A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army.
Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Check the casualty figures.
IEDs are responsible for roughly 60% of our casualties. Every non-IED incident where we had multiple casualties is either a) an RPG, or b) a car bomb.
I didn't say rifles were useless. You can kill people with them. But if the people of America start taking potshots at marines with their rifles the people of America will get their asses kicked. Body Armor exists.
What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
So explosives should be legal?
That would be a valid conclusion to draw if one believed an armed citizenry was a good idea.
I don't.
I grew up in a black area. In the black experience Armed Citizens are the ones who decide that a) they have a Constitutional right to oppress their neighbors, and b) the Federal government has no jurisdiction to stop them. About half the time they actually convince said Federal government of this fact. At various times this has led to actual slavery, KKK terrorism reducing the black population of various southern states by 20 points (in other words: genocide), segregation, etc.
As far as I can tell all an Armed Citizenry has ever done is a) get killed by the Army protesting taxes, and b) got rid of one corrupt Southern Sheriff. In modern times there are perfectly effective methods of protest that don't get anyone killed, so really all you've got is b). And trading one Sheriff for Segregation does not seem like a very good trade to me.
If he's saying Lincoln was a rogue president, that State Right's are so important that it was preferable to have slavery, a right to secede, and a limited national government then arguing with him is a waste of time. He is literally a white supremacist because he thinks that the right of white people to secede and not be taxed is more important then a black woman's right to not have sex with the richest man in the county.
If he's saying Jefferson Davis was rogue that's a completely different argument.
I suspect he's saying the former, because a) Davis was not elected until 1861, and b) he said that the righteous Armed Citizens lost.
Yes, the Republicans were anti-slavery and would be shot for their views by Democrats. Somehow modern mythology has the parties trading places. The Republicans have very many flaws, but they do generally believe either in individualism, or the right of each State to decide what it wants to do on a state-by-state basis (which unfortunately, means some states pass less liberal laws, but the important thing is each state gets to decide - not the central government).
That's because they have switched positions.
In 1860 the limited government, pro-free-market, position was that black slavery was ordained by God and no Federal politician had any right to interfere with it. The low-tax, small-government position was that public schools were a boondoggle. The limited government position was that states had a Constitutional right to secede. The limited government, pro-free market, position was that Homesteading and granting land to Railroads was nothing more then corporate welfare.
Yet the GOP actually did all these things over strong objections from Democrats. The GOP distrusted local southern governments so much that after the Civil War, it created a Federal School System to edumacate former slaves.
Do you mean 1776? Because the change in government in 1774 was the creation of Congress, and if Congress is the "rogue element," that an Armed Citizenry is supposed to fight then the Armed Citizenry lost.
If you're trying to refer to 1776, as I mentioned in another post we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
The Taliban have weapons orders of magnitude better then anything that has even been legal in the US because they have RPGs. Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal). And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.
Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...
The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.
And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
Here's the double-standard: Every holy book has brutally violent sections. In the Old Testament God orders genocide more then once. Which means that if you think Islam has to be singled out due to it's violent nature you also think that Judaism, and the third Abrahamic religion (Christianity) need singling out. And in the US the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are pretty much everyone. It should also be noted that all three religions are explicitly anti-freedom in their holy books. God never lays out a freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. in the Old Testament. He simply says "Do this Jew-boy, or I will find a really creative fucking way to make you suffer." He doesn't create a Congress to balance the Kings of Judea. He just makes David a King. Then Jesus shows up and he doesn't say "Only obey the Emperor when the Emperor respects this list of your freedoms," he says "give the Emperor whatever the fuck he wants."
In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book. It may very well be, but the simple fact is that it doesn't really matter. Just as modern Christians and Jews engage in mental gymnastics to justify obeying three branches of government when God clearly establishes a King and no Legislature, Muslims can reason their way around a Hadith.
