Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.
Dude, you should watch less action movies.
Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.
There are quite a few auto accidents that involve puncturing the gas tank and the leaking of said fuel that don't involve fire. Just like standing behind your car door won't protect you from gunfire, busting the gas tank doesn't automatically mean a fireball. IIRC, I've read before that most auto fires were caused by either electrical problems or lubricants on/in the engine block catching, not the gas tank itself. Even electric cars have lubricants, and of course, they darn sure have electrical systems.
I hear Europe has a ton of diesel vehicles a ton with much better fuel economy. We can trust GM to not screw up diesels right? I mean how hard can it be. People have been making diesel engines for a hundred years.
I'm not sure whether you're implying that American car makers just suck in any case, or if you're making that case that American car companies are suppressing electric car sales. Since so many are assuming the later, I'd like to address that argument in the context of your example.
OK, assume for a second that A)Europeans make better cars in general, and B)European diesel cars prove a conspiracy by American car companies to stifle non-gasoline car sales.
Where are the European electric cars, then? Why aren't the streets of London, Berlin, and Paris dominated by electric cars?
Europeans don't drive electric cars because they don't have sufficient electric car technology either.
RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away.:-(
Conspiracy? Please. Try reality.
There's no conspiracy here against electric cars. Compared to gas powered vehicles, they suck. It really is as simple as that. The technology for electric cars just isn't there yet, no matter how hard you wish it. It wasn't a conspiracy that the EV1 failed, and it's not a conspiracy that newer electric cars still stink. There is no laughing fat man in an expensive suit, lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills that's preventing electric cars from taking off. Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.
Would it give Iran any great insight into US technology? Or anything of that nature?
Intelligence agencies think that China has been providing a lot of technical assistance to Iran (as well as other nations). The Iranians have some experience reverse engineering older, simpler aircraft (Their Saeqeh fighter is a virtual clone of Northrop's F-5. The only visual difference is twin vertical stabilizers), but no one thinks the Iranians have any experience with things like shaping, radar-absorbent coatings, or composite structures.
No, on something like an RQ-170... which is state of the art stuff... they're probably going to need Chinese help. China has a lot of advanced US tech already (recall the F-35 tech that fell into their hands), and is working on actual stealth aircraft themselves.
I seriously doubt the Iranians brought the drone down with "cyber-warfare". Witness how they were absolutely owned with the virus in their nuclear facilities. It was probably a malfunction on the part of the drone that brought it down, but regardless, the technology is almost certainly going to be in Chinese hands soon. Maybe that's for the best, in a perverse way, as USAF puts entirely too much reliance on stealth technology (when there are much, much cheaper ways to counter that technology in combat). Perhaps the US will start to build fighters with traditional fighter attributes again, and ones that don't cost $150 million+ apiece. I'm not quite in the Pierre Sprey absolute-minimalist school of fighter design (Pierre thinks that things like radar are a bad idea), but I do think we should build military aircraft that are affordable enough (and more reliable) to buy in large quantities. 183 air superiority fighters... no matter how good they may be... ain't gonna get it. But when 5 fighters cost you over a billion bucks, right off the production line, well... that's all you're going to get.
The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.
Really? REALLY? F*UCK YOU U.S. You are EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world. Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully. You worthless pieces of shit who attack other countries and everyone who doesn't like your limited religious views. You are the scumbag of earth. Go eat your shit. You want to know why we dont like you? BECAUSE YOU TRY TO TELL US WHAT TO DO TO, YOU STUPID SCUMBAGS.
Well, where to begin here?
1 - The US is "everything that's wrong with the world". Really? If the US dissapeared tomorrow, just what do you think would happen to the world? Honestly. Do you think the world would suddenly live in peace and harmony? Hint: The US has only been around under 300 years. Have a look at world history before that time. Let me know how great things were.
2 - "Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully." Right, the Islamic Republic of Iran just wants to live their lives peacefully. And they do nothing bad.... like, sponsor Hezbollah or ship weapons or participate in kidnappings. Nope, if the US went away, everything would be right as rain in Iran. Right?
