As far as personality goes...I think Depp is a great choice--the book established that Wonka was off his rocker (I think Gener Wilder did quite a good job too--his wonka was quite crazy although Dep will probably add more creepiness).
I think Gene Wilder is visually closer to what I'd imagine Wonka to look like though. They made depp up to look a little like Michael Jackson with a better nose and a haircut not unlike what the girls wore when I was in elementary school at the start of the 80s. I thought Willy Wonka might have a bit more colour in his cheeks and much more unruly hair--perhaps a goatee styled to a point with moustache wax as well. I haven't read the book in some time though, so perhaps I've missed something. The other characters and the whole appearance are great--much how I'd imagine them.
Anyways, if you've seen James and the Giant Peach you know that to make a Roald Dahl book into a movie properly you have to have Tim Burton involved. Ater seeing that movie I actually wondered if he'd follow it up with Charlie. It surprised me that it ended up live action--after Nightmare Before Christmas and James I thought Wonka would be in the same vein. It's still nice to see the same kind of imagry though.
As for the original movie, I liked it as a kid and still think it's not bad, but it would've been quite forgettable without Gene Wilder--Charlie was adequate but not memorable and there was noting done with the other characters--the only exception was Veruca salt...that actress could do obnoxious realy well.
Anything -- even an exploit -- working in all browsers would be unprecedented!
The fact that something working in all browsers amazes people is quite sad...wasn't that the point of STANDARD protocols and languages (TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, etc)? It just proves how much damage Microsoft has done by extending everything it embraces with polluted, proprietary technology meant to create a captive audience. Only when EVERYTHING--including exploits--works on all browsers/platforms will we have "won the battle".
Anyways, it is alarming, but it doesn't look like an actual bug--it looks like a flaw in the design of Javascript (or the generally accepted behaviour). One more reason ot minimise or eliminate Javascript from your websites. At any rate, it appears aboutr as serious as any phishing scam (via email or web). Users already have to pay attention to the content of emails (asking for sensitive information, odd email headers, etc). Now they just have to do the same with web pages. I noticed right away that the status bar at the bottom of the spoofed pop-up window did not say citibank ("contacting secunia.com" or some such thing). Plus, right-clicking the window and viewing document properties showed the URL plain as day (on Firefox 1.0 anyways). At least I know now to look carefully for an odd URL (numerical address, citibank spelled c1t1bank, NOT https, etc).
The fact that the 'net is so risky for non-savvy users is also a testimony to the failures in design we must overcome.
Yes, groupthinking like 2+2=4 and the earth is round, is just sooo bad.
How are mathematical statements and established facts groupthink? Groupthink is belief in an opinion or hypothesis because it is the most popular one. There is consensus based on scientific observation of climate data that global temperatures are rising along with atomspheric CO2 levels. There is actual evidence of this.
The evidence pointing to the CAUSE of global warming isn't so solid. All we know for sure is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. The impact of human activity on CO2 levels may be negligable for all we konw. One major volcanic eruption, for example, can pump out more climate-altering emissions in days than all of humanity could do for years. The observations in this article do not present any evidence at all, they just demonstrate that scientists who write papers happen to have come to a consensus that human CO2 emissions have an impact on global warming. Being there is not SOLID, DIRECT proof of that one might say it is "group think"...scientists have succumbed to "group think " before...
The article itself makes a good statement:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Science isn't always right. One thing is for sure though, reducing CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels might not stop global warming for sure, but it certainly can't make the problem worse. And besides that, it is probalby wise to conserve the worlds biggest NON-renewable resource, much of which happens to be unfortunately located in politically unstable countries where mentally unstable terrorists like to hide.
Imagine another blue state with the population of California. I doubt that the present administration would want that.
There are a couple of flaws in your theory:
1. Canada is fairly diverse--geographically, demographically and politically. Were Canada to become the 52nd state I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't be a blue state--it would be a swing state. In the last federal election Conservatives got almost as many votes as Liberals. Canada isn't Liberal--ONTARIO is liberal and the rest of the country is a mixed bag of other parites. In fact, if you didn't count Ontario then Canada would have a Conservative government. Even Ontario isn't solidly liberal the way it used to be (granted, our idea of "conservative" is probably along the lines of a McCain or Swartzenegger Republican)
2. You are assuming that if Canada were incorporated into the USA that it would bo one state. I doubt that having one state that is bigger in area than the rest of the American states combined would work very well at all. The argument that Canada has a sparse population is a weak argument for it being a single "52nd state" as well--The Canadian city I live in is 50% more populous than the entire state of North Dakota for example, and that works just fine as a state.
Considering these facts, Bush may be cool to the idea of Canada as a state in the union, he might not object to the incorporation of Alberta or western Canada as a whole into the US since it is relatively compatible politically and is home to the second largest known reserve of oil on the entire planet (Saudi Arabia is the largest). If our southern neighbours continue to get their personal liberties become eroded as they have been lately then such a prospect is looking less and less appealing.
Whiole a lot of Canadians live within fairly easy driving distance of the border, actually only a small minority actually live ON the border, such that it would be just as convenient to get US mail as it is Canadian mail.
That's not how it works anyways. PO Boxes have forwarding services for a small additional fee. you don't actually have to take a road trip to the US to get your DirecTV bill--the postal workers at the RPO just empty your mailbox regularly, slap a sticker with your real address on it on each piece of mail and fire it off to you. The only things they don't forward are oversized envelopes and parcels. That suffices for getting your US bills just fine.
Anyways, the idea wouldn't make sense for iTunes unless you downloaded thousands a month. The main reason Canadians get US PO boxes for sattelite isn't to save money (because it would usually be cheaper to get a Canadian sattelite system anyhow)--it is to get content that is otherwise unavailable in Canada (HBO for example--it is not approved for broadcast in Canada by CRTC).
And P.S. It does not have the lowest property values across Canada, what about up North or in the middle of nowhere Saskatchewan.
Actually property values up north are likely higher than in Winnipeg--everything costs more up there, plus quite a few northern towns are booming Lots of money in Oil and Diamonds you know (Ft.McMurray--again--for example). I'd have to agree with you about Saskatchewan though. That said, compared to other big cities (around 500,000 or more) Winnipeg property is pretty cheap.
...is longer than that. It could be an intriguing investigation...kind of like "who shot JR".
RIAA if I'm not mistaken lobbied (unsucdessfully thank goodness) to have legislation put in place to permit them to hack into suspect computers at their discretion if I recall, and MPAA is just another pea in that IP-hoarding pod.
Other suspects? There are too many to mention, but boradly speaking they might fall into one of several categories besides the above:
* Large closed source software vendors or someone connected to them (Microsoft, etc). They would be trying to shut down a big source of piracy. I doubt it is Microsoft, they are not that dumb. In any case suprnova et al are not the right target...that is shooting the messenger, not the perpetrators who make use of their resources.