Moreover you're missing her point: When's the last time you heard of a Neonazi attack called terrorism? What about the Klan? Both groups exist solely to terrorize large proportions of the American people, but they are never identified as terrorists. In fact the most successful terror-campaign in US History was the Klan's campaign against blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction. Before the Klan started several southern states were majority black. They managed to get 20 point drops in the black population throughout the South.
The founders also believed that we should not have any foreign alliances, and that slavery was a necessary evil. Unless you're arguing that we have a patriotic duty to disband NATO and re-impose slavery...
A couple questions: When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
Generally I agree with you. We white Americans have succeeded in defining "terrorism" as something that only happens to people approved by Fox News.
Unfortunately it's out-of-place in this case because Cammy Dee is white. Granted his entire problem with the cops from the fact he's trying to break into a non-white, non-Fox approved art form, but he's still a white boy.
Here's the thing about ideologues: They read a line of logic, and it makes sense, they conclude "I guess the world actually works like that," but they don't bother to see whether the world actually works like that.
There are zero cases of white Christians actually being legally sanctioned by the government for speech or thought under hate crimes statutes. There are some cases where they were convicted of crimes, and got worse sentences for those reasons; but that happens to everybody. Courts always consider the motive when sentencing people. If you beat a chick up because you like getting into fights and she lost you go to jail for assault and battery. If you beat her up because she's your girlfriend and she pissed you off it's family violence battery.
There are plenty of cases where a Christian has been sanctioned by private organizations for speech, or thought; but a) that's clearly not what you were talking about because a "Hate Crime" is a specific criminal statute, and b) everybody gets in trouble when they say stupid shit. Logically there is nothing wrong with the statement "Under the First Amendment it is unconstitutional for the government to give everyone Christmas off," but I sure as hell would not want to be the guy quoted saying that in the newspaper. Muslims and blacks have it worst of all, because stupid things that are commonly said in those communities tend to really set the cops off.
In Afghanistan you have a right to criticize Karzai. You have a right to run against Karzai. People's votes won't necessarily be counted accurately, and it's likely some-one will try yo intimidate and/or bribe them away from you; but you have the right try.
China has no elections. It has no opposition parties. In theory such parties are legal, but the state cracks down on anyone trying to set one up.
I'm not saying that China's prosperity isn't an amazing accomplishment that counts for a lot. What I am saying is that prosperity isn't everything, and if you count the ability to vote in a shitty democracy as more important then the ability to buy a fake iPad then Afghanistan is better then China.
Yeah Karzai's corrupt, and his country has no obvious economic resource. But you could say the same of Korea in the 60s and 70s. It's really hard to know how much of Karzai's success is a "dead cat bounce," but the simple fact is that Afghanistan is #1 in terms of rate of improvement in almost every metric.
As for Iran, I'm smelling blood in the water. And it's not Obama's. Regimes like that tend to look incredibly stable for years, and then collapse in a matter of months. Their Syrian allies are on the ropes, their strategy for dealing with crippling sanctions is apparently to pretend that they have weapons as good as the US. That is not the kind of thing you do if you aren't running out of options.
I included China for two reasons. First it actually shares a border with Afghanistan. Second, it really strongly illustrates just how crappy Central Asian governments are when you compare them to the Chinese.
Yeah the economic growth is amazing, and the world is a much better place for it.
OTOH political freedom is also a good thing, and the Chinese have no political freedom. Being able to breathe is also really nice, and the Chinese don't seem to have figured out how to get rich without physically destroying the country.
Whether you prefer China to Afghanistan basically boils down to whether you prefer political freedoms to economic prosperity.
The Uzbek equivalent of Aaron Swartz gets boiled alive. The night life may beat Kabul, but boiling--people-alive is just not something I will ever be cool with.