3 - "You want to know why we dont like you?" Who is "we"? The entire rest of the planet? Your country? Your neighborhood? Some guy ranting on Slashdot?
I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".
Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?
Yes, I agree. Dark gravity deniers should be kicked out of their profession. Once a consensus is reached, it is recognized as FACT!
Heh. A few years back I was modded into oblivion when I stated that I thought Dark Matter was utter BS, a way for some scientists to make the math work despite any real proof. I think I said something like "They can't just come out and admit 'I don't know', so they pulled this out of their ass. 'The cause? Ummm. Ummm, hey, it's.... dark matter! That's the ticket!' ".
And that's pretty much what it is. The observable universe doesn't agree with their equations, so they made something up to make the equations work. And as someone else said, "you can't fight consensus, right?".
Oh, I disagree with that. I don't want the post office to go away. I just want it to reflect reality. That means fewer post offices doing less stuff (and specifically, a post office that no longer tries to be a FedEx or a UPS. They can't accomplish that with their mandated unprofitable duties).
Let the private shippers do packages, and just deliver my letters a few times a week, thanks.
People are still sending around non-electronic messages?
This is a really tired expression. We didn't stop using the axe when the chainsaw came along, and we didn't stop using the broom when the vacuum came along, and we didn't stop using land line phones when cell phones came along. Most long lived legacy technologies and services survive for a good reason. They don't survive in great numbers mind you, and are used in very specialized situations, but they survive nonetheless. It should come as no more of a surprise to you that some people send letters any more than it should surprise you that some guys still cut wood with a metal blade attached to a wooden handle.
The sad thing is to hear people bitch about the raising cost of a First Class letter - sent *ANYWHERE* for how much? 50 cents or so? Oh yeah, that's WAY out of line...
People, the US Mail is a *service* to the public, there's no way it can every pay for itself and still move mail at the current rates. We fund this *service* with tax money, *not* postage.
While I completely agree that the Post Office can never be profitable (mainly because it has to carry out Congressional mandates that private services do not), people have every right to complain about it. It's a bastardized organization that tries to act like a private shipping company, while at the same time under public shackles. USPS tries to do too much and be too many things. It should do two things: deliver letters and slow-boat packages. And due to the realities of labor costs, they should do it just a few days a week. And even if you're the biggest fan of USPS in the world, you have to admit that the tide of technology is against them anyway. More and more people do electronic commerce. The only way to make the post office dominant again is to make it a true monopoly by banning FedEx and UPS.
There will always be a need for a small post organization. But reality is increasingly shrinking it to a very small, very specialized legacy service. Paper mail is the serial port of written communications. A few people will always have a requirement for it, but most people moved on to USB years ago (hey, it beats another damn car analogy).
Maybe it has something to with the fact that the state of california has cannibalized the funding for my beloved alma mater.
They wouldn't have to if they didn't have too many colleges (they do), and try to send too many kids to college (they do), many of whom may have no business being in college (they don't). Tax revenue is not an infinite resource. But California seems to have a community college on every two dirt roads, and several 4 year (or higher) colleges in a similar area.
It's just politics, not the end of Canada as we know it.
I never claimed it was "the end of Canada as we know it". Merely that it was tough enough to maintain a nation with two languages and cultures, and nigh impossible to do it in a big country with many languages and cultures. And you've done nothing to dispute that. What you have done is go on a hysterical rant about how, nope, no problem here in Canada. When there are mountains of evidence otherwise. The fact is that the French and English don't like each other very much in Canada. Stick your head in the sand all you like.
Linux is Unix. Even if it's not certified as such. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. People started using Linux in the first place because they wanted "a Unix" for personal use. Linux is just a clone of Unix. In the end, it's not really all that different from "Unix proper" than the various flavors of licensed Unix are from each other. I'd argue that most Linux systems are a good deal closer to, say, Solaris, than OS X is... an officially certified Unix.
