idea.
In this case, it seems prudent just to cancel the ministers vote, rather than start getting reversals passed into law.
>I won't try to argue about the language police. If you break the law and don't want to pay the small fine, then too bad.
So, even though the laws are totally unethical, because the results of breaking them aren't too serious (in your opinion), it doesn't matter?
What if we were to fine people $50 for practicing Falun Gong in public? That'd be ok because the fine is petty, right?
>It's hard for a canadian or american to understand
Bingo. I always knew people from Quebec didn't believe themselves to be Canadian.
You know what? I just hope to hell the BQ gets this separation over with. When you are forced to learn English because Canada and the US (your ONLY local trading partners) won't speak French, you'll understand the word "co-operation". Your province, and the BQ, have been reminded on serveral occasions, that Quebec would be unable to sustain it's first world status without trade with the rest of the world (especially Canada and the US).
>We're a province whose the official language is French, but we're lost in a sea of english speaking people.
You don't even realise how insulting that is, do you?
How about this one, for Germany:
"We're a country where the official race is Aryan, but we're lost in a sea of Jews"
Good Lord.
>Also, don't bring the Bloc into it, beside being a seperatist, its a left group that many people, english people, outside Quebec would vote for if they had candidates outside Quebec and dropped the seperatist part.
Why shouldn't I? About 85% of your people support the Bloc (I'm too lazy to do the math, look up the provincial numbers at Elections Canada yourself -- they're probably higher). The Bloc's objective is to remove Quebec from Canada at any cost. The numbers are official.
>We could say the same of the Prairies, who voted about 80%+ Conservative. Should we hate them too because they don't vote Liberals?
Does the Conservative party want to separate the Praries from Canada? Do they force people to speak languages they don't choose too? Are they going to voilate the very foundation of the country, it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hell no.
>You see, people gather in communities.
Hitler called them "ghettos". Use the right terms. [I really don't give a shit about Godwin at this point -- You're using the EXACT type of terminology you'd find in "Mein Kampf"]
>We, the french speaking people living in a greater english Canada, band together and try to defend our common interests, whatever they are, because we believe some of the laws and politics are not for our best interests.
WHAT LAWS AND POLITICS? WTF? What the hell laws are preventing a French person from celebrating their language and culture outside of Quebec?
The fact you are a Xenophobic race of people is saddening, and is the very reason your culture cannot survive. If you aren't willing to spread out and teach through example why the Quebecois culture is so very valid, then nobody will ever understand. If you continue to make your province one where anyone from outside that wishes to revel in it's culture cannot without feeling like an outsider, nobody will understand.
It's up to YOUR province to make the first step. We've left the door WIDE OPEN.
>Then, english people living among us band together in small english communities for exactly the same motives.
They're AFRAID of you! Or have you forgotten the FLQ?
Here are the conditions that the ruling authorities must fulfil in order to save the life of the representative of the ancient racist and colonialist British system.
>You cannot say, without being biased, that it's different.
WTF? Within the lifetimes of most people using slashdot, representatives of YOUR culture KIDNAPPED, KILLED, AND
Slashdot Mirror
>However, high-quality tube amplifiers have one characteristic that class B transistor amplifiers do not: zero negative feedback.
Of course, for the price of an equivalent tube amp, you can comfortably get a class A full wave transistor amplifier, and still have enough money left to take a cruise to (insert expensive european destination here). So, again, we're back to square 1: Using a DSP to emulate tube harmonics in a solid state amplifier. And, according to this PhD, they can.
So, there's not a lot left to argue about, except for soft clipping (which is mentioned in that abstract). This is something which you never worry about, IMHO, in a solid state amplifier, since you can easily afford one with SO much headroom, you'll light the voice coil in your speaker on fire before you get to the point of clipping.
You're telling me a DSP can't handle signals between 20 - 20kHz correctly, when the things are used in the Ghz range? And you want me to take you seriously?
>Just try to design 3kW hifi audio amp and see what will be cheaper...
You have a source for tubes than can handle (assuming we are hooking up some magically-able-to-handle-3kw-home-speaker) 20 amps of current? If so, show me the money. Otherwise, you know the old saying, shut up or put up.
I say this because I am certain I can find transistors that can do that.
Now, since I can't find ANYTHING in a tube amp that can handle 3kw (examples, please), I'll post this example, a 200 watt tube amp running at (*GASP*) $6000!
