"The problem is that to them (the workers), the wages still aren't "pretty darn good". If they were, no-one would be complaining!"
It seems to me that usually it's the people in the WEST that are complaining, and not the workers themselves. And the salaries are pretty good. To my knowledge, western companies pay on average three times better salary than local companies do.
"So, of course they choose option i), but these companies could easily pay them a good wage for the area and it would still be way less than what your average Westerner would require."
They are already doing that. The salaries are still very low when compared to ours, but they are still better than what local companies are paying.
"Porsche are in a small niche where they can basically charge what they want, but still rely on VW for a lot of basic work (the Cayenne floorpan is a Touran floorpan, and VW picked up the bills)."
Touareg, not Touran. There is a world of difference between those two. And no, VW didn't "pick up the bill". They came up with their own SUV, that came as a total surprise to Porsche. Porsche expected them to come up with a mediocre "cheap" SUV. But instead they came up with a luxury-SUV that made people think "why should I get a Cayenne, when I could get Touareg instead?". The floorplan of Touareg and Cayenne was joint-developement between the two, it's not like VW did all the work, and Porsche took it, and laughed all the way to the bank. And no, Porsche does not "rely" on VW.
"We should be bringing everyone else UP to our standards rather than racing to the lowest level out there. But we are racing to the bottom. That is the problem."
IIRC, poverty in the world has been going down, mainly due to those western factories in developing countries. Of course their salaries are crap when compared to ours. But to them, the salaries are pretty darn good. And what would you like to do about those salaries? triple them? Increase them tenfold? You do realize that if you did that, you would be ruining them? Think about it: what do those countries have that they could use to compete with western countries? They can't compete on education, they can't compete with infrastructure. What they CAN compete with, is cheap labor. Take that advantage away from them, and no-one would invest there anymore.
Yes, current situation might seem frustrating. But things are getting better for them. You seem to think that we could fix the situation by simply not investing in those countries. If you really want to help those countries and people living there, you should be cheering for them, as they get new jobs.
And what would that be, exactly? Lying? Bush has already lied. Repeatedly. And his lies weren't about blowjobs, his lies were the kind that get people killed. In the thousands.
You said that this isn't about sexual preferences or anything like that. Neither are you worried about bible-thumbing, since you are an atheist. So what is this about? What is this "moral foundation" you talk about here? Give us some examples please.
"selling us out to international law via the court system"
Would this mean the international war-crimes tribunal? We already had such in the past in Nurenberg. Why was it OK then, but not now? "Because it would be used for political purposes!". So are you saying that the tribunal wouldn't be fair, that it would be filled by bunch of USA-haters or something?
"wanting to destroy any successful corporation"
Did Clinton "destroy successful corporations"? And why are you so worried about corporations? Why aren't you worried about regural people? Why worry about multi-billion megacorporations, instead of Joe Sixpack? Or are you in the camp that thinks "what's good for the corporations, is good for us"? Or are you a follower of Ayn Rand who believed that businessmen are persecuted, and they are just one step away from concentration-camps?
Since there has been A LOT of people who didn't know this feature existed, I think it's safe to say that itt's NOT "intuitive". And to me, the logical thing would be that if I het a letter on the keyboard, the list that dispay the files and folder, would just to the first file/folder starting with that key, like you described. But that is not what we are asking for here! We are asking for a way to enter a location in to a textbox. What you described is something completely different!
My first comment was a humorous observation on his post, nothing more. It wasn't an "attack" or anything of the sort. Sheesh, it even had a smiley! My next comment was a defence of my original post (because apparently the point of my post went right over his head).
And BTW: calling others "insolent twit", "troll" and "asshole" does not make you one bit smarter, mister-man!
"Anybody but a hairsplitting idiot would fail to grasp the fact that I regarded it as self evident that Earth was excluded when I said "...there will probably be more human traffic on Mars for the forseeable future than on all the other planets of our solar system combined..."."
You said "_ALL_ the other planets in the solar system". You did not exclude Earth in any shape or form, you specificly said "ALL the other planets". Earth is one of those "other planets".
