You're rigth, SCO is *still* after several years trying to add more evidence and more claims. By having expert-testimony (which is supposed to *explain* the claims and the evidence) contain claims that aren't there in the final disposition.
So, ok, SCO still, after being ordered repeatedly to put all the evidence on the table for literally *years* don't have all the evidence they claim to posess on the table.
But worse: They also *still* don't want to commit to exactly what it is that they are even *claiming* that IBM did.
In effect, several years after the trial started, SCO is still at: "You did something wrong, but we refuse to state in specific terms *what* you did wrong, we also refuse to provide any evidence that you *did* infact do the things we claim."
It's impossible to defend oneself if one doesn't even know precisely what the accusations are. "Structure and organization" ain't specific. No more than "breaking some law" would be.
It's beyond ridicolous. They've been given enough rope at this point. It's nice to see the judges are starting to tigthen up -- this particular attempt at redefinind the claims was turned down flat.
For example, the car we drive. (we as in me and my wife)
We're a 5 person family. Current child-safety-seats are rather large. We *need* to be able to fit the 3 kids side-by-side in the backseat. A compact Fabia just could not do that. It plainly does not fit. The seat-width needs to be 150cm or more, and on a Fabia, it's not. (lacks 10cm or so)
We're 5 people probably 10% of the time, so 90% of the time the size of the vehicle is overkill. But we can't aford to have 2 cars, so the single one we do have *has* to cover all our needs. A car that covers 90% of our needs is simply not an option.
In other words: The fact that our car 90% of the time could be smaller is no indication that the car is to large. Having *2* cars would certianly not be the more environmental-friendly option.
That said, we don't have a SUV or a van, and the car is still smallish, by US standards. For the rare occasions when the cargo-capacity is too small (vacation for example) there's a box to strap on the roof. Somewhat less practical, but come on, it's like 3 times a year, who cares.
To be secure they should be longish, cryptic, differen for different systems, not written down, and perhaps even regularily changing. Which combines to create a set of requirements the human mind cannot reasonably meet.
I'm not *capable* of remembering 25 different 10-character randomly-generated passwords that each change every month. It just doesn't work. So any security-plan that is based on the premise that this *will* work is fundamentally broken.
We're going to need to swap to two-factor authenthication, there's no other good answer.
You can authenthicate in any of 3 ways:
Something you know. (password, lock-code)
Something you posess. (key, entry-pass)
Something you are. (biometrics, recognition)
For example, a good solution migth be the combination of a usb-key and a single pin or passphrase.
To use a computer, the user inserts the usb-key, and is prompted to enter pin or passphrase. The usb-key contains a secret key which is used to authenthicate as the user, this secret-key is encrypted with the passphrase being the encryption-key.
A single usb-key can hold many keys. You can have some of the keys -- those for low-security applications, unencrypted, or encrypted with a key that is stored on your home/work computer. This adds convenience, but lowers security.
For example, for logging on at my work-computer simply inserting the key could be sufficient. This means anyone who gets physical access to my work-computer *AND* has aquired my usb-key can impersonate me on the local network. At my work that would be perfectly acceptable.
For Banking, you'd want a passphrase additionally: to use the bank, insert the usb-key, and enter a passphrase. Still simpler than todays solution, because you can have a single passphrase for multiple independent sites (without the sites needing to trust oneanother) and because you don't need to remember your username.
Low-security-site: Simply insert usb-key.
High-security-site: insert usb-key, enter passphrase.
The main risk would be, some people would leave their usb-key permanently plugged into their computer. (the same people who tell Firefox to remember the username/password for their online-bank today....)
In a high-security envinroment, like a bank, it should be possible to drill into the employees that this isn't acceptable. One can make that more easy by for example providing keyboards with usb-slots on top of them -- to push the key into before using the computer. (or one could require the re-entereing of the passphrase after X minutes of inactivity)
Let me see if I can explain this in very small words.
Go ahead -- try.
I Am not Responsible For the actions of ANYBODY ELSE.
You don't have a beef with Christianity. You have a beef with certain humans with whom you have crossed paths. I (along with 99.999% of the Christians on Earth) had nothing to do with it.
By this logic it's not *possible* to have a beef with any organization, country, religion or indeed anything consisting of more than a single individual. One can *always* pulverize responsibility by claiming that the country, religion, organization or whatever does nothing, it's all actions of *individuals* and the beef would be with those individuals only.
I'm sorry. But that's too easy.
The church in Norway is a democratic organization. It is the official opinion of the church in Norway (not just of any single individual) that, for example, certain kinds of life-saving reseach should be forbidden, that homosexuals should not enjoy equal rigths and that I should be restrained (by force if nessecary) from for example cutting my lawn on a sunday.
Thus I have a beef with the *organization* and not just with individual members.
But there are groups that aren't formally organized as groups, but which nevertheless form a coherent group with a coherent set of opinions and actions. I think, for example, that it is fair to say that the group "muslims" generally do not accept homosexuality. This is fair *despite* the fact that there is no official "muslim" organization, there is significant variation internally in the muslim community, and the group is somewhat fuzzy around the edges. Nevertheless the word "muslim" has a meaning, and in most cases there is a simple uncontroversial answer to the question: "is X a muslim?"
I'm perfectly aware you personally aren't a member of the church in Norway. You didn't say which church, if any, you are a member of. If you are not a member of any church, I agree you have no responsibility for what any church does or says.
Willingly being a member of a group, formally organized or not, and being aware that the group does something bad makes you somewhat responsible for that bad -- as long as you do nothing to try to prevent the bad. If the group is democratic, and you vote in *favor* of the bad thing, then doubly so offcourse.
