To make to people and/or businesses paying to advertise on those "sites" have to pay more for the clicks. You're just enriching the scumbags who make the sites. The advertisers don't chose to appear on such sites, they're just regular customers buying ads from Yahoo, Google etc. Most advertisers are probably completely unaware that companies like Google enable and encourage this sort of thing.
It's not like I can wear them to work, for heaven's sake they're Wedding Shoes! That's very simple. You can wear them to work if you simply quit your current job and become a transvestite stripper in a gay bar.
And yet profitable. Why are so many people so upset about this particular scumbag making a huge profit this way? For years Google has been profiting far more by promoting this very thing.
If they simply auctioned them then the squatters would bid each other out of business. They do auction them. TFA tells about such an auction. Domain names for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. And yet profitable. Crazy.
FTA:
"This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom," President Bush said in his radio address on Saturday. (My emphasis.)
Somehow I feel that "love of freedom" isn't quite the right term here.
Girlfriends and Clusters of Amiga2000s are mutually exclusive. I realize that by asking what this means I'll lose every single geek point I might have had, as I reveal my ignorance about some arcane technology that is undoubtedly known to every geek in the Universe except me, but still I have to ask: What's a Girlfriend?
You'll have an extremely hard time convincing us Europeans to follow your rule. Lots of people here know several languages and use them all frequently, without knowing them well enough to speak flawlessly. We use foreign languages both for business and for fun. You'll have a very hard time convincing us to stop doing this.
In my opinion it would be a very boring world if people followed your rule. For example, I couldn't write this post. English isn't my first language, it's not even my second, so who knows what errors might sneak in without my noticing!?
Maybe I'd better shut up now, in case I'm subjecting you to painful language errors without noticing.
Evidently you and I view this discussion in completely different ways.
The way I saw it, we're two citizens of the world, concerned about what's happening. We're not in positions of power, we're affected by decisions made by others who are in power. So, in my view, any criticism against the actions of those in power are criticism against those in power, not against each other.
In cases where we agree, I thought you would answer something like "I agree" or "Many Americans feel this way too" or something. But your reaction was completely different. You were offended! You complained because I described things that you felt were obvious. For example, you said: Did you actually believe you were telling me something I didn't know? [...] It's offensive for you to talk down to people like that. Don't do that!
With this logic I don't see how we can agree on anything. On any matter where we agree, the person who describes the viewpoint will inevitably offend the person who reads the description.
How do you propose we handle points where we agree?
Judging from your post, you see us first and foremost as one American versus one Swede. My critical opinions about the actions of the US are a personal affront to your sensibilities as an American. You despise me for being a Swede who dares express an opinion. You tell me that I gain the right to express an opinion when Sweden is involved like the US. You tell me that you have no reason to believe some random Swede. You tell me that I'm preaching and condescending.
It seems to me that almost any description can be interpreted as preaching and condescending, if you're looking for that interpretation. It is not clear to me how we can discuss viewpoints and opinions in ways that cannot be interpreted this way.
Regarding my discussions about the media, what I care about are serious international problems. And I mean international. You seem to think I'm talking about how you get your information. I don't care if you never read an article in your life or subscribe to seventeen daily papers.
What matters is that the media should guard the guardians. Good media would scrupulously defend and nurture democracy, by constantly watching those whom the people have elected, reporting any irregularities to the people. They would also report weaknesses in the voting system, irregularities in the authorities, and so on, generally watching carefully over everything that is essential for democracy, and reporting truthfully about all this to the people.
When this works well, along with some other things, you get a feedback system that thwarts corruption.
Thus my discussions of your nation's media were not intended as any kind of attack on your person or on your people. Quite the contrary, if anything I showed you respect. I saw you as a person who might make a positive change, maybe quite a significant change, in this area. I wrote thinking that you might be a smart and capable person who could influence things for the better, and who perhaps might like this idea.
