I love the doublethink that most Americans have about Cuba. Human rights abuses by Cuba on Cuban soil are heinous crimes but human rights abuses by the US on Cuban soil (Camp X-Ray) are a good thing.
There's a difference between asking someone politely for references and calling someone a bullshitter, which is basically what brunes69 did in the title of his post.
If you're going to have the gall to call me a bullshitter (or imply that that's what I am), at least have some proof that I'm bullshitting. Don't just take what I've said and say "hey, I disagree with you but can't provide any evidence of my viewpoint myself, so I'll bad-mouth you instead".
And, just because you're that damned lazy, here are a couple of quotes, one from each article:
1. Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol. And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones... "The person on the end of the phone doesn't know the driving conditions around you. If someone's in the car talking to you they can stop talking if a dangerous situation arises"... The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally...; and
2. "The New England Journal of Medicine" published a report in 1997 by Dr. Don Redelmeier of the University of Toronto. The study found that talking on a cellphone while driving quadrupled a person's risk of an accident. Redelmeier recently repeated his call to ban cellphone use by drivers, saying he actually underestimated the risks four years ago... Two other Canadian studies have raised questions about the safety of cell phones in the car. One by the University of Montreal included 36,000 people. The study found if you're using a cell phone while driving, you are 38 per cent more likely to get into an accident than if you're not using your cell phone. "Having a complicated telephone conversation is a demanding activity for the brain...depending on how stressful the conversation is," says Urs Maag of the Transportation Safety Laboratory at the university....
It's telling that you yourself use the word distraction, implying a loss of concentration on the task of driving.
I thought I had already explained in my previous post why mobile phone conversations were more dangerous than ones with a passenger, but clearly you either didn't think it was a sufficient answer. Did you try the little experiment that I suggested? I bet you didn't, so go do that.
In the meantime, imagine an NFL quarterback taking a snap, looking downfield for someone to throw the ball to and trying to talk to his wife via helmet radio about what colours and what fabrics they are going to use to redecorate their bedroom. Do you think that that QB is more or less likely to get creamed by a blitzing linebacker than if he wasn't having a chat with his wife? Because that's the level of distraction we're talking about: a road hazard can present itself in a split-second and anything that detracts from your reaction time is potentially going to kill you or someone else.
There's still a huge difference between a hands-free mobile phone conversation and one with a passenger. For one thing, a passenger knows when not to talk to the driver because s/he can see that the driver is busy negotiating a difficult manouvre, etc. For another thing, people's expectations of what's an acceptable pause in a telephone conversation are different to a face-to-face conversation.
If you think that the two can be done without compromising the attention given to one or the other, just try this experiment: play a game that you're familiar with (RTS, FPS, whatever) that requires real-time input whilst having a telephone conversation with a friend about a different topic. See how long it takes you to screw up in your game and/or for your friend to realise that your attention is focused elsewhere.
This isn't an issue about drivers talking. It's an issue about drivers being sufficiently distracted from the road that they become a danger to themselves, their passengers, other road users and pedestrians.
Actually, for the benefit of the wider audience, I would like to clarify that.
The law actually prohibits drivers from using hand-operated mobile phones whilst driving: the use of a totally hands-free phone is still permitted, although dangerous driving whilst using a hands-free phone can still be penalised.
The facts about mobile phone usage whilst driving are pretty clear though. Studies have shown that your attention is far less focused on the road, and your reaction times are slower, whilst talking on a mobile phone than it would be if you were driving whilst drunk. But, of course, everyone who regularly drives and chats away on a mobile at the same time doesn't think that this applies to them, because they're a "good" or "safe" driver.
Your analogies are flawed: it's not about paying to look at a painting, or a copy of it, it's about paying to display a copy of an original work of art.
Similarly, with music it's not about you paying to hear the radio (or whatever) when you visit the dentist, it's about your dentist paying for the right to publicly broadcast music to an audience. This applies regardless of whether or not the audience is there for the music or not.
Whether you like it or not, music that's not purely for private consumption must be licensed from the copyright holder. If you were an artist and some store was playing your CD over and over wouldn't you want to be recompensed in some way? After all, there's basically little difference between that and the music being used in a TV commercial, and you wouldn't argue that the artist doesn't deserve anything if their music is being used in an ad, would you?