To show I'm not making those numbers up, here's another (now discontinued) tube amplifier, weighing in at a "hefty" 60 watts RMS (my 30 year old H/K 430 solid state amp beats it! LOL!). MSRP: $1,995.
Now, assuming the usual laws of economics apply, I will again, assume, that a 3kw tube amplifier will cost much more.
I can assure you a 3kw RMS solid state amplifier will cost under $6000. In fact, it'll cost you $1,129. If you bitch you don't like the brand name, I can find others in the same price range. And you'll look silly bitching about it, too, because Peavy definately isn't Yorx quality.
But please, please, do tell me where I can get get a 3000 watt tube amp for that price or lower. I'd love to buy, oh, say, 10,000,000 of them. I'd be richer than Bill Gates when I sell them for, oh, about 1000x the price without a hitch.
Dollar for dollar, transistor amplifiers output far more power before they're overloaded, making this discussion moot.
If you like the distortion tube amps give (remember, you're not getting the audiophile shound, you're getting "nicely" distorted sound) I'm sure a DSP can do it for you. Even an EQ would probably help.
Heck, at first I thought they managed to get an XBOX dashboard emulated on their computer. Now that would have been awesome.
I was sorely disappointed when I noticed it was basically Active Desktop for 2004.
>Completely wrong assumptions there. Go back to school.
Okay. If it's a penetrating mount, and the dish is removed by someone in anger, you expect the holes to be filled?
If you're so smart, tell me why I'm wrong.
Or did you not go to school either?
If you have a balcony, get the largest paving/patio stone you can buy (2 ft. x 2 ft. would be a nice size), and mount the base of the roof/wall mount to it using short lag shields and bolts.
Enjoy. I've seen this work reasonably well myself. If you're worried about wind, lay 4 more patio stones over the edges of the one you mounted to.
(Note: Don't try this with anything larger than an 18" dish)
>water seeping in the roof through god-knows what mounting they used
Had the antenna stayed, it was much less likely the roof would leak.
Now there's probably 4 unsealed holes in it.
You do the math.
Sorry... but your solution probably didn't net you that gain.
>If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.
Oh, I'm thoroughly familiar with the concept. Heck, I read Thoreau's Waladen. We had entire English classes covering this topic (they were especially exciting, since the teacher was a strong NDP booster [Left wing government in Canada] and I am generally neo-Conservative).
We came to observe that civil disobedience requires that if you are punished for your transgressions, you take it with dignity, and a complete willingness to face any consequences of your actions, no matter how severe, and, most importantly, that you absolutely don't complain. Thoreau appeared quite salient on these points.
Ghandi knew this. That's why he won.
Now, Greenpeace doesn't do this. They break the rules. They play dead when police officers arrest them. They shout insults and threats while being arrested. They need to read the rest of Walden. Then they might have success. A plan half implemented is no plan at all.
>They don't want your sympathy, they want to get on the news. And they're good at it, that's why they get my money.
If that's all it takes to get your money, President Bush must be a millionaire!
>Where is this video that you speak of?
It was on Real TV (well, that's what I remember -- I'm not perfect). I suppose you could ask them for the file tape. They don't seem to air Real TV anymore (which is sorta sad... it wasn't a great show, but it had its moments).
FWIW, Real TV was a cross between reality tv and docudrama, since it used reality tv style clips that were actual real life moments.
I really wish I could find a comprehensive page on that show so you could find the tapes, but unfortunately, people have shortened "Reality TV" to "Real TV", poisoning google's results. Google groups returns people discussing past events on the show, though (nothing much on Greenpeace, unfortuantely)...
Oh well. Perhaps if you ask Greenpeace for a copy of their video tapes of the incident?
Of course, Greenpeace's story speaks for itself as far as how "non-violent" the oil rig protests are...
"The Norwegian government owned oil company, Statoil is, according to Norwegian news agency NTB, considering a possible damages claims against Greenpeace of between 2 and 4 million Norwegian Krona ($US 300,000 and 600,000 USD)."
That's a lot of damage in just 3 days.
>From what I understood the US went after them because they were nice to people they thought were resposible for the attacks.
Now that's odd, considering Palestinian militants first claimed responsibility for the attacks. The US has often been accused of taking sides, but this is the first time I've heard them being associated with taking sides with Palestinian militants, rather than Isrealis.
>If you can point me to an instance in time when this has not been true, please do so, and back up your arguments with facts.
