That very well could be, but c'mon, it's not like we've never seen a computer or a cell-phone before. That's like saying that a guy with a shiny new BMW is technologically backwards because he doesn't have a Tesla Roadster....oh wait, Tesla is an American company, bad comparison I guess. Since we're "technologically backwards" the BMW must be clearly superior. For the most part, the U.S. and Europe are on pretty even footing as far as available technology goes. We're up in some places, they're up in others, but overall people from either place don't go to the other and stare around like slack-jawed yokels, amazed by the magic-like technologies they've never dreamed of. The comment was modded up for America-bashing, and I'd have probably have taken a shot at it regardless of what country it was targeted at.
As I sit here in my mud-hut in America, I can't help but wish I was from as advanced a region as Scandinavia. I've been to an Ikea (we go there on educational tours, since we have no museums or schools here), and wow, you guys really know how to live. Perhaps, one day, if America really strives and works hard, we'll catch up with you, maybe we'll even put a man on the moon, or create a global computer network, or perhaps even invent some sort of wireless communication device that will be really popular world-wide, just like the Scandinavians did. As it is, I'll just sit here in my hut, fill out tickets for PauseTipping and VinnerOddsen, and dream of the day when America will a technological innovator.
And when I was a kid, we used to send smoke signals. Of course, we couldn't just light a big fire in a restaurant, so what we'd use were these little paper tubes, filled with dried leaves, and we could control the amount of smoke by sucking on them and then blowing the smoke into the air, sometimes in a stream, sometimes in rings, or if you were really good you could let the smoke come out of your mouth and then re-inhale it through your nose. Unlike cellphones, this form of communication was banned in restaurants. Also unlike cellphones there was a link to cancer found in people using these things, but c'mon, you want to live forever?
You'd better get cracking, obviously you need to correct them as well.
I should point out that your use of "majority" in this way left you without a term that means "> 50%". As a result, you commandeered the term "super-majority" for this purpose.
I'll give you this one. It was meant to be evocative, but clearly if you don't have a basic understanding of what the word "minority" in this context means, it may be confusing. It was clear to me, it was clear to several people I showed the post to, but obviously it was unclear to you.
In short, I believe your usage is probably wrong, and definitely confusing.
Believe what you like. All you've shown me so far is an unwillingness to learn a new use for a term, and a stubborn insistence that "if you don't know about it, it probably isn't right".
You're Dutch. Pretty much everyone from anywhere is dark-skinned compared to you. You actually manage to make the British look positively swarthy. The people on your balcony were probably just tourists from Nebraska looking for a good place to take windmill pictures.....
By the way, you don't happen to live in Haarlem, do you? Just wonderin'.....
my apologies, I thought that on Slashdot I was likely to run across people who understood that the same word, when used in different contexts, can have different meanings. I'll try to take care in the future to dumb things down for those who don't understand that concept. For your clarification, I'll make sure from now on that if there's an article about trains, I will refer to the Engineer as "the choo-choo driver" so you don't think I'm talking about someone who designs bridges, or the conductor as "the nice man who sells you a ticket" so you aren't left wondering if I'm really referring to a material that allows electricity to travel across it, or someone who stands at the front of an orchestra.
Given the following: 48% White 13% Black 6% Asian 28% Hispanic 5% Other In this instance, the "White" group is both numerically superior to each group being counted, and is politically and economically dominant as well. According to you, the "White" group is a minority because it's less than everyone else added up. You've just made the word pointless, in this context, because that means EVERY group by that definition is a minority (less than 50%). In the above grouping, "White" is clearly not a minority, no other group even comes close, either numerically or in terms of political or economic clout.
White males are unlikely to become a minority in the United States anytime soon.
The last three decades have consisted of taking away pieces of white middle class males cars until now they are riding a used bicycle only very slightly better than everyone else's.
Take away the word "white" and you're pretty much there. The middle-class has been under assault for years and is being systematically disassembled and turned back into a servant class for the rich. Welcome to the "service economy".
