Oh come on, why do you need to defend apple so much?
how easy it is to open? you want me to either order special tools or pry open my pretty ipod and risk breaking it? I'm posting on slashdot! What do you think people who DON'T care about this stuff feel about their ipod batteries? It's simple--it's harder and more expensive to replace an ipod battery than any other device with a easily accesible and replaceable battery. that's it.
Would have been nice to see that indeed re: steve. not sure I understand why apple would do it this way--wouldn't it be even better for them if there was a Verizon iphone, a att iphone, sprint, tmobile, etc.
Yeah you know, because a for all we know made up or random immigration check is totally the same thing as having a phone confiscated. But you two are probably right--I'm sure the memo went out to every customs inspector to start examining every cellphone for certain models of qualcomm chipsets. Totally.
AT&T wireless has a monopoly? It's my understanding that they have neither the most subscribers nor the largest coverage area...how are they a monopoly?
You're right that some immigrant groups are putting pressure on the welfare states. This is to me an argument against allowing immigration from these countries, not an argument against the welfare state. I agree with you--it's a huge problem.
But, I think you have to take into consideration the reality of the situation. Will there be an end to immigration? the answer is the US is a resounding no! Heck, we have more ILLEGAL immigrants in the past decade than Sweden's entire population! I imagine the situation in Europe is not that different--no matter the popular opinion, the govts will not halt immigration. The far right seems to be the only ones trying, and they are fairly popularly reviled, from what I can tell! Denmark is maybe the most.. "progressive" about talking about the immigrant problem.
The other question is--can these societies survive without the immigrants? Low birth rates and as you said a transfer of wealth from young to old does not go well together.
Any thoughts about this? Especially in the Nordic countries?
Well, I'll admit it's hard for me to understand how someone can oppose the welfare state, but it's clear that there is a huge difference of opinion. I suspect it may have something to do with the greater diversity in the UK and USA, which leads to less national cohesion, and more identification with subgroups, e.g. ethnic or regional. If people feel like their taxes are subsidising some other group instead of their own group, they might resent paying the subsidies, and vote for low-tax parties or something. I would suspect that is true as well. It also seems to me that as many parts of Europe become much more diverse--those are the parts where people start to talk about "reforming" the welfare state. Interestingly enough, I just read this article off a blog http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article260048 9.ece about an ongoing "german brain drain" (also interestingly enough, some friends of mine from the US are moving to Switzerland too, so maybe it's not just Germany!)
It is immensely fascinating to me that Merkel and Sarkozy seem to be much more pro-American than their predecessors (certainly Sarkozy!) despite the widespread anger at American policies now. It seems to me that Sarkozy has expressed some admiration for the American system and to do things in a more American way. People fed up with minority/immigrant problems mostly? It's a BIG BIG issue in the US...
Maybe because other people work to support you? How were you supported when you were too young to work? Who built the roads that you use? What about railways, schools, universities, hospitals, private industry and all the rest? Taxes--we all pay our part. I'm not quite an insane libertarian, but the roadbuilders are not volunteering their time for me. Teachers are not selflessly volunteering to teach me. Doctors, private industry, etc are DEFINITELY not leaping at the chance to volunteer for me.
If that were the main effect of a welfare state, it would probably not be popular. That's one of the unfortunate drawbacks, so it's a matter of looking at whether or not the benefits are greater. In any case, what is the alternative? They live in the same society, so unless you want them to starve to death, society will have to support them in some way, for example through begging. Or through private charities. Or through having more jobs available--this is a prime difference of the US and much of the EU. The Nordic states are a good bit different in part because of their small populations and enormous wealth through oil--if anyone is the model for a succesful social state, it's them, though from reading a large number of blogs, it seems to me as if recent immigrant surges have shown some cracks in the social welfare state. Can't say for sure though.
Do you live in a democracy? Are you free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't agree with the majority in your country? As long as you live in a society, you must live by the rules of that society, and democracy is the fairest way to set them. Absolutely, don't disagree with you at all.
You can say that, but what is your definition of fair? To me, fairness implies giving everyone an equal start in society, and a chance to succeed or fail on the basis of their abilities, not who their parents happen to be. Research has shown that social mobility is far lower in the USA and UK than in Canada and the Nordic countries, which suggests that ability counts for less in the USA and UK, and birth counts for more. Individually, of course there are examples unfairness in every society, but looking at the overall picture, how can it be considered fairer to put more value on birth and less on ability? Data on this? I can't say for sure about social mobility in the Nordic states--which as I mentioned earlier due to small populations, largely homogenous popluations, and great oil wealth are largely unique beasts--but I've always read that when comparing France, Germany, UK, etc thatn social mobility is far higher in the US. I would be glad to look at any studies though.