By the way -- you take this far to personally. I'm just saying, in actual fact, I as a non-christian *do* experience, regularily, that my freedom is limited based on the ideas of religious organizations, and that those same organizations actively try to limit my freedom further. Luckily it seems they're losing that battle. But nevertheless I *do* have a legitimate beef with that. And *not* just with a few single individuals.
I am NOT a Creationist. I support gay marriage, gay divorce, gay child support, and/or any other legal relationships that two consenting adults might wish to undertake with one another. I think the State should have nothing whatsoever to say about marriage, apart from the normal enforcement of contract law.
I'm perfectly aware that not all christians are nuts. I'm glad to hear you're not. If you also advocate these views internally in whatever church you may be a member of and/or vote for people who have similar opinions, then I agree you're doing your part, and are blameless for the religious crap I (and every other non-believer) has to put up with.
I am just sick and tired of the all too many people who form a silent majority in many organizations, being members, but never in any way trying to affect anything, and then turn around and claim they have no part whatsoever in whatever evil the organization they support do.
Yeah. You're rigth. I misremembered the model-designation. It was a CX, (my uncle had a BX at some point, no clue how it worked out though) those where produced from 74 to 91, the thing actually was "Car of the Year" in 1975. According to Wikipedia "decent rustproofing" was added in 1981, and The CX also acquired a reputation for high running costs, which over time cut sales
Personally, the experience permanently cured me of Citroen. I hear they make decent vehicles these days, but honestly, I don't expect to own more than perhaps half a dozen cars in my life, so for me that means one chance is all any company gets. Blow it and you *stay* blown, Citroen blew it for sure.
The Fiat we had before the Citroen was also a royal piece of crap, but I was young enough back then that I don't remember enough details to be able to judge it fairly, thus I skipped it from my little history-tour. And don't even get me *started* on the Trabant the parents of my wife had when she was young. The thing was used like literally less than 5000 miles/year, stored in a dry garage year-round, regularily serviced, driven on flat undemanding terrain. And *nevertheless* broke down regularily and was essentially junk at 50000 miles. That was former east-germany though, so I guess that's unfair, car in the west where significantly better at the same time.
The thing is, most everything made 10, 25, 50 or 100 years ago was *also* crap. It's just that for obvious reasons people remember the item that still works 30 years later, but have forgotten about the item that died in its first year decades ago.
In actual fact, the average modern car goes significantly further with significantly less service needed than cars did only a few decades ago. Yes, there where a few exceptions. A few cars built in the 70ies still work fine today, a quarter million miles later. But most don't. A few cars built today are likely to survice the *next* 30 years too.
I remember the cars we used to have in the 70ies. Citroen BX. Refused starting on principal reasons at sub-zero temperatures. Had sucky comfort. Needed like a dozen miles before the heating would even *consider* starting to work. Actually came with a fucking *crank* for starting when the battery/starter/whatever was uncooperative, which happened aproximately 50 times in the 10 years we kept the sucker before we gave it up 10 years old and 80000miles used. It was considered perfectly normal service to need oil-change every 5000 miles. A new wussname-belt every 20000 miles. New tires every 10000 miles and lots of other wear-parts.
10 Years later my (now) wife got a Corsa. A sucky car as the standard of the times was. It still outstripped the BX without even trying. It ended up going twice as far as the BX with 1/3rd the services needed and 1/3rd as many wear-parts swapped. 2 or 3 breakdowns over 13 years. It still runs without a hitch today, with a new owner, we sold it after we married and needed a 5-door car.
12 year later we got a Skoda Fabia. That's about as dirt-cheap as you can go for something calling itself a "family" car. It's only 2 years old yet, so it's too early to judge the thing. But it's run around 40Kkm, and all it needed for it was having the oil changed. We had it looked over regularily, most repairs are on warranty anyway for the first 5 years, but -zip- was found. Ask me again in 10-15 years and I'll tell you how it worked out. I do however have every expectation it will CRUSH the BX and humiliate the Corsa in reliability.
Yes. Anectdotal evidence isn't. However statistics support this view. People use their cars on the average more and more. Despite this, the cars hold up atleast as many years as they used to, while at the same time having slashed maintenance-costs in half or more, with superior comfort and vastly superior reliability.
Electronics is a bit different. People don't *care* to pay even a single dollar more for a TV that will on the average work for 25 years instead of one that will on the average work for 15 years.
First, the things are dirt-cheap anyway. It's not that long ago that even a simple TV would cost more than an average person makes a month. Today you get a much better TV for a weeks salary at most, and if you *do* invest a months salary you get a huge flat-panel which frankly is hardly comparable in any way.
Secondly, technology advances quickly enough that a 15 year old machine lacks enough features that you'd more or less want to swap it anyway -- even if it was still working perfectly. Why pay extra to get 25 years if you're likely to toss the thing away when it's 10 years old anyway ?
God of war is one of the more brutal ps2-games there is. You rip peoples (well, medusas) heads off, you impale caged prisoners that pose no threat to you, you slaugther hordes of enemies, blood flying.
Still, the aspect of it they're concerned with is the fact that there's a scene or two where you can spot a naked breast for a second or two, you can also choose to have sex with two whores once you arrive in Athen, the sex is off-camera (you see only a shaking bed and hear "ohs" and "ahs" -- you win a few red orbs if you manage to bring the girls to orgasm.)
Still -- the sexuality is a very minor part of God of War, occupying no more than 1% of the gameplay. Raw violence on the other hand occupised like 90% of the gameplay.
It's an excellent game. It's not a suitable game for small children. Sexuality is however the least of the reasons.
Collecting monopoly-rent for 50 years is a damn fine "financial reward", actually, in economic terms that is about as good as forever, really. The math goes like this:
Pick a numer for deprecation, interest if you will. Let's say 4%. This means that if you had $100 today, that would be worth as much to you as being guaranteed $104 a year from now.