You then proceeded to say this:
"How elastic is the term 'forseeable future'? If we extend it to the next 100 years I'd say I'm probably right even if we agree to define 'causing human traffic on Mars' as the presence of humans on the surface of Mars rather than just human made robots. I'm going to remain optimistic and say that before the end of this century we will se the human population of Mars rise above zero even if this will only be periodic habitation."
So, are you saying that in 100 year there will be more humans on Mars than on Earth? Humans on Earth are causing A LOT of "human traffic". You would have to have a metric assload of humans on Mars to rival Earth. And I'm talking about billions here.
"On the one hand there will probably be more human traffic on Mars for the forseeable future than on all the other planets of our solar system combined"
People on Earth: 6+ billion People on Mars: 0
I think you are missing something pretty obvious here:).
Do you remember what was going on at this time? 23 years ago the citizens of Britian, Australia, and Western Europe were staging massive protests against US foreign policy and urging their leaders to break treaties and close US bases
When you have tens of millions people, you will have few people who will oppose anything. Yes, there were demonstrations against the USA, but overall, those people were in the minority. Joe Average still had a positive view on USA, even if there were some people demonstrating against the USA.
Fact is that in the eigthies and nineties people (with exceptions of course) actually LIKED USA. The change that has occured has been VERY fast and VERY drastic. I have seen it with my own eyes. In Finland (and I assume it's more or less the same in many other places) we went from admiring and liking the USA and Americans, in to disliking and distrusting them. And this time it's not the lunatic fringe who is on the case, it's just about everyone.
It's sad, really. Things do not have to be this way.
What I mean is: you can always do this, anywhere. It's one of the features of lists in GTK. Any time you see a list of things, you can type to pick one. It's expected behaviour and shouldn't need explaining.
I know what you meant. And my point stands. The user it not told that he can just start typing. not only is the user not told, he isn't hinted about it either. Only way the user could find out about the feature is either through trial and error, or after someone tells him about it. But if you simply drop a new user if front of Gnome file-dialog, he will have NO idea that he can just start typing, since the system has no visual indicators that such action is possible.
If the developers want to claim that some feature is "intuitive", then the system needs to tell the user that "you can do this thing here". But if no such info if provided, then the system is NOT "intuitive".
Except that you can type in any GTK list or tree view? It's standard behaviour for all widgets.
Again: there is NOTHING in there that tells the user that they can just start typing. It might be "standard behavior" but the system does NOT tell the user that such a feature exists in the first place!
"Matter of fact, why is it that KDE4 and QT4 itself chugging along at such a slow pace?"
They are? It seems to me that they are progressing quite nicely indeed. Or do you think that things are moving slowly because KDE4 looks like KDE3 at the moment? KDE4 is a MAJOR change to KDE3, and the smallest of those changes is propably the GUI. There are big changes happening in the background, and the devels have been very busy dismantling the infrastructure, and rebuilding something better in it's place. It just happens that at this point those changes are not visible to typical users.
"but I like and love what kde developers have done with KDE4.0. Just have a look: -"
Those are mockups by users. As in: suggestions from users as to what they would like KDE4 to look like. They are NOT screenshots of KDE4, nor are they indication of what KDE4 will look like.
"Intuitive" means that the action is obvious to the user. There is NOTHING in the file-dialog that says to the user "if you start typing, a textbox will appear". Nothing at all. "Intuitive" would in this case mean that there is a textbox with blinking cursor waiting for input at the very first moment the user is presented with the dialog. Would something like that REALLY be that hard to implement?
Epiphany is utterly useless for me as a web-browser. I like to have lots of tabs open at once. I see an interesting link, I open it to the background, and keep reading the original website. I currently have 9 tabs open, and that's not much by my standards.
In Epiphany, the tabs have a fixed size. You can only have handful of them visible at a time, and once it can't fit more tabs (and the number is NOT that big), it just puts a scroll-button on the side. If you want to have lots of tabs open, you need to scroll around trying to find that particular tab you are looking for. End-result is an usability-nightmare that I would not recommend to even my worst enemies!