My current Windows 2000 system is almost a year old and totally stable, despite having had dozens of applications, games, utilities and codecs installed upon it. The system it replaced (now relegated to a lesser role) was also rock solid and performed admirably as an everyday workstation for over two years.
How does me relaying my positive experiences with Windows 2000 make me a Microsoft shill? If this story was about Fedora and I was defending a great Red Hat product would that make me a Red Hat shill?
Just because you clearly hate Microsoft thet doesn't make Windows 2000 a bad product. The fact that you venom is so potent that even the slightest praise of a Microsoft product makes you "sick" is a clear indication that your judgement is clouded by your emotions and that you can't be objective.
This is an exaggeration. Nobody here loves Microsoft's business practices, certainly not me, but Windows 2000 Professional is an excellent desktop OS, and the 2000 Server products are good too.
I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.
Frankly, people who knee-jerk and say "it's from Microsoft, it must be shit" or words to that effect have no idea of how good a product Windows 2000 really is.
16 year-old kid has sex with his 15 year-old girlfriend. Both are willing parties. But the girl's under the legal age for sexual activities so the boy's broken the law. Tell me, how does fit into your "your rights are suspended the moment you infringe upon another's rights" argument? If they both went into it with their eyes open, they haven't infringed upon anyone else's rights, right? Yet a criminal act, as defined by society, has been committed.
Also, you assume that just because you own something that you can do anything you like to it. Modding a console is OK in your book, and presents no moral grey issues, but what about clocking a cars odometer or modifying a firearm so that it becomes even more dangerous?
And, of course, your still assuming that just because you think that it's OK, then the rest of society shouldn't have any say in whether it's OK or not. As I've tried to show, rightly or wrongly, it's the majority and not the minority that get to decide what's "right" and what's "wrong".
You want to play imported games? Well, firstly, that's not a God-given right: you do realise that much, don't you? Because if you don't, then there's little point debating the issue. Secondly, modchipping is a technical solution to a artificial problem (granted, a problem created by the console manufacturers themselves), but it's not the ideal one, for various reasons, not least of which is that it voids any warranty on the original console. A better solution, albeit one that won't work overnight, is to lobby console and games manufacturers to remove the region coding-like restrictions on their consoles and/or release titles simultaneously in all markets.
I live in the UK. I often have to wait well after the US release date to watch a new movie over here. Case in point, the latest adaptation of The Punisher: released in the US around March, to be released in the UK around October: by the time that I get to see the movie open here, it will have been available on DVD in the US for months. Staggered release dates are a fact of life in the movie business, but that doesn't give me the right to download the movie from a P2P source and pretend that nothing objectional, nothing that will hurt someone else (financially), is happening, does it?
A Clockwork Orange couldn't be publicly shown in the UK for almost three decades because Stanley Kubrick refused to allow it to be shown, but that wouldn't be sufficient justification for me to ignore the copyright holder's will and just do as I pleased, would it? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to see/use their product, isn't that their right? After all, it is their IP, isn't it? So, you see, unless all parties provide explicit consent, you can't argue with the fact that you are infringing on someone's rights when you import a game. You might like to think that you aren't, but you are.
The funny thing is, I agree with the crux of your argument - that console manufacturer's shouldn't be putting obstacles in the way of people that are dedicated enough to go to the trouble of importing games - but I'm trying to illustrate to you that pretending that the negative aspects associated with chipping consoles (widescale copyright infringement, piracy, or whatever you want to call it) are regarded as serious enough by the rest of society to merit action.
Putting the rights of the majority over the rights of the minority is basically how most law works. Most law is based upon what's good the greater community as a whole, and that's a good thing, regardless of how you personally choose to see it.
If you extended your argument, then you'd have to admit that prision sentences for murderers can be considered trampling on their rights. After all, just because 99 percent of society says murder is wrong and there's a price to pay if you commit it then your penalising the 1 percent for not agreeing with everyone else.
You wouldn't suggest that the greater good should be ignored when it comes to murderers having to face imprisonment, would you? Or would you?
See, that's the problem with using a slippery slope argument: it's just as easy for you to fall down the slope as the other guy.
Or that a lot of people in the UK have been affected by malware that tries to access this site without their express consent? Or even that some people in the UK have clicked on links that they thought would take them to ABC only to be taken to XYZ instead via a redirect?