Very soon white males will be a minority in many areas
A minority to who? The only way that's at all possible is if you say we're a minority compared to everyone else added up, which is stupid. Here's what the CIA World Factbook says about U.S. ethnic makeup: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic So, even if the entire amount of the hispanic population was taken from the white population, we have 64.86% of the population being white. This number is still crap though, because that 15% can come from any ethnic group, so I'd be willing to bet at least a percent or two actually are being counted as black, but whatever. The point remains, even if you add up all of the non-white segments of the population, whites are still a super-majority (meaning we outnumber not only each group, but all of them put together).
Now, if you'd like to change "many areas" to a few areas, you'd be closer to being right, but honestly, how many whites are fighting to get jobs in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods? I'm willing to bet "not many".
I think that at some point very soon (the next 10 years), you will see a Mexican company based in the U.S. sued successfully for not hiring/promoting white males.
A company that does what? What kind of miracle-company are you expecting, and if you know of any in particular, let me know 'cause I want to buy stock. Tech, banking, pharma, automotive, all of those companies are run by not only by a majority of white executives, but a disproportionately large majority of white executives as compared to the general population. Therefore, this company that is out to stick-it-to-the-white-man is going to have to pop up out of nowhere, and immediately be successful enough for anyone to care if they can work at it.
In short, don't worry white-guys, there's still a whole lot of us, we'll probably be okay for a while longer.
You picked two movies with target demographics that fall most heavily on high-school kids. Of course they're loaded with themes that seem childish, they're supposed to play well with CHILDREN. Transformers is a two hour toy commercial for gods sake.....
If they wanted to compete with us in an ownership and logo war they wouldn't have a 35 hour work week and more national holidays than our jobs give us vacation days.
Speaking of not understanding their culture....the shortened work-week has far more to do with alleviating unemployment through having more workers doing fewer hours than valuing the average schmuck's personal time. Don't mistake popular conception with actual motive.
there's nothing to be jealous of
Which of course is why the French go to such extremes to resist outside influence through legislation. French national pride absolutely suffers from an inferiority complex, due to lack of influence (comparably speaking) and dominance of English as the preferred language internationally.
Why don't you go visit France sometime and see if you can find the "inferiority complex" you speak of?
I just got back a few weeks ago. I'm there a few times a year, my family lives there. How often are you there?
Most of the French I've met come off as arrogant
That's surprising, nobody I know there seems any more arrogant than people tend to be anywhere else. Of course they think France is the best place to live, if they didn't, they'd move someplace else. Why would anyone from a first-world country do differently?
So American logos are plastered everywhere and we're miserable because we're haunted by our nerd/jock high school dichotomy.
Miserable? Seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? There are parallels in adult life, such as sales-people tending towards being more social and technical people tending towards being more eccentric, but I don't think programmers anywhere actually fear salespeople giving them wedgies, and salespeople don't stand at their office doors screaming "NERDS" as people come to work.
Go #1! Meanwhile, the French enjoy the fruits of our labor.
France is a nice place, but I don't think it's quite the utopia you think it is. Opportunity for success in business is much more available in the U.S., and the lifestyle is simply different, not better or worse.
And how exactly is underdog different from loser?
Jesus, if I have to explain that to you I'd say you're not equipped to even be in this conversation. A loser is someone who is always on the losing end. A drug addict, who goes to prison, gets out, goes back on drugs, and dies alone in an alley would be a loser. An underdog is someone who starts from a disadvantaged position, and overcomes the challenges presented to him or her to succeed. Being at a disadvantage does not mean they are necessarily a loser at any stage, and even if they don't succeed, they're not necessarily a loser, just the loser in a particular situation. Examples: Linux vs Windows, Linux is the underdog. Would you consider it the "loser OS"? The World Series: The Phillies are the underdogs, even though they've proven themselves better than all the other teams vying to get into the World Series. Are they losers? The Continental Army: Colonists in Britain's colonies in North America formed a domestic army, challenging the better equipped, better trained army of what was arguably the worlds greatest power at that time. They won. Do you need more explanation, or are you starting to understand the difference now?
the difference is that I explained why you root for the underdog
Except you didn't. When watching "40 Year Old Virgin", most people don't think "Gee, I'm like him, I hope he does okay". They're thinking "Dear god, what a dork, but he seems like a good guy and hopefully things get better for him". They want the underdog to overcome adversity and succeed in the end. It's about overcoming a challenge, no different than a sports movie where the underfunded, disadvantaged team beats the guys who have everything, or the movie about a runner who loses a leg and goes on to one day run races again. Hell, it's a good chunk of why people on Slashdot like Linux so much, sure, it's a great OS, but to get as emotionally invested in it as people do it's partly because they want to see the little guy take on the monster and win.