Don't know about that, but Switzerland manages with four official languages. In the UK English is the default language, but there are minorities speaking Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish. In France you have (among others) native speakers of German, Basque and Corsican. Belgium (somewhat unsuccessfully) has to manage with three official languages: Dutch, French and German. Germany also has Sorbian as an official language in a (rather small) region. Spain has as co-official languages Basque, Catalan, Galician and Aranese. Etc.
The Swiss have a small population... under 8 million... while there are four official languages, 70 percent of the country speaks German, with the remaining population divvying up the other languages. Plus, Switzerland has a long history of mutual, voluntary union (helped, I think, because the population is small... it's much easier that way).
As for the UK, those minority languages have very small numbers of speakers. Less than 800K people speak Welsh. Scottish Gaelic tops out at under 60K speakers, and Cornish has at most, 2K people that can fluently speak the tongue. In a nation of 62 million, those numbers are insignificant.
In Canada, by contrast, an entire province of 7 million is dominated by a different language and culture. And that's why there's been a separatist movement for years. And going back to the UK, even there, where 95 percent of the population speaks the same language, there's a strong secessionist movement in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is dominated by the Scottish National Party, a party dedicated to complete independence from the UK. Even with a common language, cultural differences can loom large.
And you're using Spain as an example of successful union of different languages? Would this be the same Spain where Basques have been fighting a revolution for independence for decades? The same Spain where referendums on Independence in Catalonia (with over 12 million Catalan speakers) have had overwhelming support for secession from Spain?
What exactly is wrong with EU on such a grand scale?
In addition to the practical problems I noted above, there's the sheer problem of what US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called "The Curse of Bigness". As things grow in size, they grow in complexity and become harder to manage, and it becomes especially difficult in government. I cannot emphasize the language problem enough. Others have pointed to Switzerland as a counter to this argument, but Switzerland is pretty small, with a population of 8 million, and 2/3rds of the population speak a common language. It's easier to accomodate minority languages when the number is small.
Look at China and the Soviet Union. Both are/were large, with different ethnicities and languages. But both dealt with those problems by suppressing ethnic identity and suppressing minority languages, not embracing them. The Soviets practiced a program of Russification to keep the country united (which is why you have so many ethnic Central Asians with Russian names speaking the Russian language today. Kazakhstan is run by Asians with names like Nazarbayev and Massimov). The Chinese similarly have been trying to enforce a policy of Mandarin usage across minority dialect areas.
Obviously, you can't do this in Europe. You can't suppress national languages. And even if you decide on a dual-language policy... every country gets to keep their language, but all countries have to learn a common language as well... which language do you pick to enforce? English? French? German? Latin? You're going to have a stalemate no matter what language you pick.
The United States has a nation of English speakers, with a relatively common culture. An Alabamian can live in Colorado without too much trouble adjusting. A Californian can move to Virginia and adapt quickly. But even with those advantages, the sheer size of the population... over 308 million now... and the sheer physical size of the country itself... is making a sense of national unity more problematic. Southerners and New Englanders and Westerners have always had very distinct regional identities with large differences from each other. So it's tough enough even when you speak the same language.
Reality is, the future is in the hands of superpowers, and for European nations to be taken seriously in that environment, they will have to team up in some meaningful way.
And if the different countries of Europe begin to disagree?
EMU (monetary union) is the whole different story however.
So, are you arguing that monetary union without complete political union is a bad idea? It's not working on a limited scale, so, lets go whole hog? Is that your argument?
A nation... and that was the eventual goal of the whole EU dream...
Quite simply wrong. The EU, as a concept, was formed in the crucibles of WW1 and WW2.
The whole point of the Maastricht Treaty was, in the words of Herman Von Rompuy, the President of the European council, "Ever closer union". The proposed EU constitution was supposed to further cement this, until those pesky elections got in the way.
