Use CC or BCC. Also use mailing lists. I routinely use email as a broadcast for a hobby of mine broadcasting messages to a community of approximately 100 people.
As someone who doesn't have a facebook account, I can tell you that you're wrong, and you'll likely realise just how wrong you are in judging the importance of facebook when you actually leave it and see that all your friends, acquaintances, people you need to contact... exist here in real life and have email accounts and phone numbers.
Not even close. Essentially everyone who plays games that feature any kind of P2P functionality WILL notice because these games will break. Anyone using skype will likely notice some issues with being unable to connect sometimes. Anyone using anything that relies on connecting directly to his device's IP will notice.
While *most* people probably won't notice, the amount of people who will notice is far from trivial.
We weren't "their own people". And USA and USSR treated everyone outside their borders like total shit. Ask the folks in and around Vietnam, or around Latin America.
The fact that you find it likely that people in need of benefits are the people who have time, willing to spend the effort and have the ability to dig inside the intimate parts of their computers.
You're essentially the guy who sees people who don't have bread, and telling them to eat cake, then wonder why you look ignorant.
Distributors certainly, but not manufacturers themselves. And these distributors typically hold long term contracts with certain manufacturer and won't be asking for multiple engineering samples.
Essentially most of the manufacturing going in China right now is big, because medium-sized manufacturing has serious problems competing for resources like work force and electricity with big ones.
I suggest trying to work for import companies instead. You'll notice a stark difference in the way business with chinese works in the other direction. Source: personal experience with the culture and their way of doing business in current climate.
I find it hard to see chinese businesses, which are swamped in orders and are mainly constrained by resources, as beggars. They're the choosers who need to pick most lucrative contracts to take so they can squeeze maximum profits out of their limited resources.
If anyone is a beggar in this scenario, it's the person placing the order. He's the one who needs stuff done that no one wants to do because it's not lucrative enough, as was shown in example above.
Wait wait wait. You call a massive genoside that was america's treatment of the natives that essentially wiped out entire ethnicities and cultures and largely peaceful cohabitation in Tibet where biggest hit was displacement of one of the most brutal theocratic rulers in known history. Han's tactic has been to cohabit, outnumber and assimilate rather then annihilate and take the land. There has been some limited ethnic cleansing on both sides throughout the history of last 800 or so years in Tibet, but tibetians and han have been able to cohabit peacefully much of the time when there wasn't a war-crazy leader who decided to make trouble on one side or the other. And notably, after the last annexation of Tibet, tibetians quality of life improved notably, mostly due to deposing of the religious leaders who treated the rest of population as nothing but personal slaves.
So in your opinion, the cohabit and assimilate with occasional ethnic strife is a less ethical approach then all out ethnic cleansing? I'm pretty sure this is a psychopathic stance, and the very reason why when asked which country is the greatest threat to world peace, most people in the world answer "United States of America". Because the angle you're presenting is not just unethical. It's INSANE.
I come from a country that stayed neutral during cold war and therefore avoided much of propaganda brainwashing you were clearly subjected to. As a result I have quite a bit of insight of the outsider that can see all the countries through the same lens, rather then an insider seeing "my side and their side". To me, there is no "good West" and "bad East" that you were clearly raised with. There were merely two huge evil empires that sought to pervert everyone caught in the middle to be their pawns in one way or the other, and we had to balance our relations with both not to get hit hard.
And from my point of view, US is currently the most unethical country on the planet by a large margin, simply due to its power projection being all over the world, and much of this being military projection. Which is always unethical, as it is aimed to force its own goals onto others at a barrel of a gun. It is also understandable, because in terms of realpolitik, they have by far the most military and financial power in the world and such power has always corrupted the wielder, no matter how good intentions he started with.
In comparison, China's power projection is currently mostly soft power. The main reason why they're expanding their circle of influence so fast is because they basically do not bring their ideology on the barrels of their guns like US and USSR likes/liked to do, but through economic incentives and power of its trade. Many of the current conflicts, such as Libya were largely caused by China getting a solid foothold in what Europe and US used to think of as their back yard being essentially taken over by Chinese interests. And the answer is more often then not a military one, which is again, far less ethical then commercial.
And frankly, while their culture is far more alien to me then that of US, due to a mix of US culture being mainly sourced from mainland Europe and subsequent massive cultural invasion from US-influenced mass media after WW2, I'm not at all convinced that it's actually worse. Different, yes. Worse, perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see in a couple of decades when they get enough progress to be able to get a proper military muscle to see if they start imitating US in exporting their ideology at a barrel of a gun. Considering what I know about their culture, this is possible but somewhat unlikely. I suspect what they will end up with is something that is even more Westernised then what they have now, because that's the direction they've been heading to culturally for last thirty or so years and as a result, even more comfortable for me to cohabit with.
But they are not doing the military projection now. And that is far more damning then any argument about "potential threat in the future".
How much of this GDP is actual product, and how much is foreign aid being pumped into the country just to keep it from slipping through the fingers and back into chaos?