I would argue that the less the government drags you down and punishes success, the greater the motivation and the greater the chance for ability to shine through. There's a reason for startups being so huge here! My grandparents were factory workers their entire lives. My dad--somehow without going begging to the government--was able to get ahead--and now look at me, here on slashdot.
I'm not saying the welfare state is a horrible thing. It's obvious that many, many people are happy living in them. They're not for me. I think many Europeans can't believe this though, and just assume anyone that choices otherwise is ignorant and/or stupid.;)
I'm not sure I get what you're saying--I don't disagree with what you said.. that was the period of the cultural revolution--that's what I said--I think!!
That question doesn't warrant a flippant response. I think it's interesting that you find my questioning what "fair" is to be silly... I don't find it silly.
Why is it fair that I should work to support someone else?
Why is it fair that if I choose not to work, others who do work should be forced to support me?
Why is it fair that I'm not given these choices?
Why is it fair that the government gets to control who gets what, arbitrarily assigning resources from the succesful to the unsuccesful?
Maybe that's fair to you...I'm not sure it seems fair to me. But that's because we have different definitions of fair:-)
I tend to think that there are matters upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. That doesn't mean I don't think that I am right, it just means that I don't hold someone who believes otherwise in "contempt" or that they are ignorant, stubborn, whatever.
Since the 1960s? That's kinda the decade of the Cultural Revolution in China! Socialism manufactured famines on a scale not seen since (think 10s of millions dead for no good reason), and not before since the socialism manufactured famines of Ukraine+Eastern Europe.
It was the _market_ reforms and acceptance of capitalism in the 80s especially that allowed China to start to bring her billion people out of abject poverty. (though incidentally, poverty _is_ still a problem in China) The best thing that happened to China was the end of the Mao era.
You can see it in India too. After Independence, "Indian Socialism" led by Nehru and others led india to--well, stagnation. Look what reforms they've been undergoing in the past twenty years, and look at the increase of income etc in india in that time.
Why do people say that history proves capitalism work? out of about 6000 years of recorded history, capitalism has existed for just a little over 200 years, claiming it as somehow the most effective or the natural way of things is a bit premature. Because it has worked, and is working better than anything else? Because it has brought the greatest prosperity to the greatest number of people? Because one by one, from the soviet union, to china, the old school authoritarian socialist systems fizzle and die and look what it takes for instance China to succeed.. Marxism and communism was an attempt to create a more effective more scientific "way of things" and it failed, utterly.
Smugly believing the status quo will last forever, now does seem to be a natural thing for humans. I don't know that most people believe that at all, really. I would tend to think that most people are scared of the changes in their day to day lives and elsewhere. Today we're scared of global warming more than just about anything else. 50 years ago it was communism. Fear of the world coming to an end--that's the human constant.
This is demonstrably false. Forced redistribution is far more extensive, for example, here in Scandinavia than in the USA, and our societies are fairer by virtually any measure than society in the USA. Well, I guess that depends on what your definition of "fair" is--no?
What does this say about people who complain about the BSD license? (BSD isn't as free as GPL. etc) Do GPL supporters have defective brains?
Ok, just to be 100% clear, I don't believe that, I just think the parent posted something that utterly misses the point and just buys into more of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" / "anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" mentality that is all too prevalent today.
Re: Drunk Guy. Haven't heard that one... I'm not quite sure what the point is. That security is not perfect? What do you suggest? No security? Where's the "happy medium"? Nail clippers idiotic? probably..
the point is--no hijackings since 9/11. Like I said earlier, I don't know if that is due to added security or what, but, nothing bad has hapened. That's not to say nothing bad could or will ever happen, and I don't know how causal the relationship is, but I REALLY don't understand what you are advocating.
But I don't really know if it's a waste or not. I mean, I would assume that airport security precautions today would greatly discourage another 9/11, or a Red-shoe-bomber, etc. I don't think the entire process is a waste--though as I said, I am very skeptical to the liquids. No hijackings, no bombings, etc. Now who knows if there would have been any of those things without the added security? Nobody...
How exactly do you know that money is being "pissed" away just to make "ninnies" feel safe? I mean, do you REALLY think that's the only reason there is added security?
The reason I got involved in this thread was not the whole TSA/etc raison d'etre, but simply, the people @ airports are just doing their jobs. I don't see any reason to be aggressive to them, make their jobs more difficult, rant about how they all want to go around "fucking up people's days" and being "petty tyrants" because we don't like the fact that we have to go through seecurity, and that in fact, I didn't even find security that bad. I never set out to make any bigger point:-)
I have not said--even once--that the system was great. Of COURSE the security is there to cover someone's ass. Welcome to LIFE, why exactly does this come as a surprise to you?
Would you rather they not even try? The gels/liquids thing is stupid to me. Maybe they know something I don't? Maybe they're morons? I don't know. What I do know is... no gels/liquids.