Now, let's say the recording sold for $100K/year (the number doesn't matter for the rest of the math really).
At 4% deprecation, getting $100K/year forever has a "now"-value of $2.500.000 because 4% of that is 100K, so you could invest the 2.5 million at 4%, and *get* $100K/year.
So, what's the value of $100K/year for the next 50 years ? $2.175.000
So, in economic terms (assuming 4% deprecation which is reasonable) 50 years is 87% of forever.
Since I don't know precisely what you consider "your faith" it's sorta hard to answer what "your faith" is responsible for.
I'm sure you're aware that christians through the agers are guilty of a multitude of astrocities, many of which commited in the name of God. But even if we leave ancient history and talk only about oh say stuff that's happened this last century, christians in Norway (the christian church in norway is significantly *more* moderate than the catholic church in USA) are responsible directly or indirectly for all of the following:
Special laws for sundays -- I'm not allowed to have a store open on sunday (not all kinds of stores anyway).
Outlawing certain kinds of research that could improve quality and longity of live for thousands, thus being responsible for the addes suffering that lack of treatment causes.
Figthing equal rigths for women tooth and nail, luckily for all the women of Norway, the church *lost* this battle early in the 20th century, significant parts of the church would still like to reverse it -- if they could.
Figthing equal rigths for people with any sexuality other than monogamous heterosexual. Still figthing this battle, but it looks as if the battle will (thank God !) be lost here too.
Figthing -- again tooth and nail -- against a truly religiouly-neutral school. Still insisting christianity should get "special treatment".
Actively trying to mixup science and religion by insisting (again, here thankfully a lost battle) that "Intelligent Design" should be taugth in biology, along evolution.
You're rigth -- I haven't personally suffered much at the hands of christianty. I'm luck enough to live in a country where christianity have little influence and little power. I'm very very happy that christianity has mostly been losing it's battles lately.
200 years from now, a very large fraction of the stuff we use today will be either completely disintegrated to the point where it's not even obvious it once was an object at all, recycled (for energy or materials) and thus completely gone, or broken utterly beyond repair.
That was true 200 years ago too by the way. Nearly all objects made in the 18th century are completely gone, and most of the ones that aren't are broken.
A very few objects endure much longer. Either because they're of very solid construction (pyramids), because they where continously important to someone, so was taken great care of. (many objects will last centuries if protected from moisture, extreme temperatures and physical wear and tear). True sheer luck, because they where continously maintained, or a combination of these factors.
The last option, maintenance, gets more difficult with more modern objects, because they essentially require an entire industry for creating certain parts. Replacing a rotted plank on a wooden house is doable. Replacing a broken microchip made in a technology that hasn't been used in decades, and which no current factory is capable of replicating is a different matter. If you're satisfied with replacing the part with a modern "equivalent" part, then it gets a bit more doable, but still tricky.
Nonsense. The existence of God is perfectly debatable. But it gets no "special" recognition.
Once someone makes a coherent statement as to what exactly they mean by "God", including one or more verifiable properties, they're free to argue their case just as much as --say-- those who believe the Higgs exist are free to argue their case. (the jury is still out on the Higgs, personally I think it doesn't exist, but I'm perfectly willing to be shown wrong.)
The thing many atheists have a problem with is that most "God"-definitions are *internally* conflicting. It's sort of like claiming a>b and b>a in math. You don't need to actually examine the values of a and b to know that is BS.
Examples include: (I have no idea if you personally are guilty of any of these)
God is omnipotent, but free will exists.
God is omnipotent, but not to blame for "bad stuff".
God is omniscient, but it makes sense to "tell him" stuff in prayers.
God is moral and good, but punish children for the sins of parents.
*such* definitions of "God" aren't really debatable, because they're *internally* conflicting, you need to resolve the *internal* conflicts in a theory before you can even start to examine if it corresponds with reality.
It basically serves only one purpose: To protect liars.
Someone promises you something, and doesn't keep his end of the bargain, you can't prove he promised it, and are out of luck. IF you record his promises, you're a) breaking the law and b) the recordings are thus not permissible as evidence.
Same applies for ex-partners that make repeated harassing phone-calls -- you're not *allowed* to collect evidence, and without evidence you can't put a stop to it. Brilliant. "Do you have proof ?" asks the police, and regardless of if your answer is yes or no, you're screwed.
In Norway, if you can legally listen to something, then you can also legally record it, unless you've entered into a contract to the oposite effect. (often when you go to concerts for example, recordings aren't allowed, but that's a contractual restriction.)
I think it perfectly fair that if you say something to someone, that it's perfectly possible that the person in question is capable of proving you said it later, and thus hold you accountable for your own statements. (whether threats or promises)
The most likely explanation is that it's easier to be well-adapted to day or nigth and minimize chance of discovery and energy-waste in the other part of the day by being immobile.
If you're unable to run/figth effectively in the dark anyway, it may be that finding a reasonable secure place in the evening and thereafter staying put until morning is a winning strategy. Being awake and alert doesn't bring you anything unless you can successfully flee and/or figth the threat.
It's not more expensive for Americans to go to Europe than the other way around, is it ? Infact it should generally be somewhat cheaper since the USA is richer than the average of Europe.
I've generally spent about $600 for the plane-ticket (Norway -> East-coast, add a few hundred more for west-coast), and after that is paid there's no reason a vacation in Europe needs to be more expensive than one in the USA. Indeed parts of Europe are significantly *cheaper* than USA. I'd probably figure somewhere between $100/day for most of Europe, it depends on what kind of a traveler you are camping is _somewhat_ cheaper than 5-star.
So, for a couple from the east-coast a 2-week vacation in Europe would probably be on the order of $4000. Which ain't precisely cheap, but on the other hand it's something many American couples would have no problem doing every year -- if that's what they wanted.