I'm simply a citizen of the world who doesn't get to vote in the world's only superpower. Essentially I don't get to vote in the world government. I see my life deeply, profoundly affected by the actions of this world government. Not having a vote, and acting from this perspective, I try to describe what I see to a fellow citizen of the world, so we can compare notes and maybe even do something.
Since our respective societies influence us in very different ways, necessarily we'll see things from very different perspectives. Therefore, one way to discuss is that each one of us describes how things look from his perspective so we can compare notes.
That was my intent when I described my perspective. I assumed that you would calmly describe yours. Then we could compare notes, and maybe find i
What are you talking about? I googled and found a description of the show, but I still don't know what you mean by referring to it.
We really do understand that everyone hates us.
No! We don't hate you!
This is yet another falseness that your media love spreading. Just like they portrayed the Pakistani as dancing on the streets when in reality they offered help, similarly your media like to portray Europe's attitudes toward you as agitated rivalry and hate, when in reality we see you as an exasperatingly difficult brother.
A brother who is often amazingly, incomprehensibly rude and bullyish, both in official and in informal contacts, but a brother nonetheless. We do get angry with you. We do get exasperated and despair about you. Often we'll be very critical about what you do. But that's not the same thing as hating you. Far from it.
There's a large fringe that does hate you. But they're a fringe, albeit large. They're definitely not the mainstream, no matter how much your media love to exaggerate their role.
I wish Americans would read European media. You'd get a completely different image of our attitudes toward you. You'd also discover what a false image your media are building.
In this context I should probably mention that I don't believe in conspiracies. I don't have theories about your media conspiring to give this false picture. There are just a lot of individuals making separate, individual day-to-day decisions. At each point they probably think that slanting things this way is the good and patriotic thing to do, or simply that it will sell papers. Other people simply believe in the picture that emerges from this, and spread it further.
We're heartbroken. We feel cheated. We feel impotent. There's nothing we can do. It's not a democracy anymore. Our leader hasn't been elected in almost eight years, we're stuck in a war that nobody over here wants, our jackass in chief refuses to accept defeat, and we're all just stunned.
Your description is heartbreaking, you convey a terrible feeling of loss and despair.
However, in spite of everything you say, you're in a far, far better position than were, for example, the citizens of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact before that empire fell. You have freedom of expression, freedom to create organizations and make campaigns for change, freedom to print leaflets and magazines, freedom to own your own resources and spend them on campaigns, and so on and on and on.
If the people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact could change their systems, so can you!
You're saying that a significant proportion of your population are heartbroken and feel cheated. This sounds like they'll want change. It sounds like change is possible. So what are you waiting for?
Of course you'll have to make the changes yourselves. Nobody can make them for you. If any other nation came from outside, trying to make the changes for you (supposing any nation had the necessary resources), you would inevitably turn against them. And rightly so.
Just like the US can't successfully force democracy on a country, similarly improvements on your system can't be forced on you.
We've lost faith in our system, and our system is just failing.
Your belief in your system is what holds your nation together. If you truly lose that faith, I think you risk falling apart. What else is there to hold you together? You really do need your faith in your strong, beautiful American ideals. You need faith in the American way, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, from sea to shining sea.
Even though I'm not American, I almost get tears in my eyes talking about this.
Maybe this reaction of mine will help convince you that we don't hate you.
Wow. Ufff. I've already eaten my words, and twice more I've said I'm sorry, linking to that comment. This is the third time.
I spoke foolishly, out of extreme frustration and irritation with a country (or perhaps I should say a government) that starts a war that is supposed to be against terrorism but has the effect of fueling terrorism, bolstering recruitment to terrorist networks, strengthening the local influence of terrorist leaders, and so on. This needlessly growing terrorism creates a feeling of powerless horror, and I reacted emotionally and struck out blindly.
My reaction is all the more stupid considering that I feel, quite strongly, that the US and Europe should be strong allies, and definitely not rivals. We have lots of common goals, and there are lots of areas where we agree. I won't go into details here but I've discussed this here and here and elsewhere. My lashing out goes against that idea.
If someone gave you that test [...] would you take it?