Britain isn't a paedophile-free society (Where is?) but assuming that all the access attempts are genuine, conscious attempts to access child pornography is very dangerous assumption to make.
Nice to see that moderators are so fair and even-handed. Someone calls me a dipshit without any provocation and they don't get modded. I use the same language in a sarcastic manner in a factual reply and I get modded as flamebait.
But I guess that this is the moderation system that we get stuck with when anyone who's been on the site for a while and posts regularly is banned from moderating.
To the person who modded my post flamebait whilst leaving the post that it was in reply to unmoderated: open your fucking eyes. Your bias is so obvious it's beyond a joke.
Ever thought that the non-English-speaking world (or non-Americans in general for that matter) get annoyed by the hundreds of English language, US-targetted spams they receive every day?
And it's not as if the only Orkut message spams you get are in Portuguese. I get just as many, if not more, in English.
This isn't an Orkut problem, or a language problem, it's a selfish idiot problem.
Really, you do have a major chip on your shoulder, don't you?
I don't know which department of the US government looks after promoting the US as a tourist destination. Frankly, I don't care which one it is either: if it matters that much to you then I suggest that you look it up yourself. But I do see the supplements in my Sunday paper and other ads, so it quite clearly does go on.
I don't live in non-English speaking country, but are you really suggesting that any US tourism ads run in France/Germany/Spain/Italy/Japan/wherever are in English? Do you know how dumb that sounds?
Nobody, least of all myself, is suggesting that anyone shouldn't be allowed to travel here, there or anywhere without a degree-level knowledge of the local language. But, if nothing else, being able to say "hello", "please" and "thank you", and being able to ask for directions can only benefit you the tourist, so why not do it? If don't want to do it then that's fine, it's your loss not anyone else's, but don't compound your laziness with arrogance by expecting all the locals to speak fluent English.
The US promotes itself as a tourist destination all over the world. I don't see the US reacting in the way that you suggest by making sure that all of its citizens can speak French/Spanish/German/Italian/Japanese/whatever, do you?
As I've said elsewhere in other posts related to this story, if you're a guest in someone else's country, is it so damned hard to actually learn a word or two of their language when you expect everyone else to be fluent in yours? Not only is expecting all of them to be able to speak your native tongue practically unrealistic, it's also arrogant beyond belief.
I live in a major city and it has its own community. Several members of that community get together regularly for drinks, dinner, etc. I've made some casual friends but also a few that I can see myself becoming really close to too.
I'm in a committed relationship, so I'm not talking about romantic/horizontal developments but there's an element of potential matchmaking for one or two members of my new circle of friends.
The rest of the world doesn't care if the average American can speak their language as well as English. What they care about is that the average American tourist visiting their country can't speak anything but English, is reluctant to even learn even two words of Mexican/French/Spanish/German/Italian/whatever, yet expects everyone else to be able to understand what they're saying to them.
Don't travel to Mexico City/Paris/Madrid/Berlin/Rome/wherever and expect everyone to know your mother tongue. Not only is it practically unrealistic, it's arrogant beyond belief.
Americans are irritating. One decides that he wants to invade Iraq on a whim and creates the mother of all shit storms. The next thing you know the whole world's a potential warzone. But that's OK, because him and his oil buddies will do alright out of it in the long run.
See how stupid it is to generalise about a group of people based upon the actions of one individual? Just because one Portuguese-speaking idiot spammed you asking for a Gmail account that doesn't make all Portuguese-speakers idiots or spammers, does it? And, if your experience is anything like mine, you've received plenty of spams from Gmail account beggers that are from Americans too, it's just that they've not had a problem communicating their stupidity to you.
Re:sounds like people need to learn some net etiqu
on
Language Tempest At Orkut
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's also wrong to disrespect other cultures by not even bothering to check how the names of their languages are spelt: would it really have been that hard for you to look at the spelling of Portuguese in the story summary (or even Dictionary.com) before typing your post?
This isn't a flame, it's just a heads-up that it's small things like this that make others regard Americans as arrogant.
Wow. You are exactly the kind of person that we're talking about here, aren't you?