Want something different, and lots cheaper ?
Swap house/apartment with some European who wants to visit your part of the USA. End-result is, the entire trip costs you nothing more than the travel. You need food and stuff offcourse, but you'd need that if you stayed at home too. $600 in extra costs for a 2 week vacation for a couple sound more doable ?
We swapped our house on the west-coast of Norway with a similarily sized house in Thun, Switzerland. It was a wonderful idea. Dirt-cheap, and *vastly* more comfortable than ANY hotel. Plus you get out of the tourist-ghetto and into the areas where the locals live. Plus, it's netted us friends for life -- that was 15 years ago, and we *still* have regular contact with the people we swapped house with.
These days though, books are so cheap relative to income that the limiting factor on book-consumption is likely to be time rather than money. Thus, may I suggest: buy a few good books and read those on the more boring parts of your travel, such as on the transatlantic fligth.
Most western nations have two-block systems, with one left-wing and one right-wing bloc.
It depends on how you define 'bloc', in the USA a bloc is simply a single political party.
In Norway it's rare that any one political party has a majority, the *norm* is a cooperative government formed by 2 or 3 parties, such as the current "red-green" government. A political party in Norway can't pretend there's 2 answers: ours and that of the enemy. They are forced to find compromises together with other parties.
The same is true for Finnland and Germany. I don't know Swedish politics well enough to be able to say. You guys generally end up having a single political party with the majority ?
I agree. It's sad. It seems to me, in the USA workers have prioritized higher pay as pretty much the only important point in negotiating with employeers. (I know that's overstating it, I just mean the general trend).
In Norway there's been more of a focus on other aspects of the work-relationship, not just the pay. Well-educated people actually earn sligthly *less* here than in the USA.
But everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 27 days of vacation every year, for example. And work-weeks are generally 37.5 hours (legal maximum 40 hours) And you get the day off, with full pay, if say your kids gets sick and you need to stay at home with him/her. And there's full universal healthcare for everyone, no exceptions. And you get a year off with full pay if you get a child, 6 of those weeks reserved for the father.
I think you're rigth. It's easy to fly from Sweden to Italy. Takes 3 hours. It takes a full day to get from USA to Europe, and there's jet-lag enough to mean in practice you pretty much end up losing 2 days for each leg of your travel. So, in practice, it doesn't really make sense to go to Europe unless you've got atleast 2 weeks to spend. And with only 2-3 weeks total paid leave, that's a significant problem.
I oberved people mostly speaking the same languages. (english, some spanish) Wearing similar-styled clothing. Driving the same cars (modulus practical differences like more open-top in the more climate parts) Shopping in the same supermarket-chains. Watching many of the same tv-stations and tv-programmes. Having the same (or very close to) political system. Having 95%+ the same laws (I know there's differences, but honestly, most stuff is similar). Building the same McMansions in similarily structured suburbs.
The stuff that was most different was food and local culture. Also, outside of the suburbs architecture is more varied.
Nevertheless, Sweden and Italy *are* significantly more different than Hawaii and Maine. (and Hawaii is sort of a special case anyway, let's say Texas and Ohio)
If you don't believe that, I guess you've not been in Sweden and Italy.
If it's a requirement for you to want visiting a place that the population approves of the actions of your political leadership at home, then yeah, maybe you should better stay at home. You're rigth, US foreign policy ain't very popular abroad at the moment, not even in the countries you're allied with. (should be something to think about though...)
But you're wrong if you think people in general act as if a *person* from USA is equal to the politics of your currently elected government. Most of the ones that aren't dumb as brick are perfectly aware that not even a quarter of you guys actually ever voted for Bush, for example.
Besides, you say you are "told by the media" that the rest of the world hates you and want to kill you. You actually believe that ? Iraq ain't "the rest of the world" you know...
I can't actually think of even a single case of an American being abused in any way for being American in Scandinavia the last decade. Protests against US foreign policy ? Sure as hell ! That's not "bad behaviour", that's "democracy" or "freedom of expression".
My apologies. I am perfectly aware that not all Americans are any specific way, as you say, it's a large country, with lots of different people.
It's a general impression though, that certain ways of thinking, and certain taboo-topics are more common in the USA than they are in Europe.
Media certianly doesn't show the entire picture. But they show parts of it. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." A state-leader uttering such a phrase would be unthinkable in most European countries, and laughable too. I think the black/white thing is real enough. (despite the fact that not *all* or probably even *most* Americans are like that)
I've got many friends in the USA, they are more educated and more internationally-oriented than the average Americans (if they wheren't I probably wouldn't know them) but even they in general tend somewhat to this false view of reality where 2 alternatives is all there is. Yes/No. Enemy/Friend. Black/White. Good/Evil. Republican/Democrat.
I think it's a fundamentally bad idea. Yes, it's true, getting rid of the weaker students theoretically allow the better ones to learn more, because they won't be hampered by the 5th explanation of something they understood after the 1st.
But the way it works in Germany, society as a whole gets ever-more segregated. You simply don't know anyone outside of your own class. Which is a problem because it leads to diminished solidarity and less understanding of society as a *whole*. Witness how the managers of Germanys top firms have granted themselves 20% salary-rise each year the last 5 years, at the same time minimum pensions are stationary (which means buying power is *declining* because of inflation) and ALG2 is also lowered.
Adding "studiengebühren" just adds insult to injury and sets up yet *another* roadblock to prevent children from less well-off families from getting a decent education. Class mobility is fairly low, and decreasing rapidly in Germany today. If your parents are both on ALG-2, odds are you won't become a doctor or lawyer yourself, to put it mildly.