Well, I'll start with the easy stuff then, shall I?
>quiet diplomacy
This wasn't quiet at all. The catcalls, when I watched the video tape [Thanks for making it, Greenpeace!], were designed to incite violence (thanks Real TV!)... Which would violate another few principles, "to raise the level and quality of public debate." and "non-violent conflict".
Sooo, we're left with research and lobbying. I know another company that used those tactics!
Philip Morris.
>Your logic is flawed. QED
I was wondering if someone might mention that.
Well, in that case, we now have some options.
A) Greenpeace has become an organization so radically different than what it's founders thought it was that it now shuns them. That loses Greenpeace piles of respect, right there.
or
B) Greenpeace's founders have radically changed and no longer represent Greenpeace.
If you check Paul Watson's biography, he's not changed.
So, we need to go with option (A). That is that Greenpeace is no longer what Greenpeace stood for.
So what does it stand for now?
>It's called civil disobedience.
Ghandi didn't get charged as a pirate.
Ghandi didn't take over helpless ships in the ocean.
Eco-Terrorism makes me sick. You absolutely DON'T squat on someone's property if you want my sympathy.
>It doesn't help your argument though.
Oh, it sure does. Google can show you how popular the term is. When the entire world starts saying it (it's almost there now) then Greenpeace will be Eco-Terrorists, no matter how hard they try to deny it.
>I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?
Oh, please, don't make it so easy!
Tree spiking murders innocent workers.
A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)
"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link)
Care to make me find more examples?
>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?
It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.
>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.
Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.
>We have many worthwhile causes.
Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?
>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.
>or the illegal logging in the Amazon
Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.
You can't be serious.
>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal
You have to go back 2 decades to find something decent Greenpeace did?
That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:
"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."
At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?
Now, for my final point, care to respond to this?
"IT'S OFFICIAL: GREENPEACE SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE"
Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."
"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and
>And storming a ship is worse than pouring tonnes of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down rivers and the air?
That type of fallacy has been used to justify many long, bloody, and, in hindsight, absolutely wrongheaded actions.
Modern history examples: By Canadians putting Japanese in concentration camps, Americans supporting the vietnam war, and the Taliban blowing up the twin towers, amongst many others others.
Presently debateable issues such as the present US war against Iraq will likely turn out to be, in, say, 20 years hindsight, extremely foolish too.
Eco-terrorists should take a page from Ghandi's book.
>Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws.
I'd like to see you lose your job because greenpeace has deemed it bad for the environment while you're trying to feed and clothe that kid. Works both ways, huh?
Anyways, I'd like, just for once, for an Eco-Terrorist to think with their mind, rather than their heart. You'd be surprised how much farther you can get when people don't hate your guts. Odd how the Greenpeace webpages are cleansed of incidents like that. I wonder how many times the locals have shown their displeasure with Greenpeace, and Greenpeace, a supposedly trustworthy organization, has just covered them up?
Plenty.
BTW: Watch the last episode of season 1, Penn and Teller's Bullshit! You might learn something about these nuts. Like the fact they, overall, want to ban water. Yup, most greenies are too dumb to know about DHMO (I believe that most Grade 8 classes beat 'em). Don't believe me?
I'm sure you can find a copy somewhere to verify it. Ask your library.
My bad. Didn't realize you didn't edit the title. Take this as my apology. Sorry again!
>I'm curious to how you came to the conclusion that IBM wouldn't have improved their architecture without pressure from the clones.
No problem, I can put it simple for you (seems you like to use titles to insult, beats me why, but that usually means I have to spell things out simply, rather than in depth).
I went by past expereiences of the computer age. Competition vs. none. The wildcard being Apple -- however, they definately do NOT follow a standard economic model -- what kind of company hires a soda pop marketer to run a computer company.
Here's my past experience with companies that had no competition either failing or getting out of the home computer market.
Commodore, Atari, Coleco, Amstrad, TI, Timex/Sinclair, Kaypro, Osbourne, Acorn, Apollo, Casio, Mattel, NeXT, Olivetti, Tandy (*), Zenith, etc (did I miss any?).
Past experience speaks for itself; your company has greater than 16-1 odds of failing without competition.
Hope that clears it up.
(*) - Gave up after only making a few PC clones. Really killed themselves with the TRaSh-80.
>They might have a slightly different perspective.