If you've travelled half way around the world (or whatever distance) to another country then don't you at least owe it to yourself to absorb as much of their culture as possible? Otherwise, what's the point of having gone there if all you do is spend your time in your hotel with its English-speaking staff and cheesy tourist-oriented restaurants because you couldn't be bothered to even try to use a phrase book?
When I travel I make it a point of having a pocket dictionary and phrase book with me. For one thing, it's polite to be able to thank someone properly in their own language. For another, it's nice to be able to ask directions if you're trying to get somewhere. And, for yet another, it's nice to be able to do more than shout English at someone very slowly if you're caught up in an emergency of some sort.
I speak English and four other languages (two very well, two pretty well) yet I'm constantly amazed by fellow tourists overseas who can't even say "hello", "please" or "thank you" even after two weeks. You're a guest in someone else's country, is it so damned hard to actually learn a word or two of their language when you expect everyone else to be fluent in yours?
Yeah, I find it really arrogant that people are complaining about how others communicate between themselves. It's not like every American tourist that visits a foreign country starts speaking that nation's native tongue even when just talking to their travelling companions, is it?
As an Orkut member I do find the behaviour of some of its users annoying (Orkut-wide and community-wide spamming by a very small handful of people, people who ignore the rules of the communities that they join, etc) but I find that it's not that inconvenient compared to what I've got out of my Orkut experience. I've made at least a dozen real-world friends that I regularly go out with, and several more that are online only at this stage, and that's only after three months' membership.
Yes there are plenty of Brazilians on the site, and yes, they do have a tendency to join every community that even half interests them (it's like some people play a game of "let's see how many communities I can join", and they seem to do the same with collecting friends too) but that's not just a trait exclusive to them: users of other nationalities can be just as bad.
I'll also point out that Portuguese isn't the only non-English language used on Orkut. I've seen several, including ones that you wouldn't immediately think of, such as Arabic.
Live and let live is what I say. On Orkut and elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the doublethink that most Americans have about Cuba. Human rights abuses by Cuba on Cuban soil are heinous crimes but human rights abuses by the US on Cuban soil (Camp X-Ray) are a good thing.
But, hey, it's only hypocrisy, right?
There's a difference between asking someone politely for references and calling someone a bullshitter, which is basically what brunes69 did in the title of his post.
If you're going to have the gall to call me a bullshitter (or imply that that's what I am), at least have some proof that I'm bullshitting. Don't just take what I've said and say "hey, I disagree with you but can't provide any evidence of my viewpoint myself, so I'll bad-mouth you instead".
Isn't it amazing how many people are too damned lazy to use a search engine to look for facts themselves? Is independent research really that hard? Googling mobile phones cars drink driving safety or cell phones cars drink driving safety too much for you?
Here are just two of the articles that those Google searches bring up:
1. Mobiles 'worse than drink-driving'; and
2. Driving and Dialing.
And, just because you're that damned lazy, here are a couple of quotes, one from each article:
1. Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol. And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones... "The person on the end of the phone doesn't know the driving conditions around you. If someone's in the car talking to you they can stop talking if a dangerous situation arises"... The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally...; and
2. "The New England Journal of Medicine" published a report in 1997 by Dr. Don Redelmeier of the University of Toronto. The study found that talking on a cellphone while driving quadrupled a person's risk of an accident. Redelmeier recently repeated his call to ban cellphone use by drivers, saying he actually underestimated the risks four years ago... Two other Canadian studies have raised questions about the safety of cell phones in the car. One by the University of Montreal included 36,000 people. The study found if you're using a cell phone while driving, you are 38 per cent more likely to get into an accident than if you're not using your cell phone. "Having a complicated telephone conversation is a demanding activity for the brain...depending on how stressful the conversation is," says Urs Maag of the Transportation Safety Laboratory at the university....
It's telling that you yourself use the word distraction, implying a loss of concentration on the task of driving.
I thought I had already explained in my previous post why mobile phone conversations were more dangerous than ones with a passenger, but clearly you either didn't think it was a sufficient answer. Did you try the little experiment that I suggested? I bet you didn't, so go do that.
In the meantime, imagine an NFL quarterback taking a snap, looking downfield for someone to throw the ball to and trying to talk to his wife via helmet radio about what colours and what fabrics they are going to use to redecorate their bedroom. Do you think that that QB is more or less likely to get creamed by a blitzing linebacker than if he wasn't having a chat with his wife? Because that's the level of distraction we're talking about: a road hazard can present itself in a split-second and anything that detracts from your reaction time is potentially going to kill you or someone else.