Whew. There is only one possible answer. First, I seldom decline a challenge. This is definitely the kind of challenge I should accept. Second, honesty requires that I accept your challenge.
However, on the other hand, if you make it a quiz about capitals and similar geographic trivia, you'll be wasting your time. Then the outcome is more or less guaranteed. I know very little about that kind of geographic detail.
But the frustration that made me lash out was not about the US lacking knowledge about capitals, obviously. It was frustration about the US lacking knowledge about human reactions, motivations and backgrounds in the places where the US intervenes. It was frustration with the US counteracting its own goals by ignoring readily available information and elementary game theory.
For example, are you aware that when you attack people they will unite and their leaders will be strengthened, just like you yourselves unite rallying around the flag? Extremely trivial game theory.
For another example, are you aware of how immediately after 9/11 countries all over the world offered to send help to the US? Are you aware that Pakistan, a third-world, muslim country, immediately offered foreign aid to the US?
The way I understood it, what the US media reported about Pakistan was people dancing in the streets to celebrate the attack on the US. But if you watched that footage critically you would notice that the dancing mob seemed quite small, and that regular people in the background seemed annoyed by their antics and certainly didn't seem to agree with them. Yet unless I'm mistaken this small mob was blown up to make it seem like the whole country celebrating, and the real reaction of the country was rudely ignored.
I get the impression that this kind of blatant falseness is extremely prevalent in US media. For example, amazingly often I encounter Americans who believe that the US foreign aid per capita is generous compared to that of other countries, or that the US pollution per capita is modest compared to other countries, and many other ridiculously off-the-mark assumptions.
Of course our media is slanted too. But our media predicted quite accurately what would happen in Iraq. This makes it seem to be far closer to the truth than yours.
As I see it, while we are eying events critically, you are busy rallying around the flag.
What scares me so much, and not only me, is that US decisions about foreign policy, war, and other really important and serious matters, horribly often seem to be based upon this kind of wildly incorrect assumptions, which have often been created in a rally-around-the-flag frenzy. It's no wonder you couldn't predict wha
"Source routing" should have said "security issue" to everybody on the committee. Indeed it should — but there's a much greater mystery here. IPv6 has been publicly known for ages. A huge number of people have known it. How come nobody has noticed this problem until now?
I'm not sure it's right to blame the committee when such a huge number of other people have missed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the real purpose of the bill is something else then.
Somehow I feel that "love of freedom" isn't quite the right term here.
- "[...] Spirit backed up over Gertrude Weise [...]"
- "Spirit acquired full color 13-filter images of Gertrude Weise [...]"
Hey, Spirit is a slashdotter! Only a slashdotter will spend the time with his date making backups and taking 13-filter images!My father was a clod, you insensitive oaf!
Brain surgery? What a comparison!
You'll have an extremely hard time convincing us Europeans to follow your rule. Lots of people here know several languages and use them all frequently, without knowing them well enough to speak flawlessly. We use foreign languages both for business and for fun. You'll have a very hard time convincing us to stop doing this.
In my opinion it would be a very boring world if people followed your rule. For example, I couldn't write this post. English isn't my first language, it's not even my second, so who knows what errors might sneak in without my noticing!?
Maybe I'd better shut up now, in case I'm subjecting you to painful language errors without noticing.
How many foreign languages do you speak flawlessly?
Its our's no'w! W'e wont giv'e i't bac'k! H'a!
Evidently you and I view this discussion in completely different ways.
The way I saw it, we're two citizens of the world, concerned about what's happening. We're not in positions of power, we're affected by decisions made by others who are in power. So, in my view, any criticism against the actions of those in power are criticism against those in power, not against each other.
In cases where we agree, I thought you would answer something like "I agree" or "Many Americans feel this way too" or something. But your reaction was completely different. You were offended! You complained because I described things that you felt were obvious. For example, you said: Did you actually believe you were telling me something I didn't know? [...] It's offensive for you to talk down to people like that. Don't do that!