I filed a bug-report about this, and it's apparently a problem with GTK+
"Keep telling yourself that, because it makes it more true, right?"
Pray tell, what WERE their objectives then? To just about anyone thinks their objectives were pretty clear: destruction oh Hezbollah, liberation of captured soldiers, security for northern Israel. None of those goals were achieved. But now you claim that those weren't their goals. What were they then?
Are you just annoyed by the fact that IDF failed? Or why do you have such a hard time admitting that IDF did not reach their objectives?
The Economist declered Hezbollah the winner, 63% of Israelis want the prime-minister to resign due failure in the conflict, IDF leadership has admitted to failures, Ehud Olmert admitted to Knesset that the conflict was not a success, former Israeli defence minister referred to the conflict as "Defeat of Israel"... Yet here you are claiming that they were succesfull and that they reached their objectives. Seriously: Are you living in a Bizarro World or something?
Hizbollah lost nearly every engagement...scratch that, every engagement.
And USA won just about every engagement against North-Vietnam and Vietkong. So what's your point? Are you now going to claim that Vietnam War was a huge success for USA since you won just about every engagement?
You can claim that an organization is a "force" or something to "deal with". I'd be worried about the "Fluffy Bunny Army" that also won that engagement, as they consist of me and my brother against Israel. We're still standing.
Hizbollah launches rockets in to Israel, they killed lots of Israeli civilians and soldiers and they managed to capture IDF soldiers. And since Israel thought that they are such a credible threat that it warrants an invasion of another country, I would say that THEY certainly thought them to be a big enough threat. And now that hostilities have ended, their enemy is still there. "Fluffy bunny army" is 100% irrelevant.
It's quite funny actually. First you claim that IDF DID reach their objectives (they didn't). And now you claim that Hizbollah is no threat at all, so it does not matter that were they destroyed or not. If Hizbollah is not a threat, why did we have this conflict then? Israel just wanted to push others around?
The victory was that IDF went into a fully armed conflict with an unknown enemy and they promptly stomped them as well as collected information on who backs them and how to disrupt that in the future (bomb all the roads into or out of certain countries).
Everybody already knows that Iran backs Hizbollah. And roads can be rebuilt. So what did IDF achieve here, really? And I fail to see how they "stomped" them, since their enemy is still standing, and they were capable of launching rockets in to Israel all through the conflict. AND IDF failed to free their captured soldiers.
You just look at individual engagements (that were usually won by IDF) and declare IDF the winner, but you fail to see the strategic big picture. You seem to be VERY desperate in trying to make IDF the winner here. Is it really that hard to admit that they failed to reach any of the major objectives they had? How can you declare them the winner, when they didn't achieve much, and they failed to achieve any of their goals?
Let's say *I* fire a rocket into Israel, would that make the FBA on par with Hizbollah?
Uh, no?
There's no point discussing it with you any further when you're willing to assume that a conflicts' outcome is based on your arbitrary rules.
Countries don't go to war for shit and giggles, they have clear goals for doing so. And Israel didn't manage to reach any of their goals. Hizbollah can still launch rockets in to Israel, Hizbollah is still a credible force, Hizbollah is till holding IDF soldiers as prisoners.
You seem to think that winner of the war is determined with some kind of scorecard, based on casualties or something. It's not. Fact remains that Israel failed to reach their objectives, period. What if some SEAL-team is given the task of capturing a bridge intact, so another force can use it to cross a river. And then the enemy blows that bridge up, before the SEAL's can capture it. Is that a "successful" mission? No it's not! So what exactly makes you think that IDF is successfull here, when they failed to reach any of their goals? They had handful of clear objectives, and they didn't reach ANY of them. And now that they failed at doing so, we have people like you claiming that "those weren't their real objectives! They just wanted to bomb some roads, and reduce Hizbollah". Bullshit. The goals was destruction of Hizbollah, destruction of their capability to launch rockets, freeing the captured soldiers.... They failed in ALL of those! But according to you, IDF succeeded just by the fact that they fought Hizbollah, since the goal was to "reduce" Hizbollah. So killing just one Hizbollah-fighter would have been enough, since they would have then "reduced" them?