There's still a huge difference between a hands-free mobile phone conversation and one with a passenger. For one thing, a passenger knows when not to talk to the driver because s/he can see that the driver is busy negotiating a difficult manouvre, etc. For another thing, people's expectations of what's an acceptable pause in a telephone conversation are different to a face-to-face conversation.
If you think that the two can be done without compromising the attention given to one or the other, just try this experiment: play a game that you're familiar with (RTS, FPS, whatever) that requires real-time input whilst having a telephone conversation with a friend about a different topic. See how long it takes you to screw up in your game and/or for your friend to realise that your attention is focused elsewhere.
This isn't an issue about drivers talking. It's an issue about drivers being sufficiently distracted from the road that they become a danger to themselves, their passengers, other road users and pedestrians.
Actually, for the benefit of the wider audience, I would like to clarify that.
The law actually prohibits drivers from using hand-operated mobile phones whilst driving: the use of a totally hands-free phone is still permitted, although dangerous driving whilst using a hands-free phone can still be penalised.
The facts about mobile phone usage whilst driving are pretty clear though. Studies have shown that your attention is far less focused on the road, and your reaction times are slower, whilst talking on a mobile phone than it would be if you were driving whilst drunk. But, of course, everyone who regularly drives and chats away on a mobile at the same time doesn't think that this applies to them, because they're a "good" or "safe" driver.
Your analogies are flawed: it's not about paying to look at a painting, or a copy of it, it's about paying to display a copy of an original work of art.
Similarly, with music it's not about you paying to hear the radio (or whatever) when you visit the dentist, it's about your dentist paying for the right to publicly broadcast music to an audience. This applies regardless of whether or not the audience is there for the music or not.
Whether you like it or not, music that's not purely for private consumption must be licensed from the copyright holder. If you were an artist and some store was playing your CD over and over wouldn't you want to be recompensed in some way? After all, there's basically little difference between that and the music being used in a TV commercial, and you wouldn't argue that the artist doesn't deserve anything if their music is being used in an ad, would you?
My current Windows 2000 system is almost a year old and totally stable, despite having had dozens of applications, games, utilities and codecs installed upon it. The system it replaced (now relegated to a lesser role) was also rock solid and performed admirably as an everyday workstation for over two years.
How does me relaying my positive experiences with Windows 2000 make me a Microsoft shill? If this story was about Fedora and I was defending a great Red Hat product would that make me a Red Hat shill?
Just because you clearly hate Microsoft thet doesn't make Windows 2000 a bad product. The fact that you venom is so potent that even the slightest praise of a Microsoft product makes you "sick" is a clear indication that your judgement is clouded by your emotions and that you can't be objective.
This is an exaggeration. Nobody here loves Microsoft's business practices, certainly not me, but Windows 2000 Professional is an excellent desktop OS, and the 2000 Server products are good too.
I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.
Frankly, people who knee-jerk and say "it's from Microsoft, it must be shit" or words to that effect have no idea of how good a product Windows 2000 really is.
16 year-old kid has sex with his 15 year-old girlfriend. Both are willing parties. But the girl's under the legal age for sexual activities so the boy's broken the law. Tell me, how does fit into your "your rights are suspended the moment you infringe upon another's rights" argument? If they both went into it with their eyes open, they haven't infringed upon anyone else's rights, right? Yet a criminal act, as defined by society, has been committed.
Also, you assume that just because you own something that you can do anything you like to it. Modding a console is OK in your book, and presents no moral grey issues, but what about clocking a cars odometer or modifying a firearm so that it becomes even more dangerous?
And, of course, your still assuming that just because you think that it's OK, then the rest of society shouldn't have any say in whether it's OK or not. As I've tried to show, rightly or wrongly, it's the majority and not the minority that get to decide what's "right" and what's "wrong".
You want to play imported games? Well, firstly, that's not a God-given right: you do realise that much, don't you? Because if you don't, then there's little point debating the issue. Secondly, modchipping is a technical solution to a artificial problem (granted, a problem created by the console manufacturers themselves), but it's not the ideal one, for various reasons, not least of which is that it voids any warranty on the original console. A better solution, albeit one that won't work overnight, is to lobby console and games manufacturers to remove the region coding-like restrictions on their consoles and/or release titles simultaneously in all markets.