Henry Kissinger once said in the 70's "If I want to talk to Europe, who do I call". Rompuy says that you call him. And Jose Manuel Barrosso has plainly stated that the EU means turning power over to "supranational institutions of the EU". That sure sounds like a federal Europe to me.
In all honesty, the European Union (as the first true step towards one world government) needs saving more than the environment.
No, the EU needs to die. Put a stake in its heart. It was never a great idea in the first place. You can't have a federal Europe when you have so many differing languages and cultures. Canada can barely manage with two languages. A nation... and that was the eventual goal of the whole EU dream... has to have something in common other than the currency. You were never going to erase the French from a Frenchman in an effort to make him some generic "European".
A common market for Europe makes sense. But a common currency still has practical problems (as we're seeing right now), and a common political structure? A disaster waiting to happen.
The irony in this statement being that, as much as Mexico complains about US immigration laws, Mexico's immigration laws are much more strict. You do not want to be busted for illegal immigration in Mexico, especially if you're from border countries to the south of Mexico.
Even when that's true, it's usually because of the IT department thinking they know better than end users and hence calling them all stupid for wanting something other than what they provided. Then there are the ones with unrealistic power complexes. "whaddaya mean you want a program to do your job? I'm IT, I dictate what everyone gets to do on their computer."
IT does know better than end users. This is why IT locks down systems. Because if they don't end users do stupid things like opening attachments, surfing porn at work, an generally doing things that put the whole network at risk. There is no wisdom of crowds in the Enterprise. Just a lot of users who are, at best, competent, with a big number of frankly dumb people that do dumb things.
OH noes, I can't get my degree in Native American History anymore!
If Native American History is what you want to study, the government has no right to tell you you can't.
Thats fine, but taxpayers shouldn't pay for the degree, either, nor should banks or taxpayers give you a loan for a degree that you'll never be able to pay for as a file clerk or a guy making Lattes. Just because you're interested in it doesn't mean that other people should pay for it. If Native American History is that much of a passion for you, and you don't have the grades for a scholarship, then take a year or two, work and put every available dime away, and pay for it yourself.
Why are IT staff treated with near universal contempt?
One reason might be because that's how IT staff treat everyone else.
Even when that's true, it's usually because of a combination of stupid end users and end users that are competent but undertrained. Then there are the people with unrealistic expectations. "Whaddaya mean I can't install this program? I'm sales, I earn the profits that pay your ****ing salary, nerd!".
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
You can keep repeating it all you like. It doesn't mean it's true. Most geologists agree that there's still a lot of oil left to be found. Of course, it'll run out sometime. But 40 years? You have no evidence that's the case.
And coal? Are you kidding me? The US has by far the largest coal deposits in the world. We have over a quarter of the Earth's known reserves. And with over 150 years of coal use, and we've barely scratched those reserves. Even if we shifted to heavier coal use, we wouldn't run out in several lifetimes.
This is not in the public interest but allowing fragmentation of cellular standards between GSM/HSPA and CDMA was in the public interest by allowing the major carriers to offer incompatible services so that they did not have to directly compete with each other was?
You sound like you expect some logical, objective standards about what the government decides is "in the public interest" when it comes to mergers. The reality is anything but. America used to have three major airliner manufacturers. Lockheed got out of the business, and then Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas. This left America with one airliner manufacturer. The US government was fine with granting a total monopoly in that field.
"In the public interest" is whatever the current crop of politicians decides it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare this to the infernal fireball that you get seconds after you puncture a gas tank.
Dude, you should watch less action movies.
Hint: in the real world, gasoline cars rarely explode when you fire a pistol at them.
There are quite a few auto accidents that involve puncturing the gas tank and the leaking of said fuel that don't involve fire. Just like standing behind your car door won't protect you from gunfire, busting the gas tank doesn't automatically mean a fireball. IIRC, I've read before that most auto fires were caused by either electrical problems or lubricants on/in the engine block catching, not the gas tank itself. Even electric cars have lubricants, and of course, they darn sure have electrical systems.