Only 4 years in Germany was enough to make me fall in love with the country, despite having lived in one of the more "problematic" parts of the country. (Cottbus, about 100km south-east of Berlin) You've got rolling hills. Enormous forests. Friendly people. Good and cheap beer. Decent infrastructure. An ancient culture full of interesting stuff.
Only a pity that the class of "loosers" grows ever bigger. The part of Germany that doesn't get to take part in the party. Frankly, I think your very early separation of pupils into "good", "medium" and "bad" contributes negatively to this.
20% and growing of the children in Germany grow up in poverty.
3% and falling of the children in Norway grow up in poverty.
Perhaps, but it's hard to say. A large portion of the known Methan Clathrate deposits are actually in tropicla or subtropical waters, which sound very odd until you consider that water is at its densest at 4 degrees centigrade above freezing, i.e. go deep enough and that's about the temperature no matter if it's in the tropics or in the Arctic.
A person that happens to think Jesus gave some advice that is reasonable is not a christian. A person that believes Jesus was the son of God and you can only be saved by believing in this, is a christian.
Certainly, there'll always be conflict, even if everyone where atheists, there'd be wars, there'd be conflict, there'd be arguments. That's just human nature. Atheists do have one major advantage though:
Everything is open to debate.
If you honestly believe that God exists, and he himself set up a certain rule. Then obviously, that rule ain't debatable by mere humans. A christian leader can't meet with a muslim leader and agree that the christian God will drop the requirement to not have other Gods if the muslim God drops the requirement to travel to Mekka. It just doesn't work.
An atheist, on the other hand -- is free to discuss and compromise on anything. He recognizes that *all* human rules are made by human beings -- and thus can have mistakes in them. So, he is -- atleast in principle, willing to hear arguments why they may be wrong and adjust the rules as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
You're rigth, SCO is *still* after several years trying to add more evidence and more claims. By having expert-testimony (which is supposed to *explain* the claims and the evidence) contain claims that aren't there in the final disposition.
So, ok, SCO still, after being ordered repeatedly to put all the evidence on the table for literally *years* don't have all the evidence they claim to posess on the table.
But worse: They also *still* don't want to commit to exactly what it is that they are even *claiming* that IBM did.
In effect, several years after the trial started, SCO is still at: "You did something wrong, but we refuse to state in specific terms *what* you did wrong, we also refuse to provide any evidence that you *did* infact do the things we claim."
It's impossible to defend oneself if one doesn't even know precisely what the accusations are. "Structure and organization" ain't specific. No more than "breaking some law" would be.
It's beyond ridicolous. They've been given enough rope at this point. It's nice to see the judges are starting to tigthen up -- this particular attempt at redefinind the claims was turned down flat.
For example, the car we drive. (we as in me and my wife)
We're a 5 person family. Current child-safety-seats are rather large. We *need* to be able to fit the 3 kids side-by-side in the backseat. A compact Fabia just could not do that. It plainly does not fit. The seat-width needs to be 150cm or more, and on a Fabia, it's not. (lacks 10cm or so)
We're 5 people probably 10% of the time, so 90% of the time the size of the vehicle is overkill. But we can't aford to have 2 cars, so the single one we do have *has* to cover all our needs. A car that covers 90% of our needs is simply not an option.
In other words: The fact that our car 90% of the time could be smaller is no indication that the car is to large. Having *2* cars would certianly not be the more environmental-friendly option.
That said, we don't have a SUV or a van, and the car is still smallish, by US standards. For the rare occasions when the cargo-capacity is too small (vacation for example) there's a box to strap on the roof. Somewhat less practical, but come on, it's like 3 times a year, who cares.
To be secure they should be longish, cryptic, differen for different systems, not written down, and perhaps even regularily changing. Which combines to create a set of requirements the human mind cannot reasonably meet.
I'm not *capable* of remembering 25 different 10-character randomly-generated passwords that each change every month. It just doesn't work. So any security-plan that is based on the premise that this *will* work is fundamentally broken.
We're going to need to swap to two-factor authenthication, there's no other good answer.
You can authenthicate in any of 3 ways:
For example, a good solution migth be the combination of a usb-key and a single pin or passphrase.
To use a computer, the user inserts the usb-key, and is prompted to enter pin or passphrase. The usb-key contains a secret key which is used to authenthicate as the user, this secret-key is encrypted with the passphrase being the encryption-key.
A single usb-key can hold many keys. You can have some of the keys -- those for low-security applications, unencrypted, or encrypted with a key that is stored on your home/work computer. This adds convenience, but lowers security.
For example, for logging on at my work-computer simply inserting the key could be sufficient. This means anyone who gets physical access to my work-computer *AND* has aquired my usb-key can impersonate me on the local network. At my work that would be perfectly acceptable.
For Banking, you'd want a passphrase additionally: to use the bank, insert the usb-key, and enter a passphrase. Still simpler than todays solution, because you can have a single passphrase for multiple independent sites (without the sites needing to trust oneanother) and because you don't need to remember your username.
The main risk would be, some people would leave their usb-key permanently plugged into their computer. (the same people who tell Firefox to remember the username/password for their online-bank today....)
In a high-security envinroment, like a bank, it should be possible to drill into the employees that this isn't acceptable. One can make that more easy by for example providing keyboards with usb-slots on top of them -- to push the key into before using the computer. (or one could require the re-entereing of the passphrase after X minutes of inactivity)
Go ahead -- try.
I Am not Responsible For the actions of ANYBODY ELSE.
You don't have a beef with Christianity. You have a beef with certain humans with whom you have crossed paths. I (along with 99.999% of the Christians on Earth) had nothing to do with it.
By this logic it's not *possible* to have a beef with any organization, country, religion or indeed anything consisting of more than a single individual. One can *always* pulverize responsibility by claiming that the country, religion, organization or whatever does nothing, it's all actions of *individuals* and the beef would be with those individuals only.