If that was a success, I wonder what failure would look like.
Since the goal was the destruction of Hizbollah and not "reduction", I'll chalk that one as failure.
Demonstrating military superiority and functionality.
And Hizbollah saw that they could face IDF, take them on, and be left standing when the hostilities end.
They succeeded in each of those ACTUAL goals.
What is this, the revisionist guide to Mid-East? When IDF fails to reach tgheir objectives we just say "those weren't their REAL objectives"? Oh I forgot another goal IDF failed to reach: the liuberation of those captured soldiers. So it seems that IDF failed to reach any of their objectives. Hizbollah managed to effectively fight the IDF and survive, Hizbollah managed to launch rockets all through the conflict, IDF failed to push Hizbollah out of Southern Lebanon AND they failed to liberate their captured soldiers. Is THAT a success?
I find it curious that people don't label IDF as the winner, but fall back on "they didn't achieve world peace" as a failure.
They had clear objectives, and they failed to reach any of them. What else is this than a failure? No. IDF was not defeated as such, they did not retreat in chaos or something. But they utterly failed to reach their goals. And at the end of the hostilities, their enemy was still standing.
Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of a console? That is, an unchanging hardware-platform that works with all the games. Now we have models with and without hard-drive, with and without 1080p...
To me, the word "extreme" sounds like they program in assembly 24x7 for one week straight, or they program with laptops, while running away from a pack of wolves or something. But apparently it's not like that. So what makes it so "extreme"? Did they come up with that name when they were discussing their interests with their jock-friends?
"Oh yeah, I'm in to pretty extreme things. Currently I'm doing base-jumping and ultimate-fighting. How about you?" "Well.... uh.... I'm in to.... EXTREME programming" "Whoa! Radical!"
Well, ther really is no monopoly here. And the barrier of switching to some other search-engine is very low, so it's not like Google could force anyone to use their service. And like it or not, Google is under no obligation to serve those newspapers. Apparently they don't want to work with Google, so why should Google work for them?
Slashdot Mirror
"The problem is that to them (the workers), the wages still aren't "pretty darn good". If they were, no-one would be complaining!"
It seems to me that usually it's the people in the WEST that are complaining, and not the workers themselves. And the salaries are pretty good. To my knowledge, western companies pay on average three times better salary than local companies do.
"So, of course they choose option i), but these companies could easily pay them a good wage for the area and it would still be way less than what your average Westerner would require."
They are already doing that. The salaries are still very low when compared to ours, but they are still better than what local companies are paying.
"Porsche are in a small niche where they can basically charge what they want, but still rely on VW for a lot of basic work (the Cayenne floorpan is a Touran floorpan, and VW picked up the bills)."
Touareg, not Touran. There is a world of difference between those two. And no, VW didn't "pick up the bill". They came up with their own SUV, that came as a total surprise to Porsche. Porsche expected them to come up with a mediocre "cheap" SUV. But instead they came up with a luxury-SUV that made people think "why should I get a Cayenne, when I could get Touareg instead?". The floorplan of Touareg and Cayenne was joint-developement between the two, it's not like VW did all the work, and Porsche took it, and laughed all the way to the bank. And no, Porsche does not "rely" on VW.
That said, I still dislike SUV's.
"We should be bringing everyone else UP to our standards rather than racing to the lowest level out there. But we are racing to the bottom. That is the problem."
IIRC, poverty in the world has been going down, mainly due to those western factories in developing countries. Of course their salaries are crap when compared to ours. But to them, the salaries are pretty darn good. And what would you like to do about those salaries? triple them? Increase them tenfold? You do realize that if you did that, you would be ruining them? Think about it: what do those countries have that they could use to compete with western countries? They can't compete on education, they can't compete with infrastructure. What they CAN compete with, is cheap labor. Take that advantage away from them, and no-one would invest there anymore.