* One of the above-mentioned perpetrators (copyright violators who up/download cracked software and movies). I've noticed that a sizeable minority of heavy BT users out there are immature and petty (probably teenagers sequestered in their basements). If they are knocked off suprnova or similar sites or are slagged in a community forum they get all out of joint and retaliate. The stupid turds brought it on themselves and such retaliation is not warranted.
* Some of the seedier on-line proprietors, such as those who run revenue generating sites imitating the free suprnova.org, because if the free sites go away it might steer more revenue to them. I wouldn't put it past them
* Commercial porno sites. P2P networks are full of porn (you don't even have to search on an obvious sexual keyword sometimes) and it is pretty much all ripped off of some pay site. Most (not all, but most) on-line porn businesses are run by people lacking morals and intelligence (witness the whining by one porno purveyor about Google caching thumbnail images and deep-linking into his site with regard to the latter). SO it is very likely a porn-vendor arranged the dDOS attacks.
Part of me hopes it really was RIAA or MPAA...they are cartels that are unhealthy for the industry and it would be cool if there was finally a reason to shut them down. However, I think it's one of the latter 3 groups I mentioned.
The idea of a liquid lens is not new, but they've done a lot of work to actualy figure out HOW to do it. So long as the patent is not so broad as to aply to the idea it is the perfect example of a GOOD patent. If someone comes up with another, completely different and novel way to make a liquid lens then they could still do it.
This isn't a software or process patent (which IS bad). A lot of capital and research has to go into these kind of inventions. You also have to spend money to manufacture and distribute the invention, so a patent is justified.
What sickens me is when you can patent a few dozen lines of code, or some specific process to achieve some tommon task (one-click internet shopping--woo hoo! Or--no kiding--entertaining your cat with a laser pointer). there is a problem when you can get a couple decades of free-reign over an "invention" that took less time to conjure up than filing the patent application paperwork does.
...with step one? Just get a PO Box from Canada Post. You don't need your own plot of land, a little box in Macs next to the frosty machine will do just fine.
Besides, you couldn't by $10 of land anywhere in Canada (even in Winnipeg). Even $10 US--especially since at the rate the US dollar is tanking it'll be at par with the Canadian dollar in a year and with the peso by the end of the decade if the trend were to continue that long.
BTW...this is how Canadians get HBO--they get a PO box in Montana and order DirecTV. Can't see why the same strategy in reverse wouldn't work for USians lookin' for cheap iTunes.
I have one of those brita filter pitchers so yes, i drink tap water and it tastes fine. Is it now competition since the gov't is supplying water i'm drinking (after a little filtering)?
Noooo, that would mean Brita is competing with Coca-cola/Dasani, not public works, because the governtment doesn't realise any more extra revenue from Brita's operations. If the city were to use taxpayer dollars to buy everyone Brita filters who asked for them then it would be a different story.
Who said anything about no competition? In this case, it's the private enterprise not wanting to have to compete with government, not the other way around.
THe government should never compete with private enterprise. If a government provides a service it shold ONLY be because private enterprise is not adequately filling an essential role to the satisfaction of its citizens. In this case, although not perfect, private enterprise is providing adequate service...plus high-speed wireless communication is hardly an essential requirement of the general public.
It is wrong for government to undercut private enterprise because they are unfair competition subsidised by taxpayers. Not only does the government not pay taxes, it collects taxes from the private competition and can use that money to undercut them. Tax money used to fund these operations also comes from all citizens, not just those using the service, whereas the private company cannot collect fees from those not using its service.
As for your example of security firms vs police, those are not the same grounds as you suggest. Firstly, Police rarely perform the same duties as "rent-a-cops". How often do you see an actual policemen moseying around the mall looking for miscreant teens or shoplifters? NEVER. You also don't see "security services" investigating murders or shutting down crack houses or intervening in violent domestic disputes or arresting drunk drivers all that often. I know that if the police started taking over the duties of "rent-a-cops" *I* would have a problem with it. My tax dollers should be used to keep the public peace, not to help Joe Schmoe spot shoplifters at his mall kiosk.
...driving in Pennsylvania I have found that the roads are kept up fairly well but that unless you drive on the TOLL roads you won't get anywhere really fast. And on some roads in the sleepy suburbs outside Philly they have this obsession with "Jug Handle" interchanges--a clever way to avoid left turns in front of traffic, but they are too small to handle enough capacity and they are not consistent in implementing them (as a visitor I caught myself in the left land when I had to turn right to go left...but then the next interchange down you turn left to go left...grrr...)
Anyways are you sure the gov't actually BUILDS the road? I'm sure they likely maintain it (re-paving, etc) but do they really own all the heavy construction equipment, hire all the workers directly, etc during construction? Even up here in "socialist Canada" construction contracts are tendered to privately-owned construction firms. That makes more sense then buying heavy-construction vehicles that are only used part time and hiring a bunch of temp workers directly.
..it's getting stinky in here with the BS. Do you think seriosly that government-owned with NO competition would actually be better than private enterprise--even if there were only as few as TWO players? The profit-motive is incentive to improve efficiency and service. If you wanted to experience government-monopoly "efficiency" at its best, in the 80's you could've flown on Aeroflot or ordered a new Trabant to drive around East Berlin (if you wanted to get a new car there for your kid when he finished school you'd have better had it on order by the time he was 10 years old or he wouldn't get it on time).
Coca-cola sells reverse-osmosis filtered water in little bottles under the Dasani brand. Public works delivers somethat chlorinated, mineral-laden, marginally drinkable water through pipes to your house. I'd hardly say that's competition. If however, some municipality decided to stock supermarket shelves with litttle bottles of reverse-osmosis-filtered water then I think Coca-cola would have every right to try to shut them down--because Coca-cola already has to pay the municipality for the water they use for their Dasani product and the municipality only has to cover the filtering costs--and would be making money from selling the water to Coke to boot.
As far as "vital services" like trasnportation--who do you think BUILD the roads? Do you seriously think in this day and age that the government goes out and buys the equipment, the asphault, hires each end every worker, etc? This is North America, not cold-war-era Soviet Union. It's all done with private enterprise by the lowest bidder (good ol' capitalist competition--ideally anyways. In reality it is done by the firm with the biggest political donation all too often). Furthermore, streets and sewers are often financed in large part by private development corporations as a condition for building new subdivisions.
Get your head out of your ass. Private enterprise and PROFIT is everywhere. It's why the west is number one today.
...is competition I think we could do without and has nothing to do with capitalism.
If you want an idea of what Government owned/backed "competition" can do to private enterprise look at what the Canadaion airline industry went through. Air Canada was crown-owned, and then privatised (but still propped up with massive amounts of tax dollars). Its predatory business practises made Microsoft look saint-like by comparison.