I'm not claiming any of these places is a particularly good place to live. I'm claiming that, compared to the places it's actually near Afghanistan has a hell of a lot to offer. Too often Westerners freak out because it's worse then even Alabama. Well yes. But it's also rapidly becoming a better place to live then Pakistan, which is probably the second-least-bad option in terms of Central Asian states.
If you're a woman the former Soviet states are probably better, because they do a really good job at clamping down on the Taliban. But they're also stagnating. Not to mention the fact that one of them (Uzbekistan) has been known to boil people alive without trial.
As for setting up a business, why would you do so in Iran or Pakistan? China makes some sense, but corruption there is almost as bad as Afghanistan, it's a lot harder to know who you were supposed to bribe, and if you fail to bribe said person your first inkling that something is wrong will be the trip to the re-education camp.
Afghanistan has a massive growth rate, vastly improving public health, etc. It's not paradise, but if your alternatives are the countries it borders then it's got a lot to offer.
I didn't say anything about corruption. There's no question that Afghanistan is horribly corrupt. But corruption is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Believe me, my parents would have a lot more money if they'd fled corruption-free-in-1980 Detroit to corrupt-as-fucking-hell Chicago.
The World Factbook's literacy numbers are from the Taliban-era. Now millions of Afghan kids go to school, including most of the girls. It's not a good sign that nobody seems to have newer numbers, but it's also clear the situation is improving dramatically.
I don't like Karzai's corruption. But the simple fact is he's improving his country at a speed which boggles the mind, and everyone else in his region is a) stagnating or b) China.
Granted it's got a lot of problems. But Afghanistan is probably the best country to live in it's neighborhood. The leadership is a bit erratic, and the Taliban is a problem; but neighboring Pakistan has both problems worse. Neighboring Iran is Iran. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan are dominated by the same ruling class that ran them when they were Soviet states, the elections are little better then jokes.
Technically China is also Afghanistan's neighbor, which means that Afghanistan may only be the second-most fucked up country in it's region. It's first if you don't think China's recent economic success is a) going to continue or b) worth all the prices the Chinese pay for it.
The difference is that the internet advertiser knows he's being blocked, therefore he refuses to pay the content creator.
Which means adblock screws Destructoid, but channel-surfing actually helps ESPN because you'll surf to ESPN2 and their advertisers for both channels will pay for your eyeballs.
How much did you spend on connectors? Probably $50-$150. Apple is losing money on this because they're pissing customers off, and they don't make much on these damn connectors. They may screw you again in the future, but they'll find some other way to do it. Scratch that, they will find a way. They're for-profit. It's their job.
Heck let's compare them to other companies. How much does an Android user with a Gingerbread phone have to pay to get Jellybean? Can't be done. Has to buy a new phone because the hardware manufacturer swears there's no way to get Jellybean running on the hardware he sold you last Tuesday. And technically the manufacturer's right. If you don't want to pay an engineer to work on last year's product because last year's product is no longer a profit center, then it is indeed impossible to get new software running on last year's product.
Heck, have you ever tried to return a computer product to a non-Apple manufacturer? I have, and it's a pain. OTOH this one time I spilled Dr. Pepper on my MacBook, which was out of warranty, and when I told the guy at the Apple store this he replaced the motherboard anyway.
Yes he was being cynical. He thought he could buy my undying loyalty with good customer service. And since nobody else in the industry does that shit, it actually worked.
Err, never? Simple, elegant design maybe, but engineering?
Apple-style design requires a LOT of engineering.
The first Macintosh, for example, has a fully modern GUI in 128kb of RAM. That's kb. Very few engineers today could get anything useful to run in an eighth of a meg, and even fewer could include an entire OS, a GUI, AND still have room for an application. They made some pretty major compromises to get it done, but they did it.
More recently physical design has been more important for them. But that takes engineering, too. The Macbook Air doesn't look like it's been heavily engineered, but do you seriously think that a bunch of Art Majors figured out how to mass-produce a fully functional laptop that fits in a damn envelope with no engineering help?
