Whoa buddy. I didn't say that you were un-american because you disagree with the president. You did, however, say how lousy the US was. It sounds pretty much as if you just dislike Americans as a whole.
There is a big difference between disagreeing with the president (which most Americans do these days) and saying "all Americans are jerks." You said the latter, not that you disagree with the president, and not that you want to change things.
Wow, you really do just hate the US. Why don't you move? Seriously. If I hated the US this much, I would move.
And, no, you're not just making statements about "things that are wrong with the US that should be corrected." You're saying, "the US is populated entirely with jerks, if they don't get their way, they'll kill everyone."
Communism is where the government controls all of the industry. Socialism is where you're taxed to a point where, no matter how much you make a year, everyone gets the same thing. So, if I work and make $1Million, I get the same $15k that everyone else gets, in actual spending money. Totalitarianism is a top down approach where a central authority dictates what everyone does.
Communism -- China Socialism -- The democratic party in the US Totalitarianism -- The Christian Coalition, and right wing Republicans.
I'm not going to say anything insulting to any particular majors, but trust me. Engineering students here take certain classes so they have time at night to sleep. They aren't CS classes that they're taking.
Apparently you need to explain the situation to me. Since my IQ (which I understand to be quite high) is apparently not high enough to understand the issue of who owns a handful of DNS servers.
It's really pretty simple. They can run DNS servers if they like. They can ask people to use theirs instead of ours. What's the problem?
Listen. If you want a DNS server, then put up a DNS server. Really. This is really, very stupid.
Stop being stupid.
You can put up a DNS server if you like
The US can't stop you.
Do you understand me. We can't stop you from putting up a DNS server.
So put one up.
If people use it, then you "have control of the Internet," which is also a stupid statement. Since you've equated ownership of a DNS server with control of the Internet, then I guess that this is the yard stick that we're going to use to determine when you've done it.
You're picking a fight. It's a stupid fight to pick. In a world where you should choose your battles, you've chosen the dumbest battle, ever. You seem to think that this will give you some kind of shared ownership of the Internet. It won't. It won't change a thing, except where the server resides, and that a bunch of politicians are now involved, so they can screw everything up, and make it difficult.
I don't know what it's like at MIT, having never been there. At Cornell, most of the spaces are packed 24/7, at least, in the areas where engineers live.
Perhaps you'd have better luck with in parts of campus where people major in easier topics. The point being, campus never empties out.
I could picture the review now, especially for some big powerhouse.
"Being a game reviewer, betimes, requires suffering for your art. Today, I played "Bob's Stupid Game," for 72 hours, endlessly, in order to write this review. First, I need to be honest, I'd rather be beaten to death with a rusty highway gaurd rail than have to play this game again..."
Eh. I feel that history being what it is, doesn't dictate what all future behaviors will be. It certainly is possible that someone could be wealthy and benevolent. Someone funds all of these private universities and fellowships.
===
Nifty. CS & AI here.
===
Ahh, I know a few of those. I can't really relate, my interest in NLP takes a different form.
Not a problem. I should have realized that that was the context.
===
Also a pretty fine argument. I was just prodding to see if anybody would ever make one akin to that.
===
Nifty. I've been working on some natural language problems, and take part in my schools NLP seminar. I take what you're saying to mean the less applied emulation of human language acquisition for cog-sci type experiments.
Again, you're making an argument that holds no weight. I never argued that money + power = greatness.
I did argue that Google is great, and that they have money and power. I never ever said that the reason that they are successful is related to their money or power.
You've argued that money and power necessitate evil. You still haven't supported your point.
Incidentally, by intelligence do you mean artificial intelligence, cognition, or military intelligence and the like?
Despite my disagreements with some of your sentiments (education in India rocks by relation to education in the US), I still don't see how that places a spec of blame with Google.
Eh, ok. Google DID just have the Summer of Code, where they promoted open source projects, so they can't exactly be trying to run Tux into the ground, can they?
Just because you can build an argument that says that unethical people can be successful doesn't mean that you've built an argument that success necessitates unethical behavior. Nor have you cited what Google has done wrong.
Just pick one. All that I want for you people to do is tell me what Google is doing wrong. It shouldn't be this hard. Not a single person in this thread has managed to tell me what Google did wrong. The one who came closest to an answer (and actually tried to blame Google for something, rather than merely make some convoluted statement that success begets evil) was blaming Google for things that are clearly the fault of the government and of the corporations that he's trying to be hired by.
Slashdot Mirror
Having a lab to yourself at night has its advantages.
You already said that you're moving.
Well, I have to admit, at least you actually are acting logically given your belief.
It seems as though most people who think so poorly of America just want to hang around here and make me listen to them whine about it.
They collect tax revenues from them.
Whoa buddy. I didn't say that you were un-american because you disagree with the president. You did, however, say how lousy the US was. It sounds pretty much as if you just dislike Americans as a whole.