With this logic I don't see how we can agree on anything. On any matter where we agree, the person who describes the viewpoint will inevitably offend the person who reads the description.
How do you propose we handle points where we agree?
Judging from your post, you see us first and foremost as one American versus one Swede. My critical opinions about the actions of the US are a personal affront to your sensibilities as an American. You despise me for being a Swede who dares express an opinion. You tell me that I gain the right to express an opinion when Sweden is involved like the US. You tell me that you have no reason to believe some random Swede. You tell me that I'm preaching and condescending.
It seems to me that almost any description can be interpreted as preaching and condescending, if you're looking for that interpretation. It is not clear to me how we can discuss viewpoints and opinions in ways that cannot be interpreted this way.
Regarding my discussions about the media, what I care about are serious international problems. And I mean international. You seem to think I'm talking about how you get your information. I don't care if you never read an article in your life or subscribe to seventeen daily papers.
What matters is that the media should guard the guardians. Good media would scrupulously defend and nurture democracy, by constantly watching those whom the people have elected, reporting any irregularities to the people. They would also report weaknesses in the voting system, irregularities in the authorities, and so on, generally watching carefully over everything that is essential for democracy, and reporting truthfully about all this to the people.
When this works well, along with some other things, you get a feedback system that thwarts corruption.
Thus my discussions of your nation's media were not intended as any kind of attack on your person or on your people. Quite the contrary, if anything I showed you respect. I saw you as a person who might make a positive change, maybe quite a significant change, in this area. I wrote thinking that you might be a smart and capable person who could influence things for the better, and who perhaps might like this idea.
I'm simply a citizen of the world who doesn't get to vote in the world's only superpower. Essentially I don't get to vote in the world government. I see my life deeply, profoundly affected by the actions of this world government. Not having a vote, and acting from this perspective, I try to describe what I see to a fellow citizen of the world, so we can compare notes and maybe even do something.
Since our respective societies influence us in very different ways, necessarily we'll see things from very different perspectives. Therefore, one way to discuss is that each one of us describes how things look from his perspective so we can compare notes.
That was my intent when I described my perspective. I assumed that you would calmly describe yours. Then we could compare notes, and maybe find i
That looks very interesting. Thanks for the tip!
Mister Peabody, the WABAC machine, if you will.
What are you talking about? I googled and found a description of the show, but I still don't know what you mean by referring to it.
We really do understand that everyone hates us.
No! We don't hate you!
This is yet another falseness that your media love spreading. Just like they portrayed the Pakistani as dancing on the streets when in reality they offered help, similarly your media like to portray Europe's attitudes toward you as agitated rivalry and hate, when in reality we see you as an exasperatingly difficult brother.
A brother who is often amazingly, incomprehensibly rude and bullyish, both in official and in informal contacts, but a brother nonetheless. We do get angry with you. We do get exasperated and despair about you. Often we'll be very critical about what you do. But that's not the same thing as hating you. Far from it.
There's a large fringe that does hate you. But they're a fringe, albeit large. They're definitely not the mainstream, no matter how much your media love to exaggerate their role.
I wish Americans would read European media. You'd get a completely different image of our attitudes toward you. You'd also discover what a false image your media are building.
In this context I should probably mention that I don't believe in conspiracies. I don't have theories about your media conspiring to give this false picture. There are just a lot of individuals making separate, individual day-to-day decisions. At each point they probably think that slanting things this way is the good and patriotic thing to do, or simply that it will sell papers. Other people simply believe in the picture that emerges from this, and spread it further.
We're heartbroken. We feel cheated. We feel impotent. There's nothing we can do. It's not a democracy anymore. Our leader hasn't been elected in almost eight years, we're stuck in a war that nobody over here wants, our jackass in chief refuses to accept defeat, and we're all just stunned.
Your description is heartbreaking, you convey a terrible feeling of loss and despair.
However, in spite of everything you say, you're in a far, far better position than were, for example, the citizens of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact before that empire fell. You have freedom of expression, freedom to create organizations and make campaigns for change, freedom to print leaflets and magazines, freedom to own your own resources and spend them on campaigns, and so on and on and on.