I'm not saying Apple should be known as an engineering company. It's not a company that lives and dies by technical specs. But Apple's designs just don't work without some damn good engineers. Their work is very hard to see, largely because Apple wants their products to look seamless, but that doesn't mean their work never happened.
Do you want me to go dig up the story about Nexus tablets outselling the iPad? I will if you want.
Technically, that's false. There was an article that Nexus may have outsold iPad in one market over the holidays (Japan), but that turned out to be false. But who cares?
MacOS just hit 5% global market share. It was under 3% until 2007. The top five computer companies before Steve came back were Apple, HP, Compaq, IBM, and Packard-Bell. Today HP and Compaq are one, Packard-Bell's been bought, and IBM left the personal computer business. Apple is no longer technically in the top five, but it's making a lot more money then anyone who actually is in the top five. Selling a lot of units is nice, but it's not like you go bankrupt just because some idiot at Compaq figures out he can sell a fuck-ton of units if his price is below cost.
Android/Nexus/etc. will eventually get more market share then iOS. Google's strategy is to gain market-share, and they are very good at doing that. Apple's strategy is to create markets by designing completely products miles ahead of the competition in terms of usability, make a mint off the monopoly; and then when the competition finally catches up they continue to make money by selling premium products. Thus they create the market for GUI PCs, and continue to make money off it despite miserable market-share. iPhone's market share is quite low, but they're still making money on it. Probably more profit then Samsung or any single Android phone manufacturer. In the next year or so the same thing will happen to tablets.
Slashdot Mirror
A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army.
Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Check the casualty figures.
IEDs are responsible for roughly 60% of our casualties. Every non-IED incident where we had multiple casualties is either a) an RPG, or b) a car bomb.
I didn't say rifles were useless. You can kill people with them. But if the people of America start taking potshots at marines with their rifles the people of America will get their asses kicked. Body Armor exists.
What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
So explosives should be legal?
That would be a valid conclusion to draw if one believed an armed citizenry was a good idea.
I don't.
I grew up in a black area. In the black experience Armed Citizens are the ones who decide that a) they have a Constitutional right to oppress their neighbors, and b) the Federal government has no jurisdiction to stop them. About half the time they actually convince said Federal government of this fact. At various times this has led to actual slavery, KKK terrorism reducing the black population of various southern states by 20 points (in other words: genocide), segregation, etc.
As far as I can tell all an Armed Citizenry has ever done is a) get killed by the Army protesting taxes, and b) got rid of one corrupt Southern Sheriff. In modern times there are perfectly effective methods of protest that don't get anyone killed, so really all you've got is b). And trading one Sheriff for Segregation does not seem like a very good trade to me.
I meant Jefferson Davis.
If he's saying Lincoln was a rogue president, that State Right's are so important that it was preferable to have slavery, a right to secede, and a limited national government then arguing with him is a waste of time. He is literally a white supremacist because he thinks that the right of white people to secede and not be taxed is more important then a black woman's right to not have sex with the richest man in the county.
If he's saying Jefferson Davis was rogue that's a completely different argument.
I suspect he's saying the former, because a) Davis was not elected until 1861, and b) he said that the righteous Armed Citizens lost.
The Admiral who won the battle of Chesapeake was the Count de Grasse, so it was literally the blow of Grasse that won the Revolutionary War for us.
So "coup de grasse" is a pun.
Yes, the Republicans were anti-slavery and would be shot for their views by Democrats. Somehow modern mythology has the parties trading places. The Republicans have very many flaws, but they do generally believe either in individualism, or the right of each State to decide what it wants to do on a state-by-state basis (which unfortunately, means some states pass less liberal laws, but the important thing is each state gets to decide - not the central government).
That's because they have switched positions.
In 1860 the limited government, pro-free-market, position was that black slavery was ordained by God and no Federal politician had any right to interfere with it. The low-tax, small-government position was that public schools were a boondoggle. The limited government position was that states had a Constitutional right to secede. The limited government, pro-free market, position was that Homesteading and granting land to Railroads was nothing more then corporate welfare.