Since Air Canada could always count on the gov't to keep it afloat it could price the competition out of existence. It led to the downfall of Canadian Airlines (its chief competitor--privately owned and with much less government assistance). furthermore, it did nothing to control costs and maintain efficient operations. After it was privatised and finally had its mouth ripped from the teat in Ottawa it slid inexorably into bancruptcy. In the meantime, it allowed competition to fourish for at least a couple of firms (Westjet most notably).
Only now is Air Canada getting its act together and behaving like a responsible corporation (after emerging from bankruptcy as essentially a completely different company). Some of the same people are still there so they still make the occasional bone-headed decision. At least now they have to deal with the reprucussions.
The same thing could happen in telecommunications. If we want competition we cannot allow government participation on the playing field. Govenrment has demonstrated it does not act in good faith or in accordance with supply and demand so the result will invariably be a government monopoly.
The dominant telco in western Canada (Telus) used to be owned by the governmnents of Alberta and British Columbia (AGT--Alberta Government Telephones--was privatised and became Telus--BCTel merged with Telus not long after it was privatised). When AGT started offering internet dial-up access it was still government owned and put a lot of smaller operators out of business--the competition had to rent the lines from AGT so AGT even made money from its competitors. It did put downward pressure on prices (good) but when the competition nearly died completely outside the major cities customer service suffered greatly. Telus STILL has such crappy service that they have been the subject of repeated complaints to the CRTC (Canadian version of FCC)--a legacy of its government heritage.
There is still a problem with the industry (particularly in the US)--it is that even though the market is privatised and somewhat deregulated, the established players are still coddled by government. The decision to prohibit city-owned wireless ISPs is probalby the correct one, but the playing field still isn't level. Hopefully they aren't emboldened to try to limit PRIVATE competition.
Education is definitely not stressed enough.
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The development of an AIDS vaccine is wonderful news for sure, but it is still not a cure at this point (it is only a treatment that keeps the disease at bay at this point). What's at least as important (if not more) is education as you have pointed out.
The problem is getting the third world (where the epidemic is most serious) to accept western medicine. Westerners think African-witch-doctor medicine is a bunch of bunk--well Africans have the same opinion of much of western medicine. Even if this vaccine WAS a cure, getting poor, illiterate Africans to accept treatment would require a lot of education and convincing (not to mention money that most of these victims do not have).
The most perverse myth in some African cultures is that STDs (including AIDS) can be cured in men by having unprotected sex with a virgin girl. I shudder when I think about how many HIV+ men there are in Africa who think they are cured because they have done this, but in fact may have infected some young woman and the child she might have conceived as a result--then in the mistaken belief that they are cure go on to infect other sexual partners. Somehow putting that myth to rest would do more to combat AIDS than the most expensive drugs currently available.
There is even a problem in the "educated" west too--it is that we are perhaps TOO educated (but in the wrong way). All this emphasis on advanced treatments for AIDS is making some people perceive the disease as no longer a death sentance but rather a chronic disease. The attitude when engaging in risky behaviour is becoming "Uh oh...I might have exposed myself to HIV...oh well, nowadays HIV is treatable like hepatitis and herpes--it would be a pain in the ass to have to treat it but I'll live alright anyways".
The homosexual communities of large metropolitan areas are already having to combat this attitude (having previosuly become the most educated/aware segment of society concerning AIDS) and if we aren't careful the rest of the public will start believing this too. In actual fact, even if a person could live a normal lifespan with HIV, delivering a vaccine cusomised for each recipient and treating symptoms with an expensive regimen of drugs would be another big burden on the healthcare system, not to mention that the quality of life would be permanently reduced even with todays treatments.
Yes, this is an important development, but without education and empasis on personal responsibility AIDS won't go the way of smallpox any time soon.
do you really think J Blow user is going to know to get his screensaver updated or are a large chunk of them going to run the initial screensaver as long as they ran Win 98 unpatched (forever)
I'm sure this screensaver wouldn't work that way. Pushing updates to locally-stored spam server lists would require quite an effort (Symantec, McAfee et al know the effort involved in keeping their antivirus products updated--and because of that setup antivirus is far from 100% effective dur to non-updated clients out there). I think in this instance the screensaver would reference a centrally-maintained list on a lycos server somewhere every time the screensaver was invoked. It would work best this way because the list would be much shorter than a virus definition file and would change much more frequently.
Furthermore, unless the developers are brain-dead I'm sure they wouldn't try to deploy spam countermeasures to a host that isn't acting as a mail server. The screensaver probably tests for open relays or at least that the host has an open port accepting SMTP connections before trying to send requests. So, the worst Grandma would have to endure would be a handful of packets during a port scan. That is, unless Grandma prefers to run her own email server (which I'm sure Cox cable would not allow). And if Grandma is indeed running a mail relay because her PC is infected with a worm, the traffice would alert her and Cox quite quickly that there is a problem anyways...
The closest thing I've played to poker in a casino is Pai Gow--although I have played casually before.
Soory to break this to you buddy, but poker IS gambling--it is a game of chance that you bet money on. It's like saying horse racing isn't gambling...well both are gambling. Poker and horse racing are similar in that there is an element of skill and strategy which influences the outcome, however BOTH are games of chance. Just like you cannot know the outcome of a horse race, there is no way of knowing what cards you'll get--there is a reandom element beyond the participant's control.
In the long run a good poker player *most likely* comes out ahead--probably because the good poker players (that are not gambling addicts) know to quit while they're ahead and their cards aren't doing anything for them (there is only so much you can do with bluffing). In any case, the amount of winnings cannot be assured (nor can you be assured you will not lose your shirt). I agree that if you are good then poker is a low-risk game, but I still think relying on poker as a job is irresponsible.
Day trading on the stock market is the same thing--it's a cool hobby, can make you rich, etc but it is also gambling of sorts, and investing all your life savings in it is irrisponsible. During the dot-com bubble it seemed to me that there were some striking parallels between full-time day traders and compulsive gamblers.
I would never feel comfortable considering poker as a job, side or otherwise, regardless of the amount of income it generates (interestingly enough, the Canadian government agrees--playing poker is not a job and your winnings are not considered taxable income--they are "lottery winnings"--and casinos, lotteries and game shows already pay tax on the revenue they make from the losers). Casinos (online or otherwise) rely on there being more losers than winners in order to have a sustainable (duh). Given that big-time casinos offer high-rollers complementary-everything (valet parking, drinks, food, sometimes even accomodation) it is apparent that there a *great deal* more losers than winners.
If you enjoy gambling, by all means, have fun--just so long as you treat it as ENTERTAINMENT and set a budget of how much you can lose and QUIT when you reach that limit (or quit while you are ahead. Considering it as a JOB (ie. depending on the proceedings of gambling as your livelihood) is reckless and possibly immoral IMHO (your opinion may differ but I'm stating mine because gambling addiction has affected more than one person I know):
* It is reckless because by law of averages the time will come where it is your turn to pay the piper. If you rely on gambling income for your livelihood then you may put you and your family out on the street.