My point is merely that, we all know exactly what we're dealing with, and there's no excuse for not being able to modify our own behavior to easily get through security. 99% of the time, the process is exactly as onerous as YOU make it.
I'm not going to comment on the race/ethnicity issue because I can't speak firsthand for that, but on everything else, I will;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, Bastiat reference--very nice!
I'm not sure to whom or to what you're responding? I didn't say anything about power users or accesibility..
though I do think you are far offbase. openess is not the same as hackability. xbox was hacked to death--it is not open.
I can't install extra software on my ipod, replace the battery on my ipod, etc without hacking it--literally or softwarewise!
Oh come on, why do you need to defend apple so much?
how easy it is to open? you want me to either order special tools or pry open my pretty ipod and risk breaking it? I'm posting on slashdot! What do you think people who DON'T care about this stuff feel about their ipod batteries? It's simple--it's harder and more expensive to replace an ipod battery than any other device with a easily accesible and replaceable battery. that's it.
I agree with everything you said.
Would have been nice to see that indeed re: steve. not sure I understand why apple would do it this way--wouldn't it be even better for them if there was a Verizon iphone, a att iphone, sprint, tmobile, etc.
would be nice to see a cdma version, too
Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me
SIM card? Apple won't even let you replace the BATTERY!
If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.
hassle of switching numbers? number portability it works and is easy! (at least in my experience)
I used number portability to get AWAY from AT&T though...
Acid2 doesn't have anything to do with supporting javascript + html elements.
Fckedit -- very cool text editor plugin written in html/js -- doesn't work right in safari either.
Acid2 is primarily a test of handling css gracefully.
I haven't had that problem with the 8600 yet, but I definitely had it with an older LG that it replaced.
oh well!
Yeah you know, because a for all we know made up or random immigration check is totally the same thing as having a phone confiscated. But you two are probably right--I'm sure the memo went out to every customs inspector to start examining every cellphone for certain models of qualcomm chipsets. Totally.
I find yours a well reasoned statement with much supporting evidence, prior acts, and perfect understanding of RTFA.
AT&T wireless has a monopoly? It's my understanding that they have neither the most subscribers nor the largest coverage area...how are they a monopoly?
I got a verizon LG VX8600 (the chocolate flip) and can transfer tones/pics/etc via bluetooth. works quite nicely actually, I really like this phone.
never been a fan of motorolas. (or verizon..but I do like their data)
But, I think you have to take into consideration the reality of the situation. Will there be an end to immigration? the answer is the US is a resounding no! Heck, we have more ILLEGAL immigrants in the past decade than Sweden's entire population! I imagine the situation in Europe is not that different--no matter the popular opinion, the govts will not halt immigration. The far right seems to be the only ones trying, and they are fairly popularly reviled, from what I can tell! Denmark is maybe the most
The other question is--can these societies survive without the immigrants? Low birth rates and as you said a transfer of wealth from young to old does not go well together.
Any thoughts about this? Especially in the Nordic countries? Well, I'll admit it's hard for me to understand how someone can oppose the welfare state, but it's clear that there is a huge difference of opinion. I suspect it may have something to do with the greater diversity in the UK and USA, which leads to less national cohesion, and more identification with subgroups, e.g. ethnic or regional. If people feel like their taxes are subsidising some other group instead of their own group, they might resent paying the subsidies, and vote for low-tax parties or something. I would suspect that is true as well. It also seems to me that as many parts of Europe become much more diverse--those are the parts where people start to talk about "reforming" the welfare state. Interestingly enough, I just read this article off a blog http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article26004
It is immensely fascinating to me that Merkel and Sarkozy seem to be much more pro-American than their predecessors (certainly Sarkozy!) despite the widespread anger at American policies now. It seems to me that Sarkozy has expressed some admiration for the American system and to do things in a more American way. People fed up with minority/immigrant problems mostly? It's a BIG BIG issue in the US...
In any case, what is the alternative? They live in the same society, so unless you want them to starve to death, society will have to support them in some way, for example through begging. Or through private charities. Or through having more jobs available--this is a prime difference of the US and much of the EU. The Nordic states are a good bit different in part because of their small populations and enormous wealth through oil--if anyone is the model for a succesful social state, it's them, though from reading a large number of blogs, it seems to me as if recent immigrant surges have shown some cracks in the social welfare state. Can't say for sure though. Do you live in a democracy? Are you free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't agree with the majority in your country? As long as you live in a society, you must live by the rules of that society, and democracy is the fairest way to set them. Absolutely, don't disagree with you at all. You can say that, but what is your definition of fair? To me, fairness implies giving everyone an equal start in society, and a chance to succeed or fail on the basis of their abilities, not who their parents happen to be. Research has shown that social mobility is far lower in the USA and UK than in Canada and the Nordic countries, which suggests that ability counts for less in the USA and UK, and birth counts for more. Individually, of course there are examples unfairness in every society, but looking at the overall picture, how can it be considered fairer to put more value on birth and less on ability? Data on this? I can't say for sure about social mobility in the Nordic states--which as I mentioned earlier due to small populations, largely homogenous popluations, and great oil wealth are largely unique beasts--but I've always read that when comparing France, Germany, UK, etc thatn social mobility is far higher in the US. I would be glad to look at any studies though.