Yet the GOP actually did all these things over strong objections from Democrats. The GOP distrusted local southern governments so much that after the Civil War, it created a Federal School System to edumacate former slaves.
Do you mean 1776? Because the change in government in 1774 was the creation of Congress, and if Congress is the "rogue element," that an Armed Citizenry is supposed to fight then the Armed Citizenry lost.
If you're trying to refer to 1776, as I mentioned in another post we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.
Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?
The Taliban have weapons orders of magnitude better then anything that has even been legal in the US because they have RPGs. Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal). And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.
Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...
1860?
Are you referring to Lincoln or Jefferson?
The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.
And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.
Be fair.
There are entire schools of rap devoted to sexual prowess. Hoody Allan has a lot of songs about how much woman love sleeping with him.
Even a lot of gangster-rap is devoted to how much expensive shit they own.
Here's the double-standard:
Every holy book has brutally violent sections. In the Old Testament God orders genocide more then once. Which means that if you think Islam has to be singled out due to it's violent nature you also think that Judaism, and the third Abrahamic religion (Christianity) need singling out. And in the US the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are pretty much everyone. It should also be noted that all three religions are explicitly anti-freedom in their holy books. God never lays out a freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. in the Old Testament. He simply says "Do this Jew-boy, or I will find a really creative fucking way to make you suffer." He doesn't create a Congress to balance the Kings of Judea. He just makes David a King. Then Jesus shows up and he doesn't say "Only obey the Emperor when the Emperor respects this list of your freedoms," he says "give the Emperor whatever the fuck he wants."
In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book. It may very well be, but the simple fact is that it doesn't really matter. Just as modern Christians and Jews engage in mental gymnastics to justify obeying three branches of government when God clearly establishes a King and no Legislature, Muslims can reason their way around a Hadith.
Moreover you're missing her point:
When's the last time you heard of a Neonazi attack called terrorism? What about the Klan? Both groups exist solely to terrorize large proportions of the American people, but they are never identified as terrorists. In fact the most successful terror-campaign in US History was the Klan's campaign against blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction. Before the Klan started several southern states were majority black. They managed to get 20 point drops in the black population throughout the South.
The founders also believed that we should not have any foreign alliances, and that slavery was a necessary evil. Unless you're arguing that we have a patriotic duty to disband NATO and re-impose slavery...
Things change.
A couple questions:
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements? In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
Generally I agree with you. We white Americans have succeeded in defining "terrorism" as something that only happens to people approved by Fox News.
Unfortunately it's out-of-place in this case because Cammy Dee is white. Granted his entire problem with the cops from the fact he's trying to break into a non-white, non-Fox approved art form, but he's still a white boy.
Here's the thing about ideologues:
They read a line of logic, and it makes sense, they conclude "I guess the world actually works like that," but they don't bother to see whether the world actually works like that.
There are zero cases of white Christians actually being legally sanctioned by the government for speech or thought under hate crimes statutes. There are some cases where they were convicted of crimes, and got worse sentences for those reasons; but that happens to everybody. Courts always consider the motive when sentencing people. If you beat a chick up because you like getting into fights and she lost you go to jail for assault and battery. If you beat her up because she's your girlfriend and she pissed you off it's family violence battery.
There are plenty of cases where a Christian has been sanctioned by private organizations for speech, or thought; but a) that's clearly not what you were talking about because a "Hate Crime" is a specific criminal statute, and b) everybody gets in trouble when they say stupid shit. Logically there is nothing wrong with the statement "Under the First Amendment it is unconstitutional for the government to give everyone Christmas off," but I sure as hell would not want to be the guy quoted saying that in the newspaper. Muslims and blacks have it worst of all, because stupid things that are commonly said in those communities tend to really set the cops off.