* It can be considered immoral to live of the proceeds of gambling because you are putting your families quality of life on the line (if you have a family you are supporting), and less directly you are profiting from the exploitation of others--every time you win big others have to lose (sometimes big). Some of these people are gambling addicts ruining their lives.
This is my personal opinion so I hope I do not offend too many people. I enjoy going to the Casino from time to time but I am by no means a big player (I've never let my losses exceed $100). In a way gambling is like sex--it is a great recreational activity but when it becomes a way of life it tends to lead towards exploitation and ruins lives.
As for what I do on the side...well my day job keeps me pretty occupied and my personal schedule is pretty full too, so there is little in the way of "side job" work right now. However, I still have a mostly-dormant side business which involves PC upgrading, repair, virus/worm/trojan removalfrom Win2k/XP machines, etc. I do not depend on this income for my livelihood (it would only by me the occasional dinner at a fancy restaurant anyways).
In the case of the virus removal, if it gets me a bit of extra spending money and that money is willingly given (and giveable) by the PC owner than I'll do it from time to time. Besides being unenjoyable work I would not like to make a living off of others peoples misfortunes. I think that if Windows requires so much security maintenance that people can actually make a living solely from that activity that Microsoft should be the one footing the bill, not the end users directly. I'd prefer to make my living as a developer, thanks.
If they are so cool why aren't DaimlerChrysler dealers offering them?
You must've missed the first paragraph of my post--they ARE in fact already selling them at DC's Mercedes dealerships across Canada (apparently they are too cool for Chrysler dealerships--plus they can command higher prices)--but for some off reason the US dealers haven't followed suit (yet). You are also right about their popularity--they are indeed sold out and there is a waiting list despite being a high-margin item.
That said, it's pretty rare that Canada gets something without the US soon following suit (or vice versa). The biggest exception I can remember are the Canadian Pontiacs from way back when (Acadian, Parisienne, etc). If I were Zap I'd see that as writing on the wall.
The SMART cars are a DaimlerChrysler product and this year they finally crossed the pond to be sold in Canadian Mercedes-Benz dealerships. Right now demand far exceeds supply but nonetheless these cars are slowly finding their way onto Canadian roads now.
If DC has gone through the trouble of making these products available in Canada I'd think that they would soon be doing the same in the US, so why would some relatively obscure company go to any lengths to import this particular line of cars? This ZAP company smells a bit like the fly-by-night Canadian outfits that imported Yugos, Ladas, Skodas and Innocentis to this continent in the 80s.
Of course those 80s minicars really sucked and the SMART has consumer appeal so maybe ZAP is onto something. Given the interest in Canada however, how long will it be before DC comes into the US and takes over? Europe has a lot of minicar models they could've imported where this possibility would be less likely--why not import the teeny tiny offerings from Renault or Peugeot for example (Just re-badge them because even if the products they make now are much improved, French car brands still have a stigme in North America)? Those manufacturers have no presence here so they wouldn't but heads with their dealerships.
You can't drag your 80 year-old mother around the world everytime you change jobs.
Who says you have to travel/live with your mother? You're a big boy now, and she might like the independence (you are assuming that 80 year-olds are frail and/or they need the constant care and attention of their children--not true). I know it's possibly a cultural thing, or perhaps a lot of/.ers live with their parents until they are that old. Not everyone will want to (or have to) travel the world of course.
Ask your cousin if she rather prefer to raise their child moving to a new culture/country each year or staying in one neighbourhood until the child is 18.
Actually they wouldn't mind at all. *I* wouldn't, but that's a personal preference.
Ask any 12 year old if they want to leave their school/friends/way-of-life for some alien culture. Hell, try asking him to turn off the tv and clean his room for that matter, if you think child raising is so easy.
What if that 12-year-old's life WAS about travelling and being in an "alien culture"? Ever talk to a kid who was home-schooled or educated in a foreign place who has had to adjust to the cruel culture-shock of American public school? Such a person might get quite restless in US Surburbia.
I also don't recall stating anywhere that raising a child is easy. I didn't even suggest that someone with an already established family and home environment might even consider it appealing. In any case the most important consistency in a child's life is its parents and family. I'd say that a child who has the love and attention of its parents but moves all over the world is much better off than the kid who has lived in the same house his whole life but whose parents work 80 hour weeks at EA.
Actually it is quite similar in Oil and Gas industry for those stationed in the middle east (and Russia if I remember). There is a secure compond for foreign workers (school and everything is there). Everybody speaks English and the security is better within the compound than it is in some places in the US. Outside the compounds of course, you may require an armed escort should you need to go to certain places.
I think people underestimate the ability to raise a family under such circumstances (army or otherwise). Yes, it can be diffucult. Impossible? No. If you cannot deal with the local language and culture requirements, it isn't likely you'd be selected for the job in any case. Working overseas or in a job requiring extensive global travel isn't for everyone (I myself would not choose the nomadic life, although I'd relocate if required), but I forsee it becomeing much more commonplace in the future.
You don't care for them through AIM and ICQ, you take your family with you--I was talking of having a social life. My cousin and her husband travelled the world with an infant...their son had been to 8 countries by the time he was two. Done right raising a family while travelling the globe makes them more open and tolerant of different cultures and ways of life.
Some dorm-mates I had were "army-brats" and spent their entire childhood at bases all around the world. They were extremely smart and had an education superior to what one could obtain through the public systems in North America (those that took the International Baccuralate programme in high school seemed to handle 1st-year university work better than most).
...because everyone knows that only complete idiots couldn't adapt.
Take cars for example...I'm sure most people could adapt if you moved the trottle to the left foot. The "bipedal interface" is obsolete anyways. One only needs a single pedal on the floor for the brakes. I say we should try a hand-operated throttle instead.
And who's idea was it to arrange the gears on an automatic as PRNDL? They might be easier to find if they were sorted alphabetically--DLNPR. And what's with the antiquated idea of a steering wheel? Lets use a joystick and have a trigger for the throttle and a button on top for the horn. I also thing that the gears in a manual transmission should be arranged in a circle instead of "H" or "H with a line in the middle" pattern. Or maybe in all cases we could get high-tech and have gear selection on a pull-down menu in a touch screen on the dash.
Also, this left and right hand drive thing is dumb. Drivers should always sit in the centre of the vehicle, straddling the console.
There...much better. I'm sure there would be no confusion or resistance to these changes. Of course we could also make the automotive interface skinnable so each person could play with the positions of all the controls. I know a few people who would really love to drive from the back seat. Then everyone would be happy.