I hear Europe has a ton of diesel vehicles a ton with much better fuel economy. We can trust GM to not screw up diesels right? I mean how hard can it be. People have been making diesel engines for a hundred years.
I'm not sure whether you're implying that American car makers just suck in any case, or if you're making that case that American car companies are suppressing electric car sales. Since so many are assuming the later, I'd like to address that argument in the context of your example.
OK, assume for a second that A)Europeans make better cars in general, and B)European diesel cars prove a conspiracy by American car companies to stifle non-gasoline car sales.
Where are the European electric cars, then? Why aren't the streets of London, Berlin, and Paris dominated by electric cars?
Europeans don't drive electric cars because they don't have sufficient electric car technology either.
RIP once more, electric car. Dig you up in 20 years once the fallout of this conspiracy washes away. :-(
Conspiracy? Please. Try reality.
There's no conspiracy here against electric cars. Compared to gas powered vehicles, they suck. It really is as simple as that. The technology for electric cars just isn't there yet, no matter how hard you wish it. It wasn't a conspiracy that the EV1 failed, and it's not a conspiracy that newer electric cars still stink. There is no laughing fat man in an expensive suit, lighting cigars with $100 dollar bills that's preventing electric cars from taking off. Call the rest of us back when someone makes an electric car that can go as far as a gas car, as fast as a gas car, and has passenger room and a sticker price and operating costs comparable to gas cars. When that happens, people will buy them, and companies will be in one quick hurry to sell them.
Would it give Iran any great insight into US technology? Or anything of that nature?
Intelligence agencies think that China has been providing a lot of technical assistance to Iran (as well as other nations). The Iranians have some experience reverse engineering older, simpler aircraft (Their Saeqeh fighter is a virtual clone of Northrop's F-5. The only visual difference is twin vertical stabilizers), but no one thinks the Iranians have any experience with things like shaping, radar-absorbent coatings, or composite structures.
No, on something like an RQ-170... which is state of the art stuff... they're probably going to need Chinese help. China has a lot of advanced US tech already (recall the F-35 tech that fell into their hands), and is working on actual stealth aircraft themselves.
I seriously doubt the Iranians brought the drone down with "cyber-warfare". Witness how they were absolutely owned with the virus in their nuclear facilities. It was probably a malfunction on the part of the drone that brought it down, but regardless, the technology is almost certainly going to be in Chinese hands soon. Maybe that's for the best, in a perverse way, as USAF puts entirely too much reliance on stealth technology (when there are much, much cheaper ways to counter that technology in combat). Perhaps the US will start to build fighters with traditional fighter attributes again, and ones that don't cost $150 million+ apiece. I'm not quite in the Pierre Sprey absolute-minimalist school of fighter design (Pierre thinks that things like radar are a bad idea), but I do think we should build military aircraft that are affordable enough (and more reliable) to buy in large quantities. 183 air superiority fighters... no matter how good they may be... ain't gonna get it. But when 5 fighters cost you over a billion bucks, right off the production line, well... that's all you're going to get.
The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.
Really? REALLY? F*UCK YOU U.S. You are EVERYTHING that is wrong with the world. Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully. You worthless pieces of shit who attack other countries and everyone who doesn't like your limited religious views. You are the scumbag of earth. Go eat your shit. You want to know why we dont like you? BECAUSE YOU TRY TO TELL US WHAT TO DO TO, YOU STUPID SCUMBAGS.
Well, where to begin here?
1 - The US is "everything that's wrong with the world". Really? If the US dissapeared tomorrow, just what do you think would happen to the world? Honestly. Do you think the world would suddenly live in peace and harmony? Hint: The US has only been around under 300 years. Have a look at world history before that time. Let me know how great things were.
2 - "Go f*cking away and stop crying about people why just want to live their lifes peacefully." Right, the Islamic Republic of Iran just wants to live their lives peacefully. And they do nothing bad.... like, sponsor Hezbollah or ship weapons or participate in kidnappings. Nope, if the US went away, everything would be right as rain in Iran. Right?