Yes, current situation might seem frustrating. But things are getting better for them. You seem to think that we could fix the situation by simply not investing in those countries. If you really want to help those countries and people living there, you should be cheering for them, as they get new jobs.
"destroying the moral foundation of the country"
And what would that be, exactly? Lying? Bush has already lied. Repeatedly. And his lies weren't about blowjobs, his lies were the kind that get people killed. In the thousands.
You said that this isn't about sexual preferences or anything like that. Neither are you worried about bible-thumbing, since you are an atheist. So what is this about? What is this "moral foundation" you talk about here? Give us some examples please.
"selling us out to international law via the court system"
Would this mean the international war-crimes tribunal? We already had such in the past in Nurenberg. Why was it OK then, but not now? "Because it would be used for political purposes!". So are you saying that the tribunal wouldn't be fair, that it would be filled by bunch of USA-haters or something?
"wanting to destroy any successful corporation"
Did Clinton "destroy successful corporations"? And why are you so worried about corporations? Why aren't you worried about regural people? Why worry about multi-billion megacorporations, instead of Joe Sixpack? Or are you in the camp that thinks "what's good for the corporations, is good for us"? Or are you a follower of Ayn Rand who believed that businessmen are persecuted, and they are just one step away from concentration-camps?
Since there has been A LOT of people who didn't know this feature existed, I think it's safe to say that itt's NOT "intuitive". And to me, the logical thing would be that if I het a letter on the keyboard, the list that dispay the files and folder, would just to the first file/folder starting with that key, like you described. But that is not what we are asking for here! We are asking for a way to enter a location in to a textbox. What you described is something completely different!
You are becoming retarded. Stop it. Please.
My first comment was a humorous observation on his post, nothing more. It wasn't an "attack" or anything of the sort. Sheesh, it even had a smiley! My next comment was a defence of my original post (because apparently the point of my post went right over his head).
And BTW: calling others "insolent twit", "troll" and "asshole" does not make you one bit smarter, mister-man!
"Anybody but a hairsplitting idiot would fail to grasp the fact that I regarded it as self evident that Earth was excluded when I said "...there will probably be more human traffic on Mars for the forseeable future than on all the other planets of our solar system combined ..."."
You said "_ALL_ the other planets in the solar system". You did not exclude Earth in any shape or form, you specificly said "ALL the other planets". Earth is one of those "other planets".
You then proceeded to say this:
"How elastic is the term 'forseeable future'? If we extend it to the next 100 years I'd say I'm probably right even if we agree to define 'causing human traffic on Mars' as the presence of humans on the surface of Mars rather than just human made robots. I'm going to remain optimistic and say that before the end of this century we will se the human population of Mars rise above zero even if this will only be periodic habitation."
So, are you saying that in 100 year there will be more humans on Mars than on Earth? Humans on Earth are causing A LOT of "human traffic". You would have to have a metric assload of humans on Mars to rival Earth. And I'm talking about billions here.
"On the one hand there will probably be more human traffic on Mars for the forseeable future than on all the other planets of our solar system combined"
:).
People on Earth: 6+ billion
People on Mars: 0
I think you are missing something pretty obvious here
When you have tens of millions people, you will have few people who will oppose anything. Yes, there were demonstrations against the USA, but overall, those people were in the minority. Joe Average still had a positive view on USA, even if there were some people demonstrating against the USA.
Fact is that in the eigthies and nineties people (with exceptions of course) actually LIKED USA. The change that has occured has been VERY fast and VERY drastic. I have seen it with my own eyes. In Finland (and I assume it's more or less the same in many other places) we went from admiring and liking the USA and Americans, in to disliking and distrusting them. And this time it's not the lunatic fringe who is on the case, it's just about everyone.
It's sad, really. Things do not have to be this way.
I know what you meant. And my point stands. The user it not told that he can just start typing. not only is the user not told, he isn't hinted about it either. Only way the user could find out about the feature is either through trial and error, or after someone tells him about it. But if you simply drop a new user if front of Gnome file-dialog, he will have NO idea that he can just start typing, since the system has no visual indicators that such action is possible.