The drivers license test might be a bit more complex, but I'm sure it wouldn't be any more involved than MCSE certification.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as personality goes...I think Depp is a great choice--the book established that Wonka was off his rocker (I think Gener Wilder did quite a good job too--his wonka was quite crazy although Dep will probably add more creepiness).
I think Gene Wilder is visually closer to what I'd imagine Wonka to look like though. They made depp up to look a little like Michael Jackson with a better nose and a haircut not unlike what the girls wore when I was in elementary school at the start of the 80s. I thought Willy Wonka might have a bit more colour in his cheeks and much more unruly hair--perhaps a goatee styled to a point with moustache wax as well. I haven't read the book in some time though, so perhaps I've missed something. The other characters and the whole appearance are great--much how I'd imagine them.
Anyways, if you've seen James and the Giant Peach you know that to make a Roald Dahl book into a movie properly you have to have Tim Burton involved. Ater seeing that movie I actually wondered if he'd follow it up with Charlie. It surprised me that it ended up live action--after Nightmare Before Christmas and James I thought Wonka would be in the same vein. It's still nice to see the same kind of imagry though.
As for the original movie, I liked it as a kid and still think it's not bad, but it would've been quite forgettable without Gene Wilder--Charlie was adequate but not memorable and there was noting done with the other characters--the only exception was Veruca salt...that actress could do obnoxious realy well.
Anything -- even an exploit -- working in all browsers would be unprecedented!
The fact that something working in all browsers amazes people is quite sad...wasn't that the point of STANDARD protocols and languages (TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, etc)? It just proves how much damage Microsoft has done by extending everything it embraces with polluted, proprietary technology meant to create a captive audience. Only when EVERYTHING--including exploits--works on all browsers/platforms will we have "won the battle".
Anyways, it is alarming, but it doesn't look like an actual bug--it looks like a flaw in the design of Javascript (or the generally accepted behaviour). One more reason ot minimise or eliminate Javascript from your websites. At any rate, it appears aboutr as serious as any phishing scam (via email or web). Users already have to pay attention to the content of emails (asking for sensitive information, odd email headers, etc). Now they just have to do the same with web pages. I noticed right away that the status bar at the bottom of the spoofed pop-up window did not say citibank ("contacting secunia.com" or some such thing). Plus, right-clicking the window and viewing document properties showed the URL plain as day (on Firefox 1.0 anyways). At least I know now to look carefully for an odd URL (numerical address, citibank spelled c1t1bank, NOT https, etc).
The fact that the 'net is so risky for non-savvy users is also a testimony to the failures in design we must overcome.
Well, I HOPE you aren't anyways.
Yes, groupthinking like 2+2=4 and the earth is round, is just sooo bad.
How are mathematical statements and established facts groupthink? Groupthink is belief in an opinion or hypothesis because it is the most popular one. There is consensus based on scientific observation of climate data that global temperatures are rising along with atomspheric CO2 levels. There is actual evidence of this.
The evidence pointing to the CAUSE of global warming isn't so solid. All we know for sure is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. The impact of human activity on CO2 levels may be negligable for all we konw. One major volcanic eruption, for example, can pump out more climate-altering emissions in days than all of humanity could do for years. The observations in this article do not present any evidence at all, they just demonstrate that scientists who write papers happen to have come to a consensus that human CO2 emissions have an impact on global warming. Being there is not SOLID, DIRECT proof of that one might say it is "group think"...scientists have succumbed to "group think " before...
The article itself makes a good statement:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Science isn't always right. One thing is for sure though, reducing CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels might not stop global warming for sure, but it certainly can't make the problem worse. And besides that, it is probalby wise to conserve the worlds biggest NON-renewable resource, much of which happens to be unfortunately located in politically unstable countries where mentally unstable terrorists like to hide.
Imagine another blue state with the population of California. I doubt that the present administration would want that.
There are a couple of flaws in your theory:
1. Canada is fairly diverse--geographically, demographically and politically. Were Canada to become the 52nd state I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't be a blue state--it would be a swing state. In the last federal election Conservatives got almost as many votes as Liberals. Canada isn't Liberal--ONTARIO is liberal and the rest of the country is a mixed bag of other parites. In fact, if you didn't count Ontario then Canada would have a Conservative government. Even Ontario isn't solidly liberal the way it used to be (granted, our idea of "conservative" is probably along the lines of a McCain or Swartzenegger Republican)
2. You are assuming that if Canada were incorporated into the USA that it would bo one state. I doubt that having one state that is bigger in area than the rest of the American states combined would work very well at all. The argument that Canada has a sparse population is a weak argument for it being a single "52nd state" as well--The Canadian city I live in is 50% more populous than the entire state of North Dakota for example, and that works just fine as a state.
Considering these facts, Bush may be cool to the idea of Canada as a state in the union, he might not object to the incorporation of Alberta or western Canada as a whole into the US since it is relatively compatible politically and is home to the second largest known reserve of oil on the entire planet (Saudi Arabia is the largest). If our southern neighbours continue to get their personal liberties become eroded as they have been lately then such a prospect is looking less and less appealing.
Whiole a lot of Canadians live within fairly easy driving distance of the border, actually only a small minority actually live ON the border, such that it would be just as convenient to get US mail as it is Canadian mail.
That's not how it works anyways. PO Boxes have forwarding services for a small additional fee. you don't actually have to take a road trip to the US to get your DirecTV bill--the postal workers at the RPO just empty your mailbox regularly, slap a sticker with your real address on it on each piece of mail and fire it off to you. The only things they don't forward are oversized envelopes and parcels. That suffices for getting your US bills just fine.
Anyways, the idea wouldn't make sense for iTunes unless you downloaded thousands a month. The main reason Canadians get US PO boxes for sattelite isn't to save money (because it would usually be cheaper to get a Canadian sattelite system anyhow)--it is to get content that is otherwise unavailable in Canada (HBO for example--it is not approved for broadcast in Canada by CRTC).
And P.S. It does not have the lowest property values across Canada, what about up North or in the middle of nowhere Saskatchewan.
Actually property values up north are likely higher than in Winnipeg--everything costs more up there, plus quite a few northern towns are booming Lots of money in Oil and Diamonds you know (Ft.McMurray--again--for example). I'd have to agree with you about Saskatchewan though. That said, compared to other big cities (around 500,000 or more) Winnipeg property is pretty cheap.
...is longer than that. It could be an intriguing investigation...kind of like "who shot JR".
RIAA if I'm not mistaken lobbied (unsucdessfully thank goodness) to have legislation put in place to permit them to hack into suspect computers at their discretion if I recall, and MPAA is just another pea in that IP-hoarding pod.
Other suspects? There are too many to mention, but boradly speaking they might fall into one of several categories besides the above:
* Large closed source software vendors or someone connected to them (Microsoft, etc). They would be trying to shut down a big source of piracy. I doubt it is Microsoft, they are not that dumb. In any case suprnova et al are not the right target...that is shooting the messenger, not the perpetrators who make use of their resources.