3 - "You want to know why we dont like you?" Who is "we"? The entire rest of the planet? Your country? Your neighborhood? Some guy ranting on Slashdot?
I want to see a New Hampshire candidate run solely on "Live Free Or Die".
Isn't that essentially what Libertarian Party members are running on? I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not pimping for them here, but doesn't that essentially boil down to their whole party platform?
Vermin Supreme sounds like a pizza in some dystopian future. "Includes all toppings, with rats, cockroaches, and maggots. Dung Beetles are extra".
Yes, I agree. Dark gravity deniers should be kicked out of their profession. Once a consensus is reached, it is recognized as FACT!
Heh. A few years back I was modded into oblivion when I stated that I thought Dark Matter was utter BS, a way for some scientists to make the math work despite any real proof. I think I said something like "They can't just come out and admit 'I don't know', so they pulled this out of their ass. 'The cause? Ummm. Ummm, hey, it's.... dark matter! That's the ticket!' ".
And that's pretty much what it is. The observable universe doesn't agree with their equations, so they made something up to make the equations work. And as someone else said, "you can't fight consensus, right?".
Oh, I disagree with that. I don't want the post office to go away. I just want it to reflect reality. That means fewer post offices doing less stuff (and specifically, a post office that no longer tries to be a FedEx or a UPS. They can't accomplish that with their mandated unprofitable duties).
Let the private shippers do packages, and just deliver my letters a few times a week, thanks.
People are still sending around non-electronic messages?
This is a really tired expression. We didn't stop using the axe when the chainsaw came along, and we didn't stop using the broom when the vacuum came along, and we didn't stop using land line phones when cell phones came along. Most long lived legacy technologies and services survive for a good reason. They don't survive in great numbers mind you, and are used in very specialized situations, but they survive nonetheless. It should come as no more of a surprise to you that some people send letters any more than it should surprise you that some guys still cut wood with a metal blade attached to a wooden handle.
The sad thing is to hear people bitch about the raising cost of a First Class letter - sent *ANYWHERE* for how much? 50 cents or so? Oh yeah, that's WAY out of line...
People, the US Mail is a *service* to the public, there's no way it can every pay for itself and still move mail at the current rates. We fund this *service* with tax money, *not* postage.
While I completely agree that the Post Office can never be profitable (mainly because it has to carry out Congressional mandates that private services do not), people have every right to complain about it. It's a bastardized organization that tries to act like a private shipping company, while at the same time under public shackles. USPS tries to do too much and be too many things. It should do two things: deliver letters and slow-boat packages. And due to the realities of labor costs, they should do it just a few days a week. And even if you're the biggest fan of USPS in the world, you have to admit that the tide of technology is against them anyway. More and more people do electronic commerce. The only way to make the post office dominant again is to make it a true monopoly by banning FedEx and UPS.
There will always be a need for a small post organization. But reality is increasingly shrinking it to a very small, very specialized legacy service. Paper mail is the serial port of written communications. A few people will always have a requirement for it, but most people moved on to USB years ago (hey, it beats another damn car analogy).
Maybe it has something to with the fact that the state of california has cannibalized the funding for my beloved alma mater.
They wouldn't have to if they didn't have too many colleges (they do), and try to send too many kids to college (they do), many of whom may have no business being in college (they don't). Tax revenue is not an infinite resource. But California seems to have a community college on every two dirt roads, and several 4 year (or higher) colleges in a similar area.
It's just politics, not the end of Canada as we know it.
I never claimed it was "the end of Canada as we know it". Merely that it was tough enough to maintain a nation with two languages and cultures, and nigh impossible to do it in a big country with many languages and cultures. And you've done nothing to dispute that. What you have done is go on a hysterical rant about how, nope, no problem here in Canada. When there are mountains of evidence otherwise. The fact is that the French and English don't like each other very much in Canada. Stick your head in the sand all you like.
The heydays ended ten years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_systems_used_on_top_500_supercomputers.svg
The culprit? Linux.