I live in the UK. I often have to wait well after the US release date to watch a new movie over here. Case in point, the latest adaptation of The Punisher: released in the US around March, to be released in the UK around October: by the time that I get to see the movie open here, it will have been available on DVD in the US for months. Staggered release dates are a fact of life in the movie business, but that doesn't give me the right to download the movie from a P2P source and pretend that nothing objectional, nothing that will hurt someone else (financially), is happening, does it?
A Clockwork Orange couldn't be publicly shown in the UK for almost three decades because Stanley Kubrick refused to allow it to be shown, but that wouldn't be sufficient justification for me to ignore the copyright holder's will and just do as I pleased, would it? If the copyright holder doesn't want you to see/use their product, isn't that their right? After all, it is their IP, isn't it? So, you see, unless all parties provide explicit consent, you can't argue with the fact that you are infringing on someone's rights when you import a game. You might like to think that you aren't, but you are.
The funny thing is, I agree with the crux of your argument - that console manufacturer's shouldn't be putting obstacles in the way of people that are dedicated enough to go to the trouble of importing games - but I'm trying to illustrate to you that pretending that the negative aspects associated with chipping consoles (widescale copyright infringement, piracy, or whatever you want to call it) are regarded as serious enough by the rest of society to merit action.
Putting the rights of the majority over the rights of the minority is basically how most law works. Most law is based upon what's good the greater community as a whole, and that's a good thing, regardless of how you personally choose to see it.
If you extended your argument, then you'd have to admit that prision sentences for murderers can be considered trampling on their rights. After all, just because 99 percent of society says murder is wrong and there's a price to pay if you commit it then your penalising the 1 percent for not agreeing with everyone else.
You wouldn't suggest that the greater good should be ignored when it comes to murderers having to face imprisonment, would you? Or would you?
See, that's the problem with using a slippery slope argument: it's just as easy for you to fall down the slope as the other guy.
Or that a lot of people in the UK have been affected by malware that tries to access this site without their express consent? Or even that some people in the UK have clicked on links that they thought would take them to ABC only to be taken to XYZ instead via a redirect?
Britain isn't a paedophile-free society (Where is?) but assuming that all the access attempts are genuine, conscious attempts to access child pornography is very dangerous assumption to make.
You still have my DVD, right?
Ironically, this is one of the real-world friends that I'm talking about.
Nice to see that moderators are so fair and even-handed. Someone calls me a dipshit without any provocation and they don't get modded. I use the same language in a sarcastic manner in a factual reply and I get modded as flamebait.
But I guess that this is the moderation system that we get stuck with when anyone who's been on the site for a while and posts regularly is banned from moderating.
To the person who modded my post flamebait whilst leaving the post that it was in reply to unmoderated: open your fucking eyes. Your bias is so obvious it's beyond a joke.
Ever thought that the non-English-speaking world (or non-Americans in general for that matter) get annoyed by the hundreds of English language, US-targetted spams they receive every day?
And it's not as if the only Orkut message spams you get are in Portuguese. I get just as many, if not more, in English.
This isn't an Orkut problem, or a language problem, it's a selfish idiot problem.
The flavour of Spanish spoken in Mexico is different enough from Spanish spoken in Spain to be considered a language, dipshit.
Really, you do have a major chip on your shoulder, don't you?
I don't know which department of the US government looks after promoting the US as a tourist destination. Frankly, I don't care which one it is either: if it matters that much to you then I suggest that you look it up yourself. But I do see the supplements in my Sunday paper and other ads, so it quite clearly does go on.
I don't live in non-English speaking country, but are you really suggesting that any US tourism ads run in France/Germany/Spain/Italy/Japan/wherever are in English? Do you know how dumb that sounds?
Nobody, least of all myself, is suggesting that anyone shouldn't be allowed to travel here, there or anywhere without a degree-level knowledge of the local language. But, if nothing else, being able to say "hello", "please" and "thank you", and being able to ask for directions can only benefit you the tourist, so why not do it? If don't want to do it then that's fine, it's your loss not anyone else's, but don't compound your laziness with arrogance by expecting all the locals to speak fluent English.