* One of the above-mentioned perpetrators (copyright violators who up/download cracked software and movies). I've noticed that a sizeable minority of heavy BT users out there are immature and petty (probably teenagers sequestered in their basements). If they are knocked off suprnova or similar sites or are slagged in a community forum they get all out of joint and retaliate. The stupid turds brought it on themselves and such retaliation is not warranted.
* Some of the seedier on-line proprietors, such as those who run revenue generating sites imitating the free suprnova.org, because if the free sites go away it might steer more revenue to them. I wouldn't put it past them
* Commercial porno sites. P2P networks are full of porn (you don't even have to search on an obvious sexual keyword sometimes) and it is pretty much all ripped off of some pay site. Most (not all, but most) on-line porn businesses are run by people lacking morals and intelligence (witness the whining by one porno purveyor about Google caching thumbnail images and deep-linking into his site with regard to the latter). SO it is very likely a porn-vendor arranged the dDOS attacks.
Part of me hopes it really was RIAA or MPAA...they are cartels that are unhealthy for the industry and it would be cool if there was finally a reason to shut them down. However, I think it's one of the latter 3 groups I mentioned.
The idea of a liquid lens is not new, but they've done a lot of work to actualy figure out HOW to do it. So long as the patent is not so broad as to aply to the idea it is the perfect example of a GOOD patent. If someone comes up with another, completely different and novel way to make a liquid lens then they could still do it.
This isn't a software or process patent (which IS bad). A lot of capital and research has to go into these kind of inventions. You also have to spend money to manufacture and distribute the invention, so a patent is justified.
What sickens me is when you can patent a few dozen lines of code, or some specific process to achieve some tommon task (one-click internet shopping--woo hoo! Or--no kiding--entertaining your cat with a laser pointer). there is a problem when you can get a couple decades of free-reign over an "invention" that took less time to conjure up than filing the patent application paperwork does.
...with step one? Just get a PO Box from Canada Post. You don't need your own plot of land, a little box in Macs next to the frosty machine will do just fine.
Besides, you couldn't by $10 of land anywhere in Canada (even in Winnipeg). Even $10 US--especially since at the rate the US dollar is tanking it'll be at par with the Canadian dollar in a year and with the peso by the end of the decade if the trend were to continue that long.
BTW...this is how Canadians get HBO--they get a PO box in Montana and order DirecTV. Can't see why the same strategy in reverse wouldn't work for USians lookin' for cheap iTunes.
...NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT
the Lycos screensaver is dying (but it'll take a few spammers down with it)
I have one of those brita filter pitchers so yes, i drink tap water and it tastes fine. Is it now competition since the gov't is supplying water i'm drinking (after a little filtering)?
Noooo, that would mean Brita is competing with Coca-cola/Dasani, not public works, because the governtment doesn't realise any more extra revenue from Brita's operations. If the city were to use taxpayer dollars to buy everyone Brita filters who asked for them then it would be a different story.
Who said anything about no competition? In this case, it's the private enterprise not wanting to have to compete with government, not the other way around.
THe government should never compete with private enterprise. If a government provides a service it shold ONLY be because private enterprise is not adequately filling an essential role to the satisfaction of its citizens. In this case, although not perfect, private enterprise is providing adequate service...plus high-speed wireless communication is hardly an essential requirement of the general public.
It is wrong for government to undercut private enterprise because they are unfair competition subsidised by taxpayers. Not only does the government not pay taxes, it collects taxes from the private competition and can use that money to undercut them. Tax money used to fund these operations also comes from all citizens, not just those using the service, whereas the private company cannot collect fees from those not using its service.
As for your example of security firms vs police, those are not the same grounds as you suggest. Firstly, Police rarely perform the same duties as "rent-a-cops". How often do you see an actual policemen moseying around the mall looking for miscreant teens or shoplifters? NEVER. You also don't see "security services" investigating murders or shutting down crack houses or intervening in violent domestic disputes or arresting drunk drivers all that often. I know that if the police started taking over the duties of "rent-a-cops" *I* would have a problem with it. My tax dollers should be used to keep the public peace, not to help Joe Schmoe spot shoplifters at his mall kiosk.
...driving in Pennsylvania I have found that the roads are kept up fairly well but that unless you drive on the TOLL roads you won't get anywhere really fast. And on some roads in the sleepy suburbs outside Philly they have this obsession with "Jug Handle" interchanges--a clever way to avoid left turns in front of traffic, but they are too small to handle enough capacity and they are not consistent in implementing them (as a visitor I caught myself in the left land when I had to turn right to go left...but then the next interchange down you turn left to go left...grrr...)
Anyways are you sure the gov't actually BUILDS the road? I'm sure they likely maintain it (re-paving, etc) but do they really own all the heavy construction equipment, hire all the workers directly, etc during construction? Even up here in "socialist Canada" construction contracts are tendered to privately-owned construction firms. That makes more sense then buying heavy-construction vehicles that are only used part time and hiring a bunch of temp workers directly.
..it's getting stinky in here with the BS. Do you think seriosly that government-owned with NO competition would actually be better than private enterprise--even if there were only as few as TWO players? The profit-motive is incentive to improve efficiency and service. If you wanted to experience government-monopoly "efficiency" at its best, in the 80's you could've flown on Aeroflot or ordered a new Trabant to drive around East Berlin (if you wanted to get a new car there for your kid when he finished school you'd have better had it on order by the time he was 10 years old or he wouldn't get it on time).
Coca-cola sells reverse-osmosis filtered water in little bottles under the Dasani brand. Public works delivers somethat chlorinated, mineral-laden, marginally drinkable water through pipes to your house. I'd hardly say that's competition. If however, some municipality decided to stock supermarket shelves with litttle bottles of reverse-osmosis-filtered water then I think Coca-cola would have every right to try to shut them down--because Coca-cola already has to pay the municipality for the water they use for their Dasani product and the municipality only has to cover the filtering costs--and would be making money from selling the water to Coke to boot.
As far as "vital services" like trasnportation--who do you think BUILD the roads? Do you seriously think in this day and age that the government goes out and buys the equipment, the asphault, hires each end every worker, etc? This is North America, not cold-war-era Soviet Union. It's all done with private enterprise by the lowest bidder (good ol' capitalist competition--ideally anyways. In reality it is done by the firm with the biggest political donation all too often). Furthermore, streets and sewers are often financed in large part by private development corporations as a condition for building new subdivisions.
Get your head out of your ass. Private enterprise and PROFIT is everywhere. It's why the west is number one today.
...is competition I think we could do without and has nothing to do with capitalism.
If you want an idea of what Government owned/backed "competition" can do to private enterprise look at what the Canadaion airline industry went through. Air Canada was crown-owned, and then privatised (but still propped up with massive amounts of tax dollars). Its predatory business practises made Microsoft look saint-like by comparison.