Linux is Unix. Even if it's not certified as such. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. People started using Linux in the first place because they wanted "a Unix" for personal use. Linux is just a clone of Unix. In the end, it's not really all that different from "Unix proper" than the various flavors of licensed Unix are from each other. I'd argue that most Linux systems are a good deal closer to, say, Solaris, than OS X is... an officially certified Unix.
Canada can barely manage with two languages.
Don't know about that, but Switzerland manages with four official languages. In the UK English is the default language, but there are minorities speaking Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish. In France you have (among others) native speakers of German, Basque and Corsican. Belgium (somewhat unsuccessfully) has to manage with three official languages: Dutch, French and German. Germany also has Sorbian as an official language in a (rather small) region. Spain has as co-official languages Basque, Catalan, Galician and Aranese. Etc.
The Swiss have a small population... under 8 million... while there are four official languages, 70 percent of the country speaks German, with the remaining population divvying up the other languages. Plus, Switzerland has a long history of mutual, voluntary union (helped, I think, because the population is small... it's much easier that way).
As for the UK, those minority languages have very small numbers of speakers. Less than 800K people speak Welsh. Scottish Gaelic tops out at under 60K speakers, and Cornish has at most, 2K people that can fluently speak the tongue. In a nation of 62 million, those numbers are insignificant.
In Canada, by contrast, an entire province of 7 million is dominated by a different language and culture. And that's why there's been a separatist movement for years. And going back to the UK, even there, where 95 percent of the population speaks the same language, there's a strong secessionist movement in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is dominated by the Scottish National Party, a party dedicated to complete independence from the UK. Even with a common language, cultural differences can loom large.
And you're using Spain as an example of successful union of different languages? Would this be the same Spain where Basques have been fighting a revolution for independence for decades? The same Spain where referendums on Independence in Catalonia (with over 12 million Catalan speakers) have had overwhelming support for secession from Spain?
What exactly is wrong with EU on such a grand scale?
In addition to the practical problems I noted above, there's the sheer problem of what US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called "The Curse of Bigness". As things grow in size, they grow in complexity and become harder to manage, and it becomes especially difficult in government. I cannot emphasize the language problem enough. Others have pointed to Switzerland as a counter to this argument, but Switzerland is pretty small, with a population of 8 million, and 2/3rds of the population speak a common language. It's easier to accomodate minority languages when the number is small.
Look at China and the Soviet Union. Both are/were large, with different ethnicities and languages. But both dealt with those problems by suppressing ethnic identity and suppressing minority languages, not embracing them. The Soviets practiced a program of Russification to keep the country united (which is why you have so many ethnic Central Asians with Russian names speaking the Russian language today. Kazakhstan is run by Asians with names like Nazarbayev and Massimov). The Chinese similarly have been trying to enforce a policy of Mandarin usage across minority dialect areas.
Obviously, you can't do this in Europe. You can't suppress national languages. And even if you decide on a dual-language policy... every country gets to keep their language, but all countries have to learn a common language as well... which language do you pick to enforce? English? French? German? Latin? You're going to have a stalemate no matter what language you pick.
The United States has a nation of English speakers, with a relatively common culture. An Alabamian can live in Colorado without too much trouble adjusting. A Californian can move to Virginia and adapt quickly. But even with those advantages, the sheer size of the population... over 308 million now... and the sheer physical size of the country itself... is making a sense of national unity more problematic. Southerners and New Englanders and Westerners have always had very distinct regional identities with large differences from each other. So it's tough enough even when you speak the same language.
Reality is, the future is in the hands of superpowers, and for European nations to be taken seriously in that environment, they will have to team up in some meaningful way.
And if the different countries of Europe begin to disagree?
EMU (monetary union) is the whole different story however.
So, are you arguing that monetary union without complete political union is a bad idea? It's not working on a limited scale, so, lets go whole hog? Is that your argument?
Canada can barely manage with two languages.
This concept of yours is based on...?