In Afghanistan you have a right to criticize Karzai. You have a right to run against Karzai. People's votes won't necessarily be counted accurately, and it's likely some-one will try yo intimidate and/or bribe them away from you; but you have the right try.
China has no elections. It has no opposition parties. In theory such parties are legal, but the state cracks down on anyone trying to set one up.
I'm not saying that China's prosperity isn't an amazing accomplishment that counts for a lot. What I am saying is that prosperity isn't everything, and if you count the ability to vote in a shitty democracy as more important then the ability to buy a fake iPad then Afghanistan is better then China.
Yeah Karzai's corrupt, and his country has no obvious economic resource. But you could say the same of Korea in the 60s and 70s. It's really hard to know how much of Karzai's success is a "dead cat bounce," but the simple fact is that Afghanistan is #1 in terms of rate of improvement in almost every metric.
As for Iran, I'm smelling blood in the water. And it's not Obama's. Regimes like that tend to look incredibly stable for years, and then collapse in a matter of months. Their Syrian allies are on the ropes, their strategy for dealing with crippling sanctions is apparently to pretend that they have weapons as good as the US. That is not the kind of thing you do if you aren't running out of options.
I included China for two reasons. First it actually shares a border with Afghanistan. Second, it really strongly illustrates just how crappy Central Asian governments are when you compare them to the Chinese.
China is hard to rank.
Yeah the economic growth is amazing, and the world is a much better place for it.
OTOH political freedom is also a good thing, and the Chinese have no political freedom. Being able to breathe is also really nice, and the Chinese don't seem to have figured out how to get rich without physically destroying the country.
Whether you prefer China to Afghanistan basically boils down to whether you prefer political freedoms to economic prosperity.
Depends on your definition of "ahead."
The Uzbek equivalent of Aaron Swartz gets boiled alive. The night life may beat Kabul, but boiling--people-alive is just not something I will ever be cool with.
I'm not claiming any of these places is a particularly good place to live. I'm claiming that, compared to the places it's actually near Afghanistan has a hell of a lot to offer. Too often Westerners freak out because it's worse then even Alabama. Well yes. But it's also rapidly becoming a better place to live then Pakistan, which is probably the second-least-bad option in terms of Central Asian states.
The mins problem in Afghanistan is solved.
If you're a woman the former Soviet states are probably better, because they do a really good job at clamping down on the Taliban. But they're also stagnating. Not to mention the fact that one of them (Uzbekistan) has been known to boil people alive without trial.
As for setting up a business, why would you do so in Iran or Pakistan? China makes some sense, but corruption there is almost as bad as Afghanistan, it's a lot harder to know who you were supposed to bribe, and if you fail to bribe said person your first inkling that something is wrong will be the trip to the re-education camp.
Afghanistan has a massive growth rate, vastly improving public health, etc. It's not paradise, but if your alternatives are the countries it borders then it's got a lot to offer.
I didn't say anything about corruption. There's no question that Afghanistan is horribly corrupt. But corruption is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Believe me, my parents would have a lot more money if they'd fled corruption-free-in-1980 Detroit to corrupt-as-fucking-hell Chicago.
The World Factbook's literacy numbers are from the Taliban-era. Now millions of Afghan kids go to school, including most of the girls. It's not a good sign that nobody seems to have newer numbers, but it's also clear the situation is improving dramatically.
In '09 the BBC reported life expectancy of 44:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8339593.stm
So life expectancy in Afghanistan is improving at a rate more then 1 year a year.
I don't like Karzai's corruption. But the simple fact is he's improving his country at a speed which boggles the mind, and everyone else in his region is a) stagnating or b) China.
Granted it's got a lot of problems. But Afghanistan is probably the best country to live in it's neighborhood. The leadership is a bit erratic, and the Taliban is a problem; but neighboring Pakistan has both problems worse. Neighboring Iran is Iran. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan are dominated by the same ruling class that ran them when they were Soviet states, the elections are little better then jokes.