As for the thing about Jews, what the hell does that have to do with anything? "Jewy" sounds pretty damned pejorative to me, and while you're welcome to talk about people that way if you want you can't really expect not to be called on it. I mean really, "jewdar"? And what does "nerds in movies look Jewish (and often enough are played by Jewish actors)" mean? The ones who aren't actually Jewish play it up by wearing yarmulkes and eating bagles? What does being (or "looking") Jewish have to do with this?
At first, I was wondering where this vitriolic rant came from, and from which country you could be from. Then I saw "France", and it all became clear. I'm not going to scream and yell, really, because I understand that this kind of a tantrum comes from a massive inferiority complex that the French collective psyche carries around. Hey, it's okay, really. Once proud imperial power, now relegated to getting wedgies from upstart nations that you once toyed with. You need a hug, and maybe a good solid "There, there" and a pat on the back. Then you'll bawl for a bit, check under your bed for Germans, and go back to sleep 'till morning. I know, it's hard to look around seeing American stuff *everywhere*, when you know deep in your heart that it's just not fair! "That should be French culture that's slipping it's tendrils into the lives of people around the globe, not American! Those jocks, er, I mean Americans don't deserve all the attention that us nerds, er, I mean Frenchmen should be getting on the world-stage!" you cry out. Then the U.S. gives you another wedgie and stupid England just snickers in that annoying way it has, and you're just left *steaming*.
Oh, and "big jewy loser"? Really?
As an aside, you've completely missed the point of all those movies you are so angry about. It's not that people identify with the "loser" character in those movies. It's that Americans like to root for the underdog. Maybe that's a cultural difference, maybe France prefers to "root for the winner", I don't know, but somewhere something seems to be getting lost in the translation.
Hmm, lets see..... Chile, officially known as the Republic of Chile. Citizens known as Chileans. Costa Rica, officially known as the Republic of Costa Rica. Citizens known as Costa Ricans. Canada, once officially known as the Dominion of Canada, but now just Canada. Citizens known as Canadians.
It's funny, but I don't actually see the word "America" in any of those countries names. Thinking about it, there's only one country in the world which is commonly referred to as "America", which contains the word "America" in its proper name. Based on those two bits of information, which country do you suppose I'm referring to?
It's also kind of hard to miss that of your examples, none of those people would be referred to as "Americans" based on their continent of origin, considering that Chile and Costa Rica are South American countries, while Canada is most definitely a North American country (Protip: there are two "American" continents, not one).
On the other hand, two countries in North America use the words "United" and "States". That being the case, why do you insist on belittling the United Mexican States, by insinuating that the only "United States" that matters is the one ending in America? Especially when the two names are even more similar in Spanish (Estados Unidos Americanos and Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
Here's a thought. If you'd like to rename a country, rename your own. We're quite happy here with the name we have, but we'll let you know if we need your assistance in coming up with a new one.
That may be a local thing or a special deal. I just checked my local Enterprise, and they want $79.35/day for a pickup truck. Guess I'm renting from Lowes to finish my yard cleanup after all.....
And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.
Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....
I never actually thought to try doing it before today, so I can't say. I hadn't realized that you could set call-forwarding on Sprint to forward only after a no-answer, I thought it was either all calls getting forwarded or none, and since the only phone I really use much is my cell, I had no place that I wanted to forward to anyway....
Well, I just called Sprint, and the rep says the 20 cent/min forwarding charge is definitely still in effect, and he had no information on it being repealed. Hopefully they're planning on doing it soon, which is what Google Voice is saying when you activate the service.
That's not what this new feature is though. If you sign up to use your existing cell number, you forward the call *from* your cell phone *to* Google Voice to land the voicemail on their system instead of your own. It's very cool, and gets you out of Sprint's garbage voicemail system, but unfortunately Sprint does seem to still charge 20 cents/min for call forwarding.
And that's why Google is penniless and in danger of vanishing at any second. My god, their stock is down to $549/share today and....wait, what?