Yes, the IBM PC XT was a complete POS that couldn't compete with anything else out at the time. Almost nobody used it, apart from a handful of people. That garbage computer didn't even include a decent sound system, for crying out loud!
Then the clones came.
And the XT architecture became popular.
And IBM sold more PCs than they ever thought possible.
They are only blocking slashdot referrers.
IE-ers can drag the link to their address bar.
>Except most people with a sound system powerfull enough to do that likely have a large disc changer in their trunk, broadcasting over short range to their car radio
No way. That would sound like hell at only 1/4 watt broadcast power and miss most of the upper frequencies of the audio (even FM is crap for that).
Most of such systems have cables that are run under the cable runners of the doors.
Besides... without those cables, how would the CD changer system be powered?
>I am not point fingers - Hence no trolling
:-)
I am not post! Hence no troll!
Politics is a science (albeit not an exact one), and so, as people become better informed, their opinions, and therefore their votes on matters will change.
A minister unwilling to change their vote in some manner when they discover they were misinformed on an issue would be practicing religion, not science.
That's not to say the results of some votes shouldn't normally be binding, however, those that are binding should still be reversible in some manner (ex: passing overriding legislation) if they turn out to be ill decisions. When they aren't, you end up with situations like Canada's (Section 93), where we are required, by locally un-reversible laws, to support religious school systems, despite us now being informed that this is definately not a good idea.
In this case, it seems prudent just to cancel the ministers vote, rather than start getting reversals passed into law.
>I won't try to argue about the language police. If you break the law and don't want to pay the small fine, then too bad.
So, even though the laws are totally unethical, because the results of breaking them aren't too serious (in your opinion), it doesn't matter?
What if we were to fine people $50 for practicing Falun Gong in public? That'd be ok because the fine is petty, right?
>It's hard for a canadian or american to understand
Bingo. I always knew people from Quebec didn't believe themselves to be Canadian.
You know what? I just hope to hell the BQ gets this separation over with. When you are forced to learn English because Canada and the US (your ONLY local trading partners) won't speak French, you'll understand the word "co-operation". Your province, and the BQ, have been reminded on serveral occasions, that Quebec would be unable to sustain it's first world status without trade with the rest of the world (especially Canada and the US).
>We're a province whose the official language is French, but we're lost in a sea of english speaking people.
You don't even realise how insulting that is, do you?
How about this one, for Germany:
"We're a country where the official race is Aryan, but we're lost in a sea of Jews"
Good Lord.
>Also, don't bring the Bloc into it, beside being a seperatist, its a left group that many people, english people, outside Quebec would vote for if they had candidates outside Quebec and dropped the seperatist part.
Why shouldn't I? About 85% of your people support the Bloc (I'm too lazy to do the math, look up the provincial numbers at Elections Canada yourself -- they're probably higher). The Bloc's objective is to remove Quebec from Canada at any cost. The numbers are official.
>We could say the same of the Prairies, who voted about 80%+ Conservative. Should we hate them too because they don't vote Liberals?
Does the Conservative party want to separate the Praries from Canada? Do they force people to speak languages they don't choose too? Are they going to voilate the very foundation of the country, it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hell no.
>You see, people gather in communities.
Hitler called them "ghettos". Use the right terms. [I really don't give a shit about Godwin at this point -- You're using the EXACT type of terminology you'd find in "Mein Kampf"]
>We, the french speaking people living in a greater english Canada, band together and try to defend our common interests, whatever they are, because we believe some of the laws and politics are not for our best interests.
WHAT LAWS AND POLITICS? WTF? What the hell laws are preventing a French person from celebrating their language and culture outside of Quebec?
The fact you are a Xenophobic race of people is saddening, and is the very reason your culture cannot survive. If you aren't willing to spread out and teach through example why the Quebecois culture is so very valid, then nobody will ever understand. If you continue to make your province one where anyone from outside that wishes to revel in it's culture cannot without feeling like an outsider, nobody will understand.
It's up to YOUR province to make the first step. We've left the door WIDE OPEN.
>Then, english people living among us band together in small english communities for exactly the same motives.
They're AFRAID of you! Or have you forgotten the FLQ?
Here are the conditions that the ruling authorities must fulfil in order to save the life of the representative of the ancient racist and colonialist British system.
>You cannot say, without being biased, that it's different.
WTF? Within the lifetimes of most people using slashdot, representatives of YOUR culture KIDNAPPED, KILLED, AND