I would argue that the less the government drags you down and punishes success, the greater the motivation and the greater the chance for ability to shine through. There's a reason for startups being so huge here! My grandparents were factory workers their entire lives. My dad--somehow without going begging to the government--was able to get ahead--and now look at me, here on slashdot.
I'm not saying the welfare state is a horrible thing. It's obvious that many, many people are happy living in them. They're not for me. I think many Europeans can't believe this though, and just assume anyone that choices otherwise is ignorant and/or stupid.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying--I don't disagree with what you said.. that was the period of the cultural revolution--that's what I said--I think!!
That question doesn't warrant a flippant response. I think it's interesting that you find my questioning what "fair" is to be silly... I don't find it silly.
:-)
Why is it fair that I should work to support someone else?
Why is it fair that if I choose not to work, others who do work should be forced to support me?
Why is it fair that I'm not given these choices?
Why is it fair that the government gets to control who gets what, arbitrarily assigning resources from the succesful to the unsuccesful?
Maybe that's fair to you...I'm not sure it seems fair to me. But that's because we have different definitions of fair
I tend to think that there are matters upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. That doesn't mean I don't think that I am right, it just means that I don't hold someone who believes otherwise in "contempt" or that they are ignorant, stubborn, whatever.
Since the 1960s? That's kinda the decade of the Cultural Revolution in China! Socialism manufactured famines on a scale not seen since (think 10s of millions dead for no good reason), and not before since the socialism manufactured famines of Ukraine+Eastern Europe.
It was the _market_ reforms and acceptance of capitalism in the 80s especially that allowed China to start to bring her billion people out of abject poverty. (though incidentally, poverty _is_ still a problem in China) The best thing that happened to China was the end of the Mao era.
You can see it in India too. After Independence, "Indian Socialism" led by Nehru and others led india to--well, stagnation. Look what reforms they've been undergoing in the past twenty years, and look at the increase of income etc in india in that time.
What does this say about people who complain about the BSD license? (BSD isn't as free as GPL. etc) Do GPL supporters have defective brains?
Ok, just to be 100% clear, I don't believe that, I just think the parent posted something that utterly misses the point and just buys into more of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" / "anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" mentality that is all too prevalent today.
Re: Drunk Guy. Haven't heard that one... I'm not quite sure what the point is. That security is not perfect? What do you suggest? No security? Where's the "happy medium"? Nail clippers idiotic? probably..
the point is--no hijackings since 9/11. Like I said earlier, I don't know if that is due to added security or what, but, nothing bad has hapened. That's not to say nothing bad could or will ever happen, and I don't know how causal the relationship is, but I REALLY don't understand what you are advocating.
It's a good point.
:-)
But I don't really know if it's a waste or not. I mean, I would assume that airport security precautions today would greatly discourage another 9/11, or a Red-shoe-bomber, etc. I don't think the entire process is a waste--though as I said, I am very skeptical to the liquids. No hijackings, no bombings, etc. Now who knows if there would have been any of those things without the added security? Nobody...
How exactly do you know that money is being "pissed" away just to make "ninnies" feel safe? I mean, do you REALLY think that's the only reason there is added security?
The reason I got involved in this thread was not the whole TSA/etc raison d'etre, but simply, the people @ airports are just doing their jobs. I don't see any reason to be aggressive to them, make their jobs more difficult, rant about how they all want to go around "fucking up people's days" and being "petty tyrants" because we don't like the fact that we have to go through seecurity, and that in fact, I didn't even find security that bad. I never set out to make any bigger point
I have not said--even once--that the system was great. Of COURSE the security is there to cover someone's ass. Welcome to LIFE, why exactly does this come as a surprise to you?
;-)
Would you rather they not even try? The gels/liquids thing is stupid to me. Maybe they know something I don't? Maybe they're morons? I don't know. What I do know is... no gels/liquids.
My point is merely that, we all know exactly what we're dealing with, and there's no excuse for not being able to modify our own behavior to easily get through security. 99% of the time, the process is exactly as onerous as YOU make it.
I'm not going to comment on the race/ethnicity issue because I can't speak firsthand for that, but on everything else, I will
Well that's a damn depressing story.. RDU's security area really does not have a lot of space.. i can believe that was quite unpleasant.
Makes me wish that "profiling" wasn't such a naughty word..