Seriously, there's a little more to it than just watching Goog from a distance and copying them when you have a chance. Could some unknown startup in Estonia come out of nowhere and take Google's spot? I guess anything's possible, but I'm not about to hold my breath waiting. Even if they do, Google can still make a buck or two off the American market, where they'll have a pretty good head-start. It's not exactly a corporate fate-worse-than-death.
I was pretty excited when I saw this, but then with a little more digging it looks like if you're on Sprint, you'll get a minimum 20 cent charge per voicemail (20 cents per minute call forwarding). Some people are saying Sprint has or is about to do away with this fee, but I haven't seen anything definite.
If I'm mistaken PLEASE correct me (and supply a link showing that the fee isn't around anymore), but for now I guess I'll be passing on this:(
It might be easier to protect your property with the assistance of a government but relying solely on them doesn't work.
Name one example of how in a modern, western nation you can protect your property rights without the government. Keep in mind, the courts are a function of the government, so fighting a legal battle is not a good example. There are somewhere around 300 million people in the U.S.. Let's be really conservative and say only 100 million of them are property owners. All of them, in some way, rely on the government to assert their property rights. Do some of them get a raw deal? Sure, any system that involves actual people is going to produce some unfair or unwelcome outcomes, but to say that it doesn't work is just silly.
The fact that an armed gang with more guns can steal from you is true regardless. Even if that gang happens to be the government itself.
So does that mean you are okay with "might makes right", making "property rights" a polite euphemism for "I have a bigger gun"? The presence of a stable government can't guarantee that everyone gets a fair shake every single time, no system can do that. But without a stable government, you can talk about your rights until your blue in the face, it's pointless if your "rights" can be revoked by any yahoo on the street who has a club. As for an armed gang stealing from me, if an armed gang goes to my house and takes over, deciding that they'd like to live there and they chase me off, I have plenty of recourse. Even if the government itself tries to do that, I still have recourse, which is to take them to court. No guarantees that I'll win, but I might. If there was no government, and no justice system, and no courts, what recourse do you propose that I have, other than to find a new place to hang my hat?
In some places with a functional government in accordance with the rule of law a large company can lobby local officials to force the sale of your house to them and chase you off, with no recourse.
What? I thought you, as an individual, have "the ability to enforce [your] property rights", right? That's the assertion you've been making after all....It seems all we've found so far is that that statement really isn't very true without a functional government, and sometimes isn't true with one.
Slashdot Mirror
That very well could be, but c'mon, it's not like we've never seen a computer or a cell-phone before. That's like saying that a guy with a shiny new BMW is technologically backwards because he doesn't have a Tesla Roadster....oh wait, Tesla is an American company, bad comparison I guess. Since we're "technologically backwards" the BMW must be clearly superior.
For the most part, the U.S. and Europe are on pretty even footing as far as available technology goes. We're up in some places, they're up in others, but overall people from either place don't go to the other and stare around like slack-jawed yokels, amazed by the magic-like technologies they've never dreamed of. The comment was modded up for America-bashing, and I'd have probably have taken a shot at it regardless of what country it was targeted at.
As I sit here in my mud-hut in America, I can't help but wish I was from as advanced a region as Scandinavia. I've been to an Ikea (we go there on educational tours, since we have no museums or schools here), and wow, you guys really know how to live. Perhaps, one day, if America really strives and works hard, we'll catch up with you, maybe we'll even put a man on the moon, or create a global computer network, or perhaps even invent some sort of wireless communication device that will be really popular world-wide, just like the Scandinavians did.
As it is, I'll just sit here in my hut, fill out tickets for PauseTipping and VinnerOddsen, and dream of the day when America will a technological innovator.
And when I was a kid, we used to send smoke signals. Of course, we couldn't just light a big fire in a restaurant, so what we'd use were these little paper tubes, filled with dried leaves, and we could control the amount of smoke by sucking on them and then blowing the smoke into the air, sometimes in a stream, sometimes in rings, or if you were really good you could let the smoke come out of your mouth and then re-inhale it through your nose.
Unlike cellphones, this form of communication was banned in restaurants. Also unlike cellphones there was a link to cancer found in people using these things, but c'mon, you want to live forever?