Since Air Canada could always count on the gov't to keep it afloat it could price the competition out of existence. It led to the downfall of Canadian Airlines (its chief competitor--privately owned and with much less government assistance). furthermore, it did nothing to control costs and maintain efficient operations. After it was privatised and finally had its mouth ripped from the teat in Ottawa it slid inexorably into bancruptcy. In the meantime, it allowed competition to fourish for at least a couple of firms (Westjet most notably).
Only now is Air Canada getting its act together and behaving like a responsible corporation (after emerging from bankruptcy as essentially a completely different company). Some of the same people are still there so they still make the occasional bone-headed decision. At least now they have to deal with the reprucussions.
The same thing could happen in telecommunications. If we want competition we cannot allow government participation on the playing field. Govenrment has demonstrated it does not act in good faith or in accordance with supply and demand so the result will invariably be a government monopoly.
The dominant telco in western Canada (Telus) used to be owned by the governmnents of Alberta and British Columbia (AGT--Alberta Government Telephones--was privatised and became Telus--BCTel merged with Telus not long after it was privatised). When AGT started offering internet dial-up access it was still government owned and put a lot of smaller operators out of business--the competition had to rent the lines from AGT so AGT even made money from its competitors. It did put downward pressure on prices (good) but when the competition nearly died completely outside the major cities customer service suffered greatly. Telus STILL has such crappy service that they have been the subject of repeated complaints to the CRTC (Canadian version of FCC)--a legacy of its government heritage.
There is still a problem with the industry (particularly in the US)--it is that even though the market is privatised and somewhat deregulated, the established players are still coddled by government. The decision to prohibit city-owned wireless ISPs is probalby the correct one, but the playing field still isn't level. Hopefully they aren't emboldened to try to limit PRIVATE competition.
The development of an AIDS vaccine is wonderful news for sure, but it is still not a cure at this point (it is only a treatment that keeps the disease at bay at this point). What's at least as important (if not more) is education as you have pointed out.
The problem is getting the third world (where the epidemic is most serious) to accept western medicine. Westerners think African-witch-doctor medicine is a bunch of bunk--well Africans have the same opinion of much of western medicine. Even if this vaccine WAS a cure, getting poor, illiterate Africans to accept treatment would require a lot of education and convincing (not to mention money that most of these victims do not have).
The most perverse myth in some African cultures is that STDs (including AIDS) can be cured in men by having unprotected sex with a virgin girl. I shudder when I think about how many HIV+ men there are in Africa who think they are cured because they have done this, but in fact may have infected some young woman and the child she might have conceived as a result--then in the mistaken belief that they are cure go on to infect other sexual partners. Somehow putting that myth to rest would do more to combat AIDS than the most expensive drugs currently available.
There is even a problem in the "educated" west too--it is that we are perhaps TOO educated (but in the wrong way). All this emphasis on advanced treatments for AIDS is making some people perceive the disease as no longer a death sentance but rather a chronic disease. The attitude when engaging in risky behaviour is becoming "Uh oh...I might have exposed myself to HIV...oh well, nowadays HIV is treatable like hepatitis and herpes--it would be a pain in the ass to have to treat it but I'll live alright anyways".
The homosexual communities of large metropolitan areas are already having to combat this attitude (having previosuly become the most educated/aware segment of society concerning AIDS) and if we aren't careful the rest of the public will start believing this too. In actual fact, even if a person could live a normal lifespan with HIV, delivering a vaccine cusomised for each recipient and treating symptoms with an expensive regimen of drugs would be another big burden on the healthcare system, not to mention that the quality of life would be permanently reduced even with todays treatments.
Yes, this is an important development, but without education and empasis on personal responsibility AIDS won't go the way of smallpox any time soon.
do you really think J Blow user is going to know to get his screensaver updated or are a large chunk of them going to run the initial screensaver as long as they ran Win 98 unpatched (forever)
I'm sure this screensaver wouldn't work that way. Pushing updates to locally-stored spam server lists would require quite an effort (Symantec, McAfee et al know the effort involved in keeping their antivirus products updated--and because of that setup antivirus is far from 100% effective dur to non-updated clients out there). I think in this instance the screensaver would reference a centrally-maintained list on a lycos server somewhere every time the screensaver was invoked. It would work best this way because the list would be much shorter than a virus definition file and would change much more frequently.
Furthermore, unless the developers are brain-dead I'm sure they wouldn't try to deploy spam countermeasures to a host that isn't acting as a mail server. The screensaver probably tests for open relays or at least that the host has an open port accepting SMTP connections before trying to send requests. So, the worst Grandma would have to endure would be a handful of packets during a port scan. That is, unless Grandma prefers to run her own email server (which I'm sure Cox cable would not allow). And if Grandma is indeed running a mail relay because her PC is infected with a worm, the traffice would alert her and Cox quite quickly that there is a problem anyways...
The closest thing I've played to poker in a casino is Pai Gow--although I have played casually before.
Soory to break this to you buddy, but poker IS gambling--it is a game of chance that you bet money on. It's like saying horse racing isn't gambling...well both are gambling. Poker and horse racing are similar in that there is an element of skill and strategy which influences the outcome, however BOTH are games of chance. Just like you cannot know the outcome of a horse race, there is no way of knowing what cards you'll get--there is a reandom element beyond the participant's control.
In the long run a good poker player *most likely* comes out ahead--probably because the good poker players (that are not gambling addicts) know to quit while they're ahead and their cards aren't doing anything for them (there is only so much you can do with bluffing). In any case, the amount of winnings cannot be assured (nor can you be assured you will not lose your shirt). I agree that if you are good then poker is a low-risk game, but I still think relying on poker as a job is irresponsible.
Day trading on the stock market is the same thing--it's a cool hobby, can make you rich, etc but it is also gambling of sorts, and investing all your life savings in it is irrisponsible. During the dot-com bubble it seemed to me that there were some striking parallels between full-time day traders and compulsive gamblers.
I would never feel comfortable considering poker as a job, side or otherwise, regardless of the amount of income it generates (interestingly enough, the Canadian government agrees--playing poker is not a job and your winnings are not considered taxable income--they are "lottery winnings"--and casinos, lotteries and game shows already pay tax on the revenue they make from the losers). Casinos (online or otherwise) rely on there being more losers than winners in order to have a sustainable (duh). Given that big-time casinos offer high-rollers complementary-everything (valet parking, drinks, food, sometimes even accomodation) it is apparent that there a *great deal* more losers than winners.
If you enjoy gambling, by all means, have fun--just so long as you treat it as ENTERTAINMENT and set a budget of how much you can lose and QUIT when you reach that limit (or quit while you are ahead. Considering it as a JOB (ie. depending on the proceedings of gambling as your livelihood) is reckless and possibly immoral IMHO (your opinion may differ but I'm stating mine because gambling addiction has affected more than one person I know):
* It is reckless because by law of averages the time will come where it is your turn to pay the piper. If you rely on gambling income for your livelihood then you may put you and your family out on the street.