The US promotes itself as a tourist destination all over the world. I don't see the US reacting in the way that you suggest by making sure that all of its citizens can speak French/Spanish/German/Italian/Japanese/whatever, do you?
As I've said elsewhere in other posts related to this story, if you're a guest in someone else's country, is it so damned hard to actually learn a word or two of their language when you expect everyone else to be fluent in yours? Not only is expecting all of them to be able to speak your native tongue practically unrealistic, it's also arrogant beyond belief.
Nice of the person who moderated this as flamebait to miss the entire fucking point of the post.
I live in a major city and it has its own community. Several members of that community get together regularly for drinks, dinner, etc. I've made some casual friends but also a few that I can see myself becoming really close to too.
I'm in a committed relationship, so I'm not talking about romantic/horizontal developments but there's an element of potential matchmaking for one or two members of my new circle of friends.
You, my friend, have missed the point entirely.
The rest of the world doesn't care if the average American can speak their language as well as English. What they care about is that the average American tourist visiting their country can't speak anything but English, is reluctant to even learn even two words of Mexican/French/Spanish/German/Italian/whatever, yet expects everyone else to be able to understand what they're saying to them.
Don't travel to Mexico City/Paris/Madrid/Berlin/Rome/wherever and expect everyone to know your mother tongue. Not only is it practically unrealistic, it's arrogant beyond belief.
Americans are irritating. One decides that he wants to invade Iraq on a whim and creates the mother of all shit storms. The next thing you know the whole world's a potential warzone. But that's OK, because him and his oil buddies will do alright out of it in the long run.
See how stupid it is to generalise about a group of people based upon the actions of one individual? Just because one Portuguese-speaking idiot spammed you asking for a Gmail account that doesn't make all Portuguese-speakers idiots or spammers, does it? And, if your experience is anything like mine, you've received plenty of spams from Gmail account beggers that are from Americans too, it's just that they've not had a problem communicating their stupidity to you.
It's also wrong to disrespect other cultures by not even bothering to check how the names of their languages are spelt: would it really have been that hard for you to look at the spelling of Portuguese in the story summary (or even Dictionary.com) before typing your post?
This isn't a flame, it's just a heads-up that it's small things like this that make others regard Americans as arrogant.
Wow. You are exactly the kind of person that we're talking about here, aren't you?
If you've travelled half way around the world (or whatever distance) to another country then don't you at least owe it to yourself to absorb as much of their culture as possible? Otherwise, what's the point of having gone there if all you do is spend your time in your hotel with its English-speaking staff and cheesy tourist-oriented restaurants because you couldn't be bothered to even try to use a phrase book?
When I travel I make it a point of having a pocket dictionary and phrase book with me. For one thing, it's polite to be able to thank someone properly in their own language. For another, it's nice to be able to ask directions if you're trying to get somewhere. And, for yet another, it's nice to be able to do more than shout English at someone very slowly if you're caught up in an emergency of some sort.
I speak English and four other languages (two very well, two pretty well) yet I'm constantly amazed by fellow tourists overseas who can't even say "hello", "please" or "thank you" even after two weeks. You're a guest in someone else's country, is it so damned hard to actually learn a word or two of their language when you expect everyone else to be fluent in yours?
Yeah, I find it really arrogant that people are complaining about how others communicate between themselves. It's not like every American tourist that visits a foreign country starts speaking that nation's native tongue even when just talking to their travelling companions, is it?
As an Orkut member I do find the behaviour of some of its users annoying (Orkut-wide and community-wide spamming by a very small handful of people, people who ignore the rules of the communities that they join, etc) but I find that it's not that inconvenient compared to what I've got out of my Orkut experience. I've made at least a dozen real-world friends that I regularly go out with, and several more that are online only at this stage, and that's only after three months' membership.
Yes there are plenty of Brazilians on the site, and yes, they do have a tendency to join every community that even half interests them (it's like some people play a game of "let's see how many communities I can join", and they seem to do the same with collecting friends too) but that's not just a trait exclusive to them: users of other nationalities can be just as bad.
I'll also point out that Portuguese isn't the only non-English language used on Orkut. I've seen several, including ones that you wouldn't immediately think of, such as Arabic.
Live and let live is what I say. On Orkut and elsewhere.