There is a big difference between disagreeing with the president (which most Americans do these days) and saying "all Americans are jerks." You said the latter, not that you disagree with the president, and not that you want to change things.
Ok, got you. A topic is perhaps easier to understand... better?
You English majors are a frustrating bunch.
Computer Science is a topic.
Can you think of a single MAJOR that is not also a TOPIC?
Again, I don't want to sound insulting, but not all majors are equally difficult.
Seriously.
That's just the way it is.
Wow, you really do just hate the US. Why don't you move? Seriously. If I hated the US this much, I would move.
And, no, you're not just making statements about "things that are wrong with the US that should be corrected." You're saying, "the US is populated entirely with jerks, if they don't get their way, they'll kill everyone."
Communism is where the government controls all of the industry.
Socialism is where you're taxed to a point where, no matter how much you make a year, everyone gets the same thing. So, if I work and make $1Million, I get the same $15k that everyone else gets, in actual spending money.
Totalitarianism is a top down approach where a central authority dictates what everyone does.
Communism -- China
Socialism -- The democratic party in the US
Totalitarianism -- The Christian Coalition, and right wing Republicans.
Interesting post on a site that's an American corporate interest. What is this? A boycott... as long as it's not of things that you already consume?
I'm not going to say anything insulting to any particular majors, but trust me. Engineering students here take certain classes so they have time at night to sleep. They aren't CS classes that they're taking.
Apparently you need to explain the situation to me. Since my IQ (which I understand to be quite high) is apparently not high enough to understand the issue of who owns a handful of DNS servers.
It's really pretty simple. They can run DNS servers if they like. They can ask people to use theirs instead of ours. What's the problem?
Listen. If you want a DNS server, then put up a DNS server. Really. This is really, very stupid.
Stop being stupid.
You can put up a DNS server if you like
The US can't stop you.
Do you understand me. We can't stop you from putting up a DNS server.
So put one up.
If people use it, then you "have control of the Internet," which is also a stupid statement. Since you've equated ownership of a DNS server with control of the Internet, then I guess that this is the yard stick that we're going to use to determine when you've done it.
You're picking a fight. It's a stupid fight to pick. In a world where you should choose your battles, you've chosen the dumbest battle, ever. You seem to think that this will give you some kind of shared ownership of the Internet. It won't. It won't change a thing, except where the server resides, and that a bunch of politicians are now involved, so they can screw everything up, and make it difficult.
I don't know what it's like at MIT, having never been there. At Cornell, most of the spaces are packed 24/7, at least, in the areas where engineers live.
Perhaps you'd have better luck with in parts of campus where people major in easier topics. The point being, campus never empties out.
I could picture the review now, especially for some big powerhouse.
;-)
"Being a game reviewer, betimes, requires suffering for your art. Today, I played "Bob's Stupid Game," for 72 hours, endlessly, in order to write this review. First, I need to be honest, I'd rather be beaten to death with a rusty highway gaurd rail than have to play this game again..."
5/10
Sorry, grad student... I'm used to tearing up arguments. All of my stress is purely related to school :-)
Eh. I feel that history being what it is, doesn't dictate what all future behaviors will be. It certainly is possible that someone could be wealthy and benevolent. Someone funds all of these private universities and fellowships.
===
Nifty. CS & AI here.
===
Ahh, I know a few of those. I can't really relate, my interest in NLP takes a different form.
Not a problem. I should have realized that that was the context.
===
Also a pretty fine argument. I was just prodding to see if anybody would ever make one akin to that.
===
Nifty. I've been working on some natural language problems, and take part in my schools NLP seminar. I take what you're saying to mean the less applied emulation of human language acquisition for cog-sci type experiments.
Are you CS/Info Sci/Psych?
Again, you're making an argument that holds no weight. I never argued that money + power = greatness.
I did argue that Google is great, and that they have money and power. I never ever said that the reason that they are successful is related to their money or power.
You've argued that money and power necessitate evil. You still haven't supported your point.
Incidentally, by intelligence do you mean artificial intelligence, cognition, or military intelligence and the like?
I research artificial intelligence.
Despite my disagreements with some of your sentiments (education in India rocks by relation to education in the US), I still don't see how that places a spec of blame with Google.
So, your ambition in life is to be mediocre?
Significantly older. Perhaps I merely have a different life experience. Someone has to rise to the top you know ;-)
Eh, ok. Google DID just have the Summer of Code, where they promoted open source projects, so they can't exactly be trying to run Tux into the ground, can they?
Ok. So, what did Google do?
Just because you can build an argument that says that unethical people can be successful doesn't mean that you've built an argument that success necessitates unethical behavior. Nor have you cited what Google has done wrong.
Just pick one. All that I want for you people to do is tell me what Google is doing wrong. It shouldn't be this hard. Not a single person in this thread has managed to tell me what Google did wrong. The one who came closest to an answer (and actually tried to blame Google for something, rather than merely make some convoluted statement that success begets evil) was blaming Google for things that are clearly the fault of the government and of the corporations that he's trying to be hired by.