I guess Britannica is wrong too.
Oh, and Encyclopedia.com.
You'd better get cracking, obviously you need to correct them as well.
I'll give you this one. It was meant to be evocative, but clearly if you don't have a basic understanding of what the word "minority" in this context means, it may be confusing. It was clear to me, it was clear to several people I showed the post to, but obviously it was unclear to you.
Believe what you like. All you've shown me so far is an unwillingness to learn a new use for a term, and a stubborn insistence that "if you don't know about it, it probably isn't right".
You're Dutch. Pretty much everyone from anywhere is dark-skinned compared to you. You actually manage to make the British look positively swarthy. The people on your balcony were probably just tourists from Nebraska looking for a good place to take windmill pictures.....
By the way, you don't happen to live in Haarlem, do you? Just wonderin'.....
my apologies, I thought that on Slashdot I was likely to run across people who understood that the same word, when used in different contexts, can have different meanings. I'll try to take care in the future to dumb things down for those who don't understand that concept.
For your clarification, I'll make sure from now on that if there's an article about trains, I will refer to the Engineer as "the choo-choo driver" so you don't think I'm talking about someone who designs bridges, or the conductor as "the nice man who sells you a ticket" so you aren't left wondering if I'm really referring to a material that allows electricity to travel across it, or someone who stands at the front of an orchestra.
Way to miss the point. We're talking about the sociological construct of minority, not hard math. Context is everything.
From Wikipedia: A minority is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power.
Given the following:
48% White
13% Black
6% Asian
28% Hispanic
5% Other
In this instance, the "White" group is both numerically superior to each group being counted, and is politically and economically dominant as well.
According to you, the "White" group is a minority because it's less than everyone else added up. You've just made the word pointless, in this context, because that means EVERY group by that definition is a minority (less than 50%).
In the above grouping, "White" is clearly not a minority, no other group even comes close, either numerically or in terms of political or economic clout.
White males are unlikely to become a minority in the United States anytime soon.
Take away the word "white" and you're pretty much there. The middle-class has been under assault for years and is being systematically disassembled and turned back into a servant class for the rich. Welcome to the "service economy".
A minority to who? The only way that's at all possible is if you say we're a minority compared to everyone else added up, which is stupid. Here's what the CIA World Factbook says about U.S. ethnic makeup:
white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic
So, even if the entire amount of the hispanic population was taken from the white population, we have 64.86% of the population being white. This number is still crap though, because that 15% can come from any ethnic group, so I'd be willing to bet at least a percent or two actually are being counted as black, but whatever. The point remains, even if you add up all of the non-white segments of the population, whites are still a super-majority (meaning we outnumber not only each group, but all of them put together).
Now, if you'd like to change "many areas" to a few areas, you'd be closer to being right, but honestly, how many whites are fighting to get jobs in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods? I'm willing to bet "not many".
A company that does what? What kind of miracle-company are you expecting, and if you know of any in particular, let me know 'cause I want to buy stock. Tech, banking, pharma, automotive, all of those companies are run by not only by a majority of white executives, but a disproportionately large majority of white executives as compared to the general population. Therefore, this company that is out to stick-it-to-the-white-man is going to have to pop up out of nowhere, and immediately be successful enough for anyone to care if they can work at it.
In short, don't worry white-guys, there's still a whole lot of us, we'll probably be okay for a while longer.
You picked two movies with target demographics that fall most heavily on high-school kids. Of course they're loaded with themes that seem childish, they're supposed to play well with CHILDREN. Transformers is a two hour toy commercial for gods sake.....
Speaking of not understanding their culture....the shortened work-week has far more to do with alleviating unemployment through having more workers doing fewer hours than valuing the average schmuck's personal time. Don't mistake popular conception with actual motive.
Which of course is why the French go to such extremes to resist outside influence through legislation. French national pride absolutely suffers from an inferiority complex, due to lack of influence (comparably speaking) and dominance of English as the preferred language internationally.
I just got back a few weeks ago. I'm there a few times a year, my family lives there. How often are you there?
That's surprising, nobody I know there seems any more arrogant than people tend to be anywhere else. Of course they think France is the best place to live, if they didn't, they'd move someplace else. Why would anyone from a first-world country do differently?