I'm sorry. But that's too easy.
The church in Norway is a democratic organization. It is the official opinion of the church in Norway (not just of any single individual) that, for example, certain kinds of life-saving reseach should be forbidden, that homosexuals should not enjoy equal rigths and that I should be restrained (by force if nessecary) from for example cutting my lawn on a sunday.
Thus I have a beef with the *organization* and not just with individual members.
But there are groups that aren't formally organized as groups, but which nevertheless form a coherent group with a coherent set of opinions and actions. I think, for example, that it is fair to say that the group "muslims" generally do not accept homosexuality. This is fair *despite* the fact that there is no official "muslim" organization, there is significant variation internally in the muslim community, and the group is somewhat fuzzy around the edges. Nevertheless the word "muslim" has a meaning, and in most cases there is a simple uncontroversial answer to the question: "is X a muslim?"
I'm perfectly aware you personally aren't a member of the church in Norway. You didn't say which church, if any, you are a member of. If you are not a member of any church, I agree you have no responsibility for what any church does or says.
Willingly being a member of a group, formally organized or not, and being aware that the group does something bad makes you somewhat responsible for that bad -- as long as you do nothing to try to prevent the bad. If the group is democratic, and you vote in *favor* of the bad thing, then doubly so offcourse.
By the way -- you take this far to personally. I'm just saying, in actual fact, I as a non-christian *do* experience, regularily, that my freedom is limited based on the ideas of religious organizations, and that those same organizations actively try to limit my freedom further. Luckily it seems they're losing that battle. But nevertheless I *do* have a legitimate beef with that. And *not* just with a few single individuals.
I am NOT a Creationist. I support gay marriage, gay divorce, gay child support, and/or any other legal relationships that two consenting adults might wish to undertake with one another. I think the State should have nothing whatsoever to say about marriage, apart from the normal enforcement of contract law.
I'm perfectly aware that not all christians are nuts. I'm glad to hear you're not. If you also advocate these views internally in whatever church you may be a member of and/or vote for people who have similar opinions, then I agree you're doing your part, and are blameless for the religious crap I (and every other non-believer) has to put up with.
I am just sick and tired of the all too many people who form a silent majority in many organizations, being members, but never in any way trying to affect anything, and then turn around and claim they have no part whatsoever in whatever evil the organization they support do.
Personally, the experience permanently cured me of Citroen. I hear they make decent vehicles these days, but honestly, I don't expect to own more than perhaps half a dozen cars in my life, so for me that means one chance is all any company gets. Blow it and you *stay* blown, Citroen blew it for sure.
The Fiat we had before the Citroen was also a royal piece of crap, but I was young enough back then that I don't remember enough details to be able to judge it fairly, thus I skipped it from my little history-tour. And don't even get me *started* on the Trabant the parents of my wife had when she was young. The thing was used like literally less than 5000 miles/year, stored in a dry garage year-round, regularily serviced, driven on flat undemanding terrain. And *nevertheless* broke down regularily and was essentially junk at 50000 miles. That was former east-germany though, so I guess that's unfair, car in the west where significantly better at the same time.
Thank God they don't !
The thing is, most everything made 10, 25, 50 or 100 years ago was *also* crap. It's just that for obvious reasons people remember the item that still works 30 years later, but have forgotten about the item that died in its first year decades ago.
In actual fact, the average modern car goes significantly further with significantly less service needed than cars did only a few decades ago. Yes, there where a few exceptions. A few cars built in the 70ies still work fine today, a quarter million miles later. But most don't. A few cars built today are likely to survice the *next* 30 years too.
I remember the cars we used to have in the 70ies. Citroen BX. Refused starting on principal reasons at sub-zero temperatures. Had sucky comfort. Needed like a dozen miles before the heating would even *consider* starting to work. Actually came with a fucking *crank* for starting when the battery/starter/whatever was uncooperative, which happened aproximately 50 times in the 10 years we kept the sucker before we gave it up 10 years old and 80000miles used. It was considered perfectly normal service to need oil-change every 5000 miles. A new wussname-belt every 20000 miles. New tires every 10000 miles and lots of other wear-parts.
10 Years later my (now) wife got a Corsa. A sucky car as the standard of the times was. It still outstripped the BX without even trying. It ended up going twice as far as the BX with 1/3rd the services needed and 1/3rd as many wear-parts swapped. 2 or 3 breakdowns over 13 years. It still runs without a hitch today, with a new owner, we sold it after we married and needed a 5-door car.
12 year later we got a Skoda Fabia. That's about as dirt-cheap as you can go for something calling itself a "family" car. It's only 2 years old yet, so it's too early to judge the thing. But it's run around 40Kkm, and all it needed for it was having the oil changed. We had it looked over regularily, most repairs are on warranty anyway for the first 5 years, but -zip- was found. Ask me again in 10-15 years and I'll tell you how it worked out. I do however have every expectation it will CRUSH the BX and humiliate the Corsa in reliability.
Yes. Anectdotal evidence isn't. However statistics support this view. People use their cars on the average more and more. Despite this, the cars hold up atleast as many years as they used to, while at the same time having slashed maintenance-costs in half or more, with superior comfort and vastly superior reliability.
Electronics is a bit different. People don't *care* to pay even a single dollar more for a TV that will on the average work for 25 years instead of one that will on the average work for 15 years.
First, the things are dirt-cheap anyway. It's not that long ago that even a simple TV would cost more than an average person makes a month. Today you get a much better TV for a weeks salary at most, and if you *do* invest a months salary you get a huge flat-panel which frankly is hardly comparable in any way.
Secondly, technology advances quickly enough that a 15 year old machine lacks enough features that you'd more or less want to swap it anyway -- even if it was still working perfectly. Why pay extra to get 25 years if you're likely to toss the thing away when it's 10 years old anyway ?