If the developers want to claim that some feature is "intuitive", then the system needs to tell the user that "you can do this thing here". But if no such info if provided, then the system is NOT "intuitive".
Again: there is NOTHING in there that tells the user that they can just start typing. It might be "standard behavior" but the system does NOT tell the user that such a feature exists in the first place!
"Matter of fact, why is it that KDE4 and QT4 itself chugging along at such a slow pace?"
They are? It seems to me that they are progressing quite nicely indeed. Or do you think that things are moving slowly because KDE4 looks like KDE3 at the moment? KDE4 is a MAJOR change to KDE3, and the smallest of those changes is propably the GUI. There are big changes happening in the background, and the devels have been very busy dismantling the infrastructure, and rebuilding something better in it's place. It just happens that at this point those changes are not visible to typical users.
"but I like and love what kde developers have done with KDE4.0. Just have a look: -"
Those are mockups by users. As in: suggestions from users as to what they would like KDE4 to look like. They are NOT screenshots of KDE4, nor are they indication of what KDE4 will look like.
"I thought it was very intuitive."
"Intuitive" means that the action is obvious to the user. There is NOTHING in the file-dialog that says to the user "if you start typing, a textbox will appear". Nothing at all. "Intuitive" would in this case mean that there is a textbox with blinking cursor waiting for input at the very first moment the user is presented with the dialog. Would something like that REALLY be that hard to implement?
"A tip for you; try Epiphany."
Epiphany is utterly useless for me as a web-browser. I like to have lots of tabs open at once. I see an interesting link, I open it to the background, and keep reading the original website. I currently have 9 tabs open, and that's not much by my standards.
In Epiphany, the tabs have a fixed size. You can only have handful of them visible at a time, and once it can't fit more tabs (and the number is NOT that big), it just puts a scroll-button on the side. If you want to have lots of tabs open, you need to scroll around trying to find that particular tab you are looking for. End-result is an usability-nightmare that I would not recommend to even my worst enemies!
I filed a bug-report about this, and it's apparently a problem with GTK+
Maybe there was no fire, maybe AC just had a really good screensaver running?
"Israel did not even want to control (most of) southern Lebanon, only demonstrate they could without having to convert it to glass."
Even if they did, they failed at it. Or do you think that Israel was "controlling" southern-Lebanon? Didn't look like that to me.
"Keep telling yourself that, because it makes it more true, right?"
Pray tell, what WERE their objectives then? To just about anyone thinks their objectives were pretty clear: destruction oh Hezbollah, liberation of captured soldiers, security for northern Israel. None of those goals were achieved. But now you claim that those weren't their goals. What were they then?
Are you just annoyed by the fact that IDF failed? Or why do you have such a hard time admitting that IDF did not reach their objectives?
The Economist declered Hezbollah the winner, 63% of Israelis want the prime-minister to resign due failure in the conflict, IDF leadership has admitted to failures, Ehud Olmert admitted to Knesset that the conflict was not a success, former Israeli defence minister referred to the conflict as "Defeat of Israel"... Yet here you are claiming that they were succesfull and that they reached their objectives. Seriously: Are you living in a Bizarro World or something?
And USA won just about every engagement against North-Vietnam and Vietkong. So what's your point? Are you now going to claim that Vietnam War was a huge success for USA since you won just about every engagement?
Hizbollah launches rockets in to Israel, they killed lots of Israeli civilians and soldiers and they managed to capture IDF soldiers. And since Israel thought that they are such a credible threat that it warrants an invasion of another country, I would say that THEY certainly thought them to be a big enough threat. And now that hostilities have ended, their enemy is still there. "Fluffy bunny army" is 100% irrelevant.
It's quite funny actually. First you claim that IDF DID reach their objectives (they didn't). And now you claim that Hizbollah is no threat at all, so it does not matter that were they destroyed or not. If Hizbollah is not a threat, why did we have this conflict then? Israel just wanted to push others around?