Miserable? Seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? There are parallels in adult life, such as sales-people tending towards being more social and technical people tending towards being more eccentric, but I don't think programmers anywhere actually fear salespeople giving them wedgies, and salespeople don't stand at their office doors screaming "NERDS" as people come to work.
France is a nice place, but I don't think it's quite the utopia you think it is. Opportunity for success in business is much more available in the U.S., and the lifestyle is simply different, not better or worse.
Jesus, if I have to explain that to you I'd say you're not equipped to even be in this conversation.
A loser is someone who is always on the losing end. A drug addict, who goes to prison, gets out, goes back on drugs, and dies alone in an alley would be a loser.
An underdog is someone who starts from a disadvantaged position, and overcomes the challenges presented to him or her to succeed. Being at a disadvantage does not mean they are necessarily a loser at any stage, and even if they don't succeed, they're not necessarily a loser, just the loser in a particular situation.
Examples:
Linux vs Windows, Linux is the underdog. Would you consider it the "loser OS"?
The World Series: The Phillies are the underdogs, even though they've proven themselves better than all the other teams vying to get into the World Series. Are they losers?
The Continental Army: Colonists in Britain's colonies in North America formed a domestic army, challenging the better equipped, better trained army of what was arguably the worlds greatest power at that time. They won.
Do you need more explanation, or are you starting to understand the difference now?
Maybe he followed the werewolf
Except you didn't. When watching "40 Year Old Virgin", most people don't think "Gee, I'm like him, I hope he does okay". They're thinking "Dear god, what a dork, but he seems like a good guy and hopefully things get better for him". They want the underdog to overcome adversity and succeed in the end. It's about overcoming a challenge, no different than a sports movie where the underfunded, disadvantaged team beats the guys who have everything, or the movie about a runner who loses a leg and goes on to one day run races again. Hell, it's a good chunk of why people on Slashdot like Linux so much, sure, it's a great OS, but to get as emotionally invested in it as people do it's partly because they want to see the little guy take on the monster and win.
As for the thing about Jews, what the hell does that have to do with anything? "Jewy" sounds pretty damned pejorative to me, and while you're welcome to talk about people that way if you want you can't really expect not to be called on it. I mean really, "jewdar"? And what does "nerds in movies look Jewish (and often enough are played by Jewish actors)" mean? The ones who aren't actually Jewish play it up by wearing yarmulkes and eating bagles? What does being (or "looking") Jewish have to do with this?
Psst, hey, French guy. C'mere.....
At first, I was wondering where this vitriolic rant came from, and from which country you could be from. Then I saw "France", and it all became clear. I'm not going to scream and yell, really, because I understand that this kind of a tantrum comes from a massive inferiority complex that the French collective psyche carries around. Hey, it's okay, really. Once proud imperial power, now relegated to getting wedgies from upstart nations that you once toyed with. You need a hug, and maybe a good solid "There, there" and a pat on the back. Then you'll bawl for a bit, check under your bed for Germans, and go back to sleep 'till morning. I know, it's hard to look around seeing American stuff *everywhere*, when you know deep in your heart that it's just not fair! "That should be French culture that's slipping it's tendrils into the lives of people around the globe, not American! Those jocks, er, I mean Americans don't deserve all the attention that us nerds, er, I mean Frenchmen should be getting on the world-stage!" you cry out. Then the U.S. gives you another wedgie and stupid England just snickers in that annoying way it has, and you're just left *steaming*.
Oh, and "big jewy loser"? Really?
As an aside, you've completely missed the point of all those movies you are so angry about. It's not that people identify with the "loser" character in those movies. It's that Americans like to root for the underdog. Maybe that's a cultural difference, maybe France prefers to "root for the winner", I don't know, but somewhere something seems to be getting lost in the translation.
I'm sorry, which of those countries has the word "America" in their actual name?
Bonus question, how many countries in North America actually have the words United States in their names. Hint, more than one.
Hmm, lets see.....
Chile, officially known as the Republic of Chile. Citizens known as Chileans.
Costa Rica, officially known as the Republic of Costa Rica. Citizens known as Costa Ricans.
Canada, once officially known as the Dominion of Canada, but now just Canada. Citizens known as Canadians.