No. USA has resilience because of the culture of "banding together against outside threat" from colonial ages properly used by local propaganda machine. China has similar culture sourced from even harsher hardship from the same period, but currently their propaganda is weaker. But they're getting there.
And its extremely worrying as it fits the model to a tee. Golf Stream is powered by osmosis, which requires glaciers not to melt too much so that fresh water from them doesn't weaken the osmotic reaction. Glaciers melt as environment heats up. Every year they melt and re-freeze. But they melt more and more and re-freeze less and less.
The really bad outcome of this scenario would be near-stoppage or full stoppage of Golf Stream, which would push tundra line several hundreds of kilometers south across entire Northern Europe and severely heating up US East Coast. It would be a massive environmental shock.
I can tell you what happened at the Chinese companies, as I have seen this done before:
"We have a small order we don't really want, but we do not want to insult the person asking for the example by refusing outright. We'll send them something that looks terrible so they pick someone else".
Because frankly, 100.000 fluorescent fixtures is a tiny order for manufacturing that is going on Chinese scale right now. Most will simply not want to take it.
I will address your points by pointing out your ignorance of basic facts of warfare: there can be no large scale conflict between two nations armed with strategic nuclear weaponry. Reason: MAD.
That leaves proxy wars. How much impact does weapon quality have to do with winning or losing these? Little. The only military aspect important to winning proxy wars is military force projection ability, and these can be won without it against a power with it (example: Vietnam war).
What matters is funds you can pump into them, experience of your espionage and covert operations personnel, ability to effectively project military might directly, loyalty of your people to the ideals of the nation, strength of your culture in terms of surviving the test of cold war and stability of your country.
China decisively loses in first and second (but catching up on both fast), decisively wins the third and (continues to break away), fourth and fifth is up in the air: both countries are a mess in terms of political and ethnic unity but have a significant amount of resilience towards invasive opposing cultures and hostile propaganda warfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you just sound like a jobless teenager.
Very few people on that list are friends. It's a list designed for managing certain sports-related activity across the city I live in.
"User-hostile" is a term commonly used to describe a featureset of the UI that acts against the user in manipulating the UI.
Use CC or BCC. Also use mailing lists. I routinely use email as a broadcast for a hobby of mine broadcasting messages to a community of approximately 100 people.
Sounds like someone who's a facebook addict.
As someone who doesn't have a facebook account, I can tell you that you're wrong, and you'll likely realise just how wrong you are in judging the importance of facebook when you actually leave it and see that all your friends, acquaintances, people you need to contact... exist here in real life and have email accounts and phone numbers.
"Who said anything about baking? Just get the cake slapped together, put it in the oven, wait for it to finish and eat!"
Not even close. Essentially everyone who plays games that feature any kind of P2P functionality WILL notice because these games will break. Anyone using skype will likely notice some issues with being unable to connect sometimes. Anyone using anything that relies on connecting directly to his device's IP will notice.
While *most* people probably won't notice, the amount of people who will notice is far from trivial.
We weren't "their own people". And USA and USSR treated everyone outside their borders like total shit. Ask the folks in and around Vietnam, or around Latin America.
The fact that you find it likely that people in need of benefits are the people who have time, willing to spend the effort and have the ability to dig inside the intimate parts of their computers.
You're essentially the guy who sees people who don't have bread, and telling them to eat cake, then wonder why you look ignorant.
Distributors certainly, but not manufacturers themselves. And these distributors typically hold long term contracts with certain manufacturer and won't be asking for multiple engineering samples.
Essentially most of the manufacturing going in China right now is big, because medium-sized manufacturing has serious problems competing for resources like work force and electricity with big ones.
Then you were working back when Chinese were aggressively expanding and not hitting the resource problems yet. It's quite different now.
I suggest trying to work for import companies instead. You'll notice a stark difference in the way business with chinese works in the other direction. Source: personal experience with the culture and their way of doing business in current climate.
I find it hard to see chinese businesses, which are swamped in orders and are mainly constrained by resources, as beggars. They're the choosers who need to pick most lucrative contracts to take so they can squeeze maximum profits out of their limited resources.
If anyone is a beggar in this scenario, it's the person placing the order. He's the one who needs stuff done that no one wants to do because it's not lucrative enough, as was shown in example above.
Wait wait wait. You call a massive genoside that was america's treatment of the natives that essentially wiped out entire ethnicities and cultures and largely peaceful cohabitation in Tibet where biggest hit was displacement of one of the most brutal theocratic rulers in known history. Han's tactic has been to cohabit, outnumber and assimilate rather then annihilate and take the land. There has been some limited ethnic cleansing on both sides throughout the history of last 800 or so years in Tibet, but tibetians and han have been able to cohabit peacefully much of the time when there wasn't a war-crazy leader who decided to make trouble on one side or the other.
And notably, after the last annexation of Tibet, tibetians quality of life improved notably, mostly due to deposing of the religious leaders who treated the rest of population as nothing but personal slaves.