* It can be considered immoral to live of the proceeds of gambling because you are putting your families quality of life on the line (if you have a family you are supporting), and less directly you are profiting from the exploitation of others--every time you win big others have to lose (sometimes big). Some of these people are gambling addicts ruining their lives.
This is my personal opinion so I hope I do not offend too many people. I enjoy going to the Casino from time to time but I am by no means a big player (I've never let my losses exceed $100). In a way gambling is like sex--it is a great recreational activity but when it becomes a way of life it tends to lead towards exploitation and ruins lives.
As for what I do on the side...well my day job keeps me pretty occupied and my personal schedule is pretty full too, so there is little in the way of "side job" work right now. However, I still have a mostly-dormant side business which involves PC upgrading, repair, virus/worm/trojan removalfrom Win2k/XP machines, etc. I do not depend on this income for my livelihood (it would only by me the occasional dinner at a fancy restaurant anyways).
In the case of the virus removal, if it gets me a bit of extra spending money and that money is willingly given (and giveable) by the PC owner than I'll do it from time to time. Besides being unenjoyable work I would not like to make a living off of others peoples misfortunes. I think that if Windows requires so much security maintenance that people can actually make a living solely from that activity that Microsoft should be the one footing the bill, not the end users directly. I'd prefer to make my living as a developer, thanks.
If they are so cool why aren't DaimlerChrysler dealers offering them?
You must've missed the first paragraph of my post--they ARE in fact already selling them at DC's Mercedes dealerships across Canada (apparently they are too cool for Chrysler dealerships--plus they can command higher prices)--but for some off reason the US dealers haven't followed suit (yet). You are also right about their popularity--they are indeed sold out and there is a waiting list despite being a high-margin item.
That said, it's pretty rare that Canada gets something without the US soon following suit (or vice versa). The biggest exception I can remember are the Canadian Pontiacs from way back when (Acadian, Parisienne, etc). If I were Zap I'd see that as writing on the wall.
The SMART cars are a DaimlerChrysler product and this year they finally crossed the pond to be sold in Canadian Mercedes-Benz dealerships. Right now demand far exceeds supply but nonetheless these cars are slowly finding their way onto Canadian roads now.
If DC has gone through the trouble of making these products available in Canada I'd think that they would soon be doing the same in the US, so why would some relatively obscure company go to any lengths to import this particular line of cars? This ZAP company smells a bit like the fly-by-night Canadian outfits that imported Yugos, Ladas, Skodas and Innocentis to this continent in the 80s.
Of course those 80s minicars really sucked and the SMART has consumer appeal so maybe ZAP is onto something. Given the interest in Canada however, how long will it be before DC comes into the US and takes over? Europe has a lot of minicar models they could've imported where this possibility would be less likely--why not import the teeny tiny offerings from Renault or Peugeot for example (Just re-badge them because even if the products they make now are much improved, French car brands still have a stigme in North America)? Those manufacturers have no presence here so they wouldn't but heads with their dealerships.
You can't drag your 80 year-old mother around the world everytime you change jobs.
/.ers live with their parents until they are that old. Not everyone will want to (or have to) travel the world of course.
Who says you have to travel/live with your mother? You're a big boy now, and she might like the independence (you are assuming that 80 year-olds are frail and/or they need the constant care and attention of their children--not true). I know it's possibly a cultural thing, or perhaps a lot of
Ask your cousin if she rather prefer to raise their child moving to a new culture/country each year or staying in one neighbourhood until the child is 18.
Actually they wouldn't mind at all. *I* wouldn't, but that's a personal preference.
Ask any 12 year old if they want to leave their school/friends/way-of-life for some alien culture. Hell, try asking him to turn off the tv and clean his room for that matter, if you think child raising is so easy.
What if that 12-year-old's life WAS about travelling and being in an "alien culture"? Ever talk to a kid who was home-schooled or educated in a foreign place who has had to adjust to the cruel culture-shock of American public school? Such a person might get quite restless in US Surburbia.
I also don't recall stating anywhere that raising a child is easy. I didn't even suggest that someone with an already established family and home environment might even consider it appealing. In any case the most important consistency in a child's life is its parents and family. I'd say that a child who has the love and attention of its parents but moves all over the world is much better off than the kid who has lived in the same house his whole life but whose parents work 80 hour weeks at EA.
Actually it is quite similar in Oil and Gas industry for those stationed in the middle east (and Russia if I remember). There is a secure compond for foreign workers (school and everything is there). Everybody speaks English and the security is better within the compound than it is in some places in the US. Outside the compounds of course, you may require an armed escort should you need to go to certain places.
I think people underestimate the ability to raise a family under such circumstances (army or otherwise). Yes, it can be diffucult. Impossible? No. If you cannot deal with the local language and culture requirements, it isn't likely you'd be selected for the job in any case. Working overseas or in a job requiring extensive global travel isn't for everyone (I myself would not choose the nomadic life, although I'd relocate if required), but I forsee it becomeing much more commonplace in the future.
You don't care for them through AIM and ICQ, you take your family with you--I was talking of having a social life. My cousin and her husband travelled the world with an infant...their son had been to 8 countries by the time he was two. Done right raising a family while travelling the globe makes them more open and tolerant of different cultures and ways of life.
Some dorm-mates I had were "army-brats" and spent their entire childhood at bases all around the world. They were extremely smart and had an education superior to what one could obtain through the public systems in North America (those that took the International Baccuralate programme in high school seemed to handle 1st-year university work better than most).
...because everyone knows that only complete idiots couldn't adapt.
Take cars for example...I'm sure most people could adapt if you moved the trottle to the left foot. The "bipedal interface" is obsolete anyways. One only needs a single pedal on the floor for the brakes. I say we should try a hand-operated throttle instead.
And who's idea was it to arrange the gears on an automatic as PRNDL? They might be easier to find if they were sorted alphabetically--DLNPR. And what's with the antiquated idea of a steering wheel? Lets use a joystick and have a trigger for the throttle and a button on top for the horn. I also thing that the gears in a manual transmission should be arranged in a circle instead of "H" or "H with a line in the middle" pattern. Or maybe in all cases we could get high-tech and have gear selection on a pull-down menu in a touch screen on the dash.
Also, this left and right hand drive thing is dumb. Drivers should always sit in the centre of the vehicle, straddling the console.
There...much better. I'm sure there would be no confusion or resistance to these changes. Of course we could also make the automotive interface skinnable so each person could play with the positions of all the controls. I know a few people who would really love to drive from the back seat. Then everyone would be happy.
The drivers license test might be a bit more complex, but I'm sure it wouldn't be any more involved than MCSE certification.