It's funny, but I don't actually see the word "America" in any of those countries names. Thinking about it, there's only one country in the world which is commonly referred to as "America", which contains the word "America" in its proper name. Based on those two bits of information, which country do you suppose I'm referring to?
It's also kind of hard to miss that of your examples, none of those people would be referred to as "Americans" based on their continent of origin, considering that Chile and Costa Rica are South American countries, while Canada is most definitely a North American country (Protip: there are two "American" continents, not one).
On the other hand, two countries in North America use the words "United" and "States". That being the case, why do you insist on belittling the United Mexican States, by insinuating that the only "United States" that matters is the one ending in America? Especially when the two names are even more similar in Spanish (Estados Unidos Americanos and Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
Here's a thought. If you'd like to rename a country, rename your own. We're quite happy here with the name we have, but we'll let you know if we need your assistance in coming up with a new one.
Isn't that a little like saying you've removed the transmission and only drive the car on weekends? Ooooooo, a car analogy!
That may be a local thing or a special deal. I just checked my local Enterprise, and they want $79.35/day for a pickup truck. Guess I'm renting from Lowes to finish my yard cleanup after all.....
Where is this Usia place? Is it nice there? I'm an American myself, but maybe I'd like to visit there someday......
Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....
I never actually thought to try doing it before today, so I can't say. I hadn't realized that you could set call-forwarding on Sprint to forward only after a no-answer, I thought it was either all calls getting forwarded or none, and since the only phone I really use much is my cell, I had no place that I wanted to forward to anyway....
Well, I just called Sprint, and the rep says the 20 cent/min forwarding charge is definitely still in effect, and he had no information on it being repealed. Hopefully they're planning on doing it soon, which is what Google Voice is saying when you activate the service.
That's not what this new feature is though. If you sign up to use your existing cell number, you forward the call *from* your cell phone *to* Google Voice to land the voicemail on their system instead of your own. It's very cool, and gets you out of Sprint's garbage voicemail system, but unfortunately Sprint does seem to still charge 20 cents/min for call forwarding.
And that's why Google is penniless and in danger of vanishing at any second. My god, their stock is down to $549/share today and....wait, what?
Seriously, there's a little more to it than just watching Goog from a distance and copying them when you have a chance. Could some unknown startup in Estonia come out of nowhere and take Google's spot? I guess anything's possible, but I'm not about to hold my breath waiting. Even if they do, Google can still make a buck or two off the American market, where they'll have a pretty good head-start. It's not exactly a corporate fate-worse-than-death.
I was pretty excited when I saw this, but then with a little more digging it looks like if you're on Sprint, you'll get a minimum 20 cent charge per voicemail (20 cents per minute call forwarding). Some people are saying Sprint has or is about to do away with this fee, but I haven't seen anything definite.
If I'm mistaken PLEASE correct me (and supply a link showing that the fee isn't around anymore), but for now I guess I'll be passing on this :(
Name one example of how in a modern, western nation you can protect your property rights without the government. Keep in mind, the courts are a function of the government, so fighting a legal battle is not a good example.
There are somewhere around 300 million people in the U.S.. Let's be really conservative and say only 100 million of them are property owners. All of them, in some way, rely on the government to assert their property rights. Do some of them get a raw deal? Sure, any system that involves actual people is going to produce some unfair or unwelcome outcomes, but to say that it doesn't work is just silly.
So does that mean you are okay with "might makes right", making "property rights" a polite euphemism for "I have a bigger gun"? The presence of a stable government can't guarantee that everyone gets a fair shake every single time, no system can do that. But without a stable government, you can talk about your rights until your blue in the face, it's pointless if your "rights" can be revoked by any yahoo on the street who has a club.
As for an armed gang stealing from me, if an armed gang goes to my house and takes over, deciding that they'd like to live there and they chase me off, I have plenty of recourse. Even if the government itself tries to do that, I still have recourse, which is to take them to court. No guarantees that I'll win, but I might. If there was no government, and no justice system, and no courts, what recourse do you propose that I have, other than to find a new place to hang my hat?
What? I thought you, as an individual, have "the ability to enforce [your] property rights", right? That's the assertion you've been making after all....It seems all we've found so far is that that statement really isn't very true without a functional government, and sometimes isn't true with one.