Everybody already knows that Iran backs Hizbollah. And roads can be rebuilt. So what did IDF achieve here, really? And I fail to see how they "stomped" them, since their enemy is still standing, and they were capable of launching rockets in to Israel all through the conflict. AND IDF failed to free their captured soldiers.
You just look at individual engagements (that were usually won by IDF) and declare IDF the winner, but you fail to see the strategic big picture. You seem to be VERY desperate in trying to make IDF the winner here. Is it really that hard to admit that they failed to reach any of the major objectives they had? How can you declare them the winner, when they didn't achieve much, and they failed to achieve any of their goals?
Uh, no?
Countries don't go to war for shit and giggles, they have clear goals for doing so. And Israel didn't manage to reach any of their goals. Hizbollah can still launch rockets in to Israel, Hizbollah is still a credible force, Hizbollah is till holding IDF soldiers as prisoners.
You seem to think that winner of the war is determined with some kind of scorecard, based on casualties or something. It's not. Fact remains that Israel failed to reach their objectives, period. What if some SEAL-team is given the task of capturing a bridge intact, so another force can use it to cross a river. And then the enemy blows that bridge up, before the SEAL's can capture it. Is that a "successful" mission? No it's not! So what exactly makes you think that IDF is successfull here, when they failed to reach any of their goals? They had handful of clear objectives, and they didn't reach ANY of them. And now that they failed at doing so, we have people like you claiming that "those weren't their real objectives! They just wanted to bomb some roads, and reduce Hizbollah". Bullshit. The goals was destruction of Hizbollah, destruction of their capability to launch rockets, freeing the captured soldiers.... They failed in ALL of those! But according to you, IDF succeeded just by the fact that they fought Hizbollah, since the goal was to "reduce" Hizbollah. So killing just one Hizbollah-fighter would have been enough, since they would have then "reduced" them?
If that was a success, I wonder what failure would look like.
Since the goal was the destruction of Hizbollah and not "reduction", I'll chalk that one as failure.
And Hizbollah saw that they could face IDF, take them on, and be left standing when the hostilities end.
What is this, the revisionist guide to Mid-East? When IDF fails to reach tgheir objectives we just say "those weren't their REAL objectives"? Oh I forgot another goal IDF failed to reach: the liuberation of those captured soldiers. So it seems that IDF failed to reach any of their objectives. Hizbollah managed to effectively fight the IDF and survive, Hizbollah managed to launch rockets all through the conflict, IDF failed to push Hizbollah out of Southern Lebanon AND they failed to liberate their captured soldiers. Is THAT a success?
They had clear objectives, and they failed to reach any of them. What else is this than a failure? No. IDF was not defeated as such, they did not retreat in chaos or something. But they utterly failed to reach their goals. And at the end of the hostilities, their enemy was still standing.
Israel had quite a few objectives during this conflict. Among them:
a) Destruction of Hizbollah
and/or
b) Preventing Hizbollah from firiing rockets to Israel
and/or
c) Driving Hizbollah out of Southern Lebanon
They failed in each of those. So I would be hard-pressed to label IDF as the winner of this particular conflict.
Doesn't this kinda defeat the purpose of a console? That is, an unchanging hardware-platform that works with all the games. Now we have models with and without hard-drive, with and without 1080p...
To me, the word "extreme" sounds like they program in assembly 24x7 for one week straight, or they program with laptops, while running away from a pack of wolves or something. But apparently it's not like that. So what makes it so "extreme"? Did they come up with that name when they were discussing their interests with their jock-friends?
"Oh yeah, I'm in to pretty extreme things. Currently I'm doing base-jumping and ultimate-fighting. How about you?"
"Well.... uh.... I'm in to.... EXTREME programming"
"Whoa! Radical!"
Well, ther really is no monopoly here. And the barrier of switching to some other search-engine is very low, so it's not like Google could force anyone to use their service. And like it or not, Google is under no obligation to serve those newspapers. Apparently they don't want to work with Google, so why should Google work for them?
And besides, payback is a bitch.