Technically China is also Afghanistan's neighbor, which means that Afghanistan may only be the second-most fucked up country in it's region. It's first if you don't think China's recent economic success is a) going to continue or b) worth all the prices the Chinese pay for it.
The difference is that the internet advertiser knows he's being blocked, therefore he refuses to pay the content creator.
Which means adblock screws Destructoid, but channel-surfing actually helps ESPN because you'll surf to ESPN2 and their advertisers for both channels will pay for your eyeballs.
It's not testable if you already took your only cable apart...
They seem to be planning on buying another one and posting some more later, tho.
How much did you spend on connectors? Probably $50-$150. Apple is losing money on this because they're pissing customers off, and they don't make much on these damn connectors. They may screw you again in the future, but they'll find some other way to do it. Scratch that, they will find a way. They're for-profit. It's their job.
Heck let's compare them to other companies. How much does an Android user with a Gingerbread phone have to pay to get Jellybean? Can't be done. Has to buy a new phone because the hardware manufacturer swears there's no way to get Jellybean running on the hardware he sold you last Tuesday. And technically the manufacturer's right. If you don't want to pay an engineer to work on last year's product because last year's product is no longer a profit center, then it is indeed impossible to get new software running on last year's product.
Heck, have you ever tried to return a computer product to a non-Apple manufacturer? I have, and it's a pain. OTOH this one time I spilled Dr. Pepper on my MacBook, which was out of warranty, and when I told the guy at the Apple store this he replaced the motherboard anyway.
Yes he was being cynical. He thought he could buy my undying loyalty with good customer service. And since nobody else in the industry does that shit, it actually worked.
Err, never? Simple, elegant design maybe, but engineering?
Apple-style design requires a LOT of engineering.
The first Macintosh, for example, has a fully modern GUI in 128kb of RAM. That's kb. Very few engineers today could get anything useful to run in an eighth of a meg, and even fewer could include an entire OS, a GUI, AND still have room for an application. They made some pretty major compromises to get it done, but they did it.
More recently physical design has been more important for them. But that takes engineering, too. The Macbook Air doesn't look like it's been heavily engineered, but do you seriously think that a bunch of Art Majors figured out how to mass-produce a fully functional laptop that fits in a damn envelope with no engineering help?
I'm not saying Apple should be known as an engineering company. It's not a company that lives and dies by technical specs. But Apple's designs just don't work without some damn good engineers. Their work is very hard to see, largely because Apple wants their products to look seamless, but that doesn't mean their work never happened.
Do you want me to go dig up the story about Nexus tablets outselling the iPad? I will if you want.
Technically, that's false. There was an article that Nexus may have outsold iPad in one market over the holidays (Japan), but that turned out to be false. But who cares?
MacOS just hit 5% global market share. It was under 3% until 2007. The top five computer companies before Steve came back were Apple, HP, Compaq, IBM, and Packard-Bell. Today HP and Compaq are one, Packard-Bell's been bought, and IBM left the personal computer business. Apple is no longer technically in the top five, but it's making a lot more money then anyone who actually is in the top five. Selling a lot of units is nice, but it's not like you go bankrupt just because some idiot at Compaq figures out he can sell a fuck-ton of units if his price is below cost.
Android/Nexus/etc. will eventually get more market share then iOS. Google's strategy is to gain market-share, and they are very good at doing that. Apple's strategy is to create markets by designing completely products miles ahead of the competition in terms of usability, make a mint off the monopoly; and then when the competition finally catches up they continue to make money by selling premium products. Thus they create the market for GUI PCs, and continue to make money off it despite miserable market-share. iPhone's market share is quite low, but they're still making money on it. Probably more profit then Samsung or any single Android phone manufacturer. In the next year or so the same thing will happen to tablets.
And no-one at Apple will care.