So in your opinion, the cohabit and assimilate with occasional ethnic strife is a less ethical approach then all out ethnic cleansing? I'm pretty sure this is a psychopathic stance, and the very reason why when asked which country is the greatest threat to world peace, most people in the world answer "United States of America". Because the angle you're presenting is not just unethical. It's INSANE.
To specify on original post, the name in many languages ranges from "Golf" to americanized "Gulf".
For example, finnish wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf-virta
(virta translates as "stream" in english).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_Stream
I come from a country that stayed neutral during cold war and therefore avoided much of propaganda brainwashing you were clearly subjected to. As a result I have quite a bit of insight of the outsider that can see all the countries through the same lens, rather then an insider seeing "my side and their side". To me, there is no "good West" and "bad East" that you were clearly raised with. There were merely two huge evil empires that sought to pervert everyone caught in the middle to be their pawns in one way or the other, and we had to balance our relations with both not to get hit hard.
And from my point of view, US is currently the most unethical country on the planet by a large margin, simply due to its power projection being all over the world, and much of this being military projection. Which is always unethical, as it is aimed to force its own goals onto others at a barrel of a gun. It is also understandable, because in terms of realpolitik, they have by far the most military and financial power in the world and such power has always corrupted the wielder, no matter how good intentions he started with.
In comparison, China's power projection is currently mostly soft power. The main reason why they're expanding their circle of influence so fast is because they basically do not bring their ideology on the barrels of their guns like US and USSR likes/liked to do, but through economic incentives and power of its trade. Many of the current conflicts, such as Libya were largely caused by China getting a solid foothold in what Europe and US used to think of as their back yard being essentially taken over by Chinese interests. And the answer is more often then not a military one, which is again, far less ethical then commercial.
And frankly, while their culture is far more alien to me then that of US, due to a mix of US culture being mainly sourced from mainland Europe and subsequent massive cultural invasion from US-influenced mass media after WW2, I'm not at all convinced that it's actually worse. Different, yes. Worse, perhaps, perhaps not. We'll see in a couple of decades when they get enough progress to be able to get a proper military muscle to see if they start imitating US in exporting their ideology at a barrel of a gun. Considering what I know about their culture, this is possible but somewhat unlikely. I suspect what they will end up with is something that is even more Westernised then what they have now, because that's the direction they've been heading to culturally for last thirty or so years and as a result, even more comfortable for me to cohabit with.
But they are not doing the military projection now. And that is far more damning then any argument about "potential threat in the future".
How much of this GDP is actual product, and how much is foreign aid being pumped into the country just to keep it from slipping through the fingers and back into chaos?
Learning comprehension. I clearly stated that they currently lose in both espionage and military might.
No. USA has resilience because of the culture of "banding together against outside threat" from colonial ages properly used by local propaganda machine.
China has similar culture sourced from even harsher hardship from the same period, but currently their propaganda is weaker. But they're getting there.
And its extremely worrying as it fits the model to a tee. Golf Stream is powered by osmosis, which requires glaciers not to melt too much so that fresh water from them doesn't weaken the osmotic reaction. Glaciers melt as environment heats up. Every year they melt and re-freeze. But they melt more and more and re-freeze less and less.
The really bad outcome of this scenario would be near-stoppage or full stoppage of Golf Stream, which would push tundra line several hundreds of kilometers south across entire Northern Europe and severely heating up US East Coast. It would be a massive environmental shock.
I can tell you what happened at the Chinese companies, as I have seen this done before:
"We have a small order we don't really want, but we do not want to insult the person asking for the example by refusing outright. We'll send them something that looks terrible so they pick someone else".
Because frankly, 100.000 fluorescent fixtures is a tiny order for manufacturing that is going on Chinese scale right now. Most will simply not want to take it.
I will address your points by pointing out your ignorance of basic facts of warfare: there can be no large scale conflict between two nations armed with strategic nuclear weaponry. Reason: MAD.
That leaves proxy wars. How much impact does weapon quality have to do with winning or losing these? Little. The only military aspect important to winning proxy wars is military force projection ability, and these can be won without it against a power with it (example: Vietnam war).
What matters is funds you can pump into them, experience of your espionage and covert operations personnel, ability to effectively project military might directly, loyalty of your people to the ideals of the nation, strength of your culture in terms of surviving the test of cold war and stability of your country.
China decisively loses in first and second (but catching up on both fast), decisively wins the third and (continues to break away), fourth and fifth is up in the air: both countries are a mess in terms of political and ethnic unity but have a significant amount of resilience towards invasive opposing cultures and hostile propaganda warfare.
China isn't demolishing several countries in the world as we speak, while loudly proclaiming to be the paragon of peace. US is.
If that doesn't make it far more unethical, I don't know what you mean by "ethics" but it sure doesn't come from a dictionary.
I'm honestly not certain if you're trolling or really that ignorant of reality.