God of war is one of the more brutal ps2-games there is. You rip peoples (well, medusas) heads off, you impale caged prisoners that pose no threat to you, you slaugther hordes of enemies, blood flying.
Still, the aspect of it they're concerned with is the fact that there's a scene or two where you can spot a naked breast for a second or two, you can also choose to have sex with two whores once you arrive in Athen, the sex is off-camera (you see only a shaking bed and hear "ohs" and "ahs" -- you win a few red orbs if you manage to bring the girls to orgasm.)
Still -- the sexuality is a very minor part of God of War, occupying no more than 1% of the gameplay. Raw violence on the other hand occupised like 90% of the gameplay.
It's an excellent game. It's not a suitable game for small children. Sexuality is however the least of the reasons.
Quite common confusion there.
Pick a numer for deprecation, interest if you will. Let's say 4%. This means that if you had $100 today, that would be worth as much to you as being guaranteed $104 a year from now.
Now, let's say the recording sold for $100K/year (the number doesn't matter for the rest of the math really).
At 4% deprecation, getting $100K/year forever has a "now"-value of $2.500.000 because 4% of that is 100K, so you could invest the 2.5 million at 4%, and *get* $100K/year.
So, what's the value of $100K/year for the next 50 years ? $2.175.000
So, in economic terms (assuming 4% deprecation which is reasonable) 50 years is 87% of forever.
I'm sure you're aware that christians through the agers are guilty of a multitude of astrocities, many of which commited in the name of God. But even if we leave ancient history and talk only about oh say stuff that's happened this last century, christians in Norway (the christian church in norway is significantly *more* moderate than the catholic church in USA) are responsible directly or indirectly for all of the following:
You're rigth -- I haven't personally suffered much at the hands of christianty. I'm luck enough to live in a country where christianity have little influence and little power. I'm very very happy that christianity has mostly been losing it's battles lately.
That was true 200 years ago too by the way. Nearly all objects made in the 18th century are completely gone, and most of the ones that aren't are broken.
A very few objects endure much longer. Either because they're of very solid construction (pyramids), because they where continously important to someone, so was taken great care of. (many objects will last centuries if protected from moisture, extreme temperatures and physical wear and tear). True sheer luck, because they where continously maintained, or a combination of these factors.
The last option, maintenance, gets more difficult with more modern objects, because they essentially require an entire industry for creating certain parts. Replacing a rotted plank on a wooden house is doable. Replacing a broken microchip made in a technology that hasn't been used in decades, and which no current factory is capable of replicating is a different matter. If you're satisfied with replacing the part with a modern "equivalent" part, then it gets a bit more doable, but still tricky.
Plenty of work turn out to ultimately be useless, and never brings a reward at all.
Once someone makes a coherent statement as to what exactly they mean by "God", including one or more verifiable properties, they're free to argue their case just as much as --say-- those who believe the Higgs exist are free to argue their case. (the jury is still out on the Higgs, personally I think it doesn't exist, but I'm perfectly willing to be shown wrong.)
The thing many atheists have a problem with is that most "God"-definitions are *internally* conflicting. It's sort of like claiming a>b and b>a in math. You don't need to actually examine the values of a and b to know that is BS.
Examples include: (I have no idea if you personally are guilty of any of these)
*such* definitions of "God" aren't really debatable, because they're *internally* conflicting, you need to resolve the *internal* conflicts in a theory before you can even start to examine if it corresponds with reality.
It basically serves only one purpose: To protect liars.
Someone promises you something, and doesn't keep his end of the bargain, you can't prove he promised it, and are out of luck. IF you record his promises, you're a) breaking the law and b) the recordings are thus not permissible as evidence.
Same applies for ex-partners that make repeated harassing phone-calls -- you're not *allowed* to collect evidence, and without evidence you can't put a stop to it. Brilliant. "Do you have proof ?" asks the police, and regardless of if your answer is yes or no, you're screwed.
In Norway, if you can legally listen to something, then you can also legally record it, unless you've entered into a contract to the oposite effect. (often when you go to concerts for example, recordings aren't allowed, but that's a contractual restriction.)
I think it perfectly fair that if you say something to someone, that it's perfectly possible that the person in question is capable of proving you said it later, and thus hold you accountable for your own statements. (whether threats or promises)
If you're unable to run/figth effectively in the dark anyway, it may be that finding a reasonable secure place in the evening and thereafter staying put until morning is a winning strategy. Being awake and alert doesn't bring you anything unless you can successfully flee and/or figth the threat.
I've generally spent about $600 for the plane-ticket (Norway -> East-coast, add a few hundred more for west-coast), and after that is paid there's no reason a vacation in Europe needs to be more expensive than one in the USA. Indeed parts of Europe are significantly *cheaper* than USA. I'd probably figure somewhere between $100/day for most of Europe, it depends on what kind of a traveler you are camping is _somewhat_ cheaper than 5-star.
So, for a couple from the east-coast a 2-week vacation in Europe would probably be on the order of $4000. Which ain't precisely cheap, but on the other hand it's something many American couples would have no problem doing every year -- if that's what they wanted.
Want something different, and lots cheaper ?
Swap house/apartment with some European who wants to visit your part of the USA. End-result is, the entire trip costs you nothing more than the travel. You need food and stuff offcourse, but you'd need that if you stayed at home too. $600 in extra costs for a 2 week vacation for a couple sound more doable ?
We swapped our house on the west-coast of Norway with a similarily sized house in Thun, Switzerland. It was a wonderful idea. Dirt-cheap, and *vastly* more comfortable than ANY hotel. Plus you get out of the tourist-ghetto and into the areas where the locals live. Plus, it's netted us friends for life -- that was 15 years ago, and we *still* have regular contact with the people we swapped house with.