Oh, I don't know... Canada having a large secessionist movement among the French speaking population perhaps?
A nation... and that was the eventual goal of the whole EU dream...
Quite simply wrong. The EU, as a concept, was formed in the crucibles of WW1 and WW2.
The whole point of the Maastricht Treaty was, in the words of Herman Von Rompuy, the President of the European council, "Ever closer union". The proposed EU constitution was supposed to further cement this, until those pesky elections got in the way.
Henry Kissinger once said in the 70's "If I want to talk to Europe, who do I call". Rompuy says that you call him. And Jose Manuel Barrosso has plainly stated that the EU means turning power over to "supranational institutions of the EU". That sure sounds like a federal Europe to me.
In all honesty, the European Union (as the first true step towards one world government) needs saving more than the environment.
No, the EU needs to die. Put a stake in its heart. It was never a great idea in the first place. You can't have a federal Europe when you have so many differing languages and cultures. Canada can barely manage with two languages. A nation... and that was the eventual goal of the whole EU dream... has to have something in common other than the currency. You were never going to erase the French from a Frenchman in an effort to make him some generic "European".
A common market for Europe makes sense. But a common currency still has practical problems (as we're seeing right now), and a common political structure? A disaster waiting to happen.
The irony in this statement being that, as much as Mexico complains about US immigration laws, Mexico's immigration laws are much more strict. You do not want to be busted for illegal immigration in Mexico, especially if you're from border countries to the south of Mexico.
So, the article is from The Daily Mail, also known as The Daily Racist.
Known by who? An anonymous coward on Slashdot?
Even when that's true, it's usually because of the IT department thinking they know better than end users and hence calling them all stupid for wanting something other than what they provided. Then there are the ones with unrealistic power complexes. "whaddaya mean you want a program to do your job? I'm IT, I dictate what everyone gets to do on their computer."
IT does know better than end users. This is why IT locks down systems. Because if they don't end users do stupid things like opening attachments, surfing porn at work, an generally doing things that put the whole network at risk. There is no wisdom of crowds in the Enterprise. Just a lot of users who are, at best, competent, with a big number of frankly dumb people that do dumb things.
OH noes, I can't get my degree in Native American History anymore!
If Native American History is what you want to study, the government has no right to tell you you can't.
Thats fine, but taxpayers shouldn't pay for the degree, either, nor should banks or taxpayers give you a loan for a degree that you'll never be able to pay for as a file clerk or a guy making Lattes. Just because you're interested in it doesn't mean that other people should pay for it. If Native American History is that much of a passion for you, and you don't have the grades for a scholarship, then take a year or two, work and put every available dime away, and pay for it yourself.
Why are IT staff treated with near universal contempt?
One reason might be because that's how IT staff treat everyone else.
Even when that's true, it's usually because of a combination of stupid end users and end users that are competent but undertrained. Then there are the people with unrealistic expectations. "Whaddaya mean I can't install this program? I'm sales, I earn the profits that pay your ****ing salary, nerd!".
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
You can keep repeating it all you like. It doesn't mean it's true. Most geologists agree that there's still a lot of oil left to be found. Of course, it'll run out sometime. But 40 years? You have no evidence that's the case.
And coal? Are you kidding me? The US has by far the largest coal deposits in the world. We have over a quarter of the Earth's known reserves. And with over 150 years of coal use, and we've barely scratched those reserves. Even if we shifted to heavier coal use, we wouldn't run out in several lifetimes.
This is not in the public interest but allowing fragmentation of cellular standards between GSM/HSPA and CDMA was in the public interest by allowing the major carriers to offer incompatible services so that they did not have to directly compete with each other was?
You sound like you expect some logical, objective standards about what the government decides is "in the public interest" when it comes to mergers. The reality is anything but. America used to have three major airliner manufacturers. Lockheed got out of the business, and then Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas. This left America with one airliner manufacturer. The US government was fine with granting a total monopoly in that field.
"In the public interest" is whatever the current crop of politicians decides it is.