If the people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact could change their systems, so can you!
You're saying that a significant proportion of your population are heartbroken and feel cheated. This sounds like they'll want change. It sounds like change is possible. So what are you waiting for?
Of course you'll have to make the changes yourselves. Nobody can make them for you. If any other nation came from outside, trying to make the changes for you (supposing any nation had the necessary resources), you would inevitably turn against them. And rightly so.
Just like the US can't successfully force democracy on a country, similarly improvements on your system can't be forced on you.
We've lost faith in our system, and our system is just failing.
Your belief in your system is what holds your nation together. If you truly lose that faith, I think you risk falling apart. What else is there to hold you together? You really do need your faith in your strong, beautiful American ideals. You need faith in the American way, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, from sea to shining sea.
Even though I'm not American, I almost get tears in my eyes talking about this.
Maybe this reaction of mine will help convince you that we don't hate you.
We give away more money than anyone else.
I told you that this is an area wh
I'll post a reply, so don't go away, it's just taking a while.
*Sigh!* Today's youth, always impatient.
I spoke foolishly, out of extreme frustration and irritation with a country (or perhaps I should say a government) that starts a war that is supposed to be against terrorism but has the effect of fueling terrorism, bolstering recruitment to terrorist networks, strengthening the local influence of terrorist leaders, and so on. This needlessly growing terrorism creates a feeling of powerless horror, and I reacted emotionally and struck out blindly.
My reaction is all the more stupid considering that I feel, quite strongly, that the US and Europe should be strong allies, and definitely not rivals. We have lots of common goals, and there are lots of areas where we agree. I won't go into details here but I've discussed this here and here and elsewhere. My lashing out goes against that idea.
If someone gave you that test [...] would you take it?
Whew. There is only one possible answer. First, I seldom decline a challenge. This is definitely the kind of challenge I should accept. Second, honesty requires that I accept your challenge.
However, on the other hand, if you make it a quiz about capitals and similar geographic trivia, you'll be wasting your time. Then the outcome is more or less guaranteed. I know very little about that kind of geographic detail.
But the frustration that made me lash out was not about the US lacking knowledge about capitals, obviously. It was frustration about the US lacking knowledge about human reactions, motivations and backgrounds in the places where the US intervenes. It was frustration with the US counteracting its own goals by ignoring readily available information and elementary game theory.
For example, are you aware that when you attack people they will unite and their leaders will be strengthened, just like you yourselves unite rallying around the flag? Extremely trivial game theory.
For another example, are you aware of how immediately after 9/11 countries all over the world offered to send help to the US? Are you aware that Pakistan, a third-world, muslim country, immediately offered foreign aid to the US?
The way I understood it, what the US media reported about Pakistan was people dancing in the streets to celebrate the attack on the US. But if you watched that footage critically you would notice that the dancing mob seemed quite small, and that regular people in the background seemed annoyed by their antics and certainly didn't seem to agree with them. Yet unless I'm mistaken this small mob was blown up to make it seem like the whole country celebrating, and the real reaction of the country was rudely ignored.
I get the impression that this kind of blatant falseness is extremely prevalent in US media. For example, amazingly often I encounter Americans who believe that the US foreign aid per capita is generous compared to that of other countries, or that the US pollution per capita is modest compared to other countries, and many other ridiculously off-the-mark assumptions.
Of course our media is slanted too. But our media predicted quite accurately what would happen in Iraq. This makes it seem to be far closer to the truth than yours.
As I see it, while we are eying events critically, you are busy rallying around the flag.
What scares me so much, and not only me, is that US decisions about foreign policy, war, and other really important and serious matters, horribly often seem to be based upon this kind of wildly incorrect assumptions, which have often been created in a rally-around-the-flag frenzy. It's no wonder you couldn't predict wha
I'm not sure it's right to blame the committee when such a huge number of other people have missed it.
You're right. Sorry.