These days though, books are so cheap relative to income that the limiting factor on book-consumption is likely to be time rather than money. Thus, may I suggest: buy a few good books and read those on the more boring parts of your travel, such as on the transatlantic fligth.
It depends on how you define 'bloc', in the USA a bloc is simply a single political party.
In Norway it's rare that any one political party has a majority, the *norm* is a cooperative government formed by 2 or 3 parties, such as the current "red-green" government. A political party in Norway can't pretend there's 2 answers: ours and that of the enemy. They are forced to find compromises together with other parties.
The same is true for Finnland and Germany. I don't know Swedish politics well enough to be able to say. You guys generally end up having a single political party with the majority ?
In Norway there's been more of a focus on other aspects of the work-relationship, not just the pay. Well-educated people actually earn sligthly *less* here than in the USA.
But everyone is guaranteed a minimum of 27 days of vacation every year, for example. And work-weeks are generally 37.5 hours (legal maximum 40 hours) And you get the day off, with full pay, if say your kids gets sick and you need to stay at home with him/her. And there's full universal healthcare for everyone, no exceptions. And you get a year off with full pay if you get a child, 6 of those weeks reserved for the father.
I think you're rigth. It's easy to fly from Sweden to Italy. Takes 3 hours. It takes a full day to get from USA to Europe, and there's jet-lag enough to mean in practice you pretty much end up losing 2 days for each leg of your travel. So, in practice, it doesn't really make sense to go to Europe unless you've got atleast 2 weeks to spend. And with only 2-3 weeks total paid leave, that's a significant problem.
I oberved people mostly speaking the same languages. (english, some spanish) Wearing similar-styled clothing. Driving the same cars (modulus practical differences like more open-top in the more climate parts) Shopping in the same supermarket-chains. Watching many of the same tv-stations and tv-programmes. Having the same (or very close to) political system. Having 95%+ the same laws (I know there's differences, but honestly, most stuff is similar). Building the same McMansions in similarily structured suburbs.
The stuff that was most different was food and local culture. Also, outside of the suburbs architecture is more varied.
Nevertheless, Sweden and Italy *are* significantly more different than Hawaii and Maine. (and Hawaii is sort of a special case anyway, let's say Texas and Ohio)
If you don't believe that, I guess you've not been in Sweden and Italy.
But you're wrong if you think people in general act as if a *person* from USA is equal to the politics of your currently elected government. Most of the ones that aren't dumb as brick are perfectly aware that not even a quarter of you guys actually ever voted for Bush, for example.
Besides, you say you are "told by the media" that the rest of the world hates you and want to kill you. You actually believe that ? Iraq ain't "the rest of the world" you know...
I can't actually think of even a single case of an American being abused in any way for being American in Scandinavia the last decade. Protests against US foreign policy ? Sure as hell ! That's not "bad behaviour", that's "democracy" or "freedom of expression".
You guys used to like those, remember ?
It's a general impression though, that certain ways of thinking, and certain taboo-topics are more common in the USA than they are in Europe.
Media certianly doesn't show the entire picture. But they show parts of it. "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." A state-leader uttering such a phrase would be unthinkable in most European countries, and laughable too. I think the black/white thing is real enough. (despite the fact that not *all* or probably even *most* Americans are like that)
I've got many friends in the USA, they are more educated and more internationally-oriented than the average Americans (if they wheren't I probably wouldn't know them) but even they in general tend somewhat to this false view of reality where 2 alternatives is all there is. Yes/No. Enemy/Friend. Black/White. Good/Evil. Republican/Democrat.
But the way it works in Germany, society as a whole gets ever-more segregated. You simply don't know anyone outside of your own class. Which is a problem because it leads to diminished solidarity and less understanding of society as a *whole*. Witness how the managers of Germanys top firms have granted themselves 20% salary-rise each year the last 5 years, at the same time minimum pensions are stationary (which means buying power is *declining* because of inflation) and ALG2 is also lowered.
Adding "studiengebühren" just adds insult to injury and sets up yet *another* roadblock to prevent children from less well-off families from getting a decent education. Class mobility is fairly low, and decreasing rapidly in Germany today. If your parents are both on ALG-2, odds are you won't become a doctor or lawyer yourself, to put it mildly.
Only 4 years in Germany was enough to make me fall in love with the country, despite having lived in one of the more "problematic" parts of the country. (Cottbus, about 100km south-east of Berlin) You've got rolling hills. Enormous forests. Friendly people. Good and cheap beer. Decent infrastructure. An ancient culture full of interesting stuff.
Only a pity that the class of "loosers" grows ever bigger. The part of Germany that doesn't get to take part in the party. Frankly, I think your very early separation of pupils into "good", "medium" and "bad" contributes negatively to this.
20% and growing of the children in Germany grow up in poverty. 3% and falling of the children in Norway grow up in poverty.
A person that happens to think Jesus gave some advice that is reasonable is not a christian. A person that believes Jesus was the son of God and you can only be saved by believing in this, is a christian.
Certainly, there'll always be conflict, even if everyone where atheists, there'd be wars, there'd be conflict, there'd be arguments. That's just human nature. Atheists do have one major advantage though:
Everything is open to debate.
If you honestly believe that God exists, and he himself set up a certain rule. Then obviously, that rule ain't debatable by mere humans. A christian leader can't meet with a muslim leader and agree that the christian God will drop the requirement to not have other Gods if the muslim God drops the requirement to travel to Mekka. It just doesn't work.
An atheist, on the other hand -- is free to discuss and compromise on anything. He recognizes that *all* human rules are made by human beings -- and thus can have mistakes in them. So, he is -- atleast in principle, willing to hear arguments why they may be wrong and adjust the rules as needed.