Anyway, 10,000 elderly dying in France is more a testament to the incompetence of French authorities and media than the weather.
I know it's currently fashionable in parts of the US to hate everything French, but this comment is just plain ignorant. Yes, the authorities could've done better, but the point is that they were caught unprepared. It's not like where you live, where they are prepared for such weather and so have systems in place to deal with it.
What's wrong with helping homeless people? Are you really that selfish?
WWI i'll give you that. but the US was the reason they gave up.
t was certainly a reason, but certainly not the reason. Don't oversimply things. WWI was far more complicated than that. In fact, Germany was all but defeated by the time the US entered the war. It wasn't even officially a member of the Allies, only an "Associated Power".
WWII kicked the snot out of them. period. if D-day and the battle of the bulge is not an ass kicking i don't know what is.
If you want to single out one battle and ignore the rest of the war, then yes. The Russians fought (and won) even bigger battles: look up Stalingrad and Kursk.
Don't you mean a first time? The US didn't play much of a role in the fighting in WWI, and in WWII the brunt of the fighting was borne by Russia. I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything, but to say that they kicked Germany's butt is a gross exaggeration.
Apple provides no detail on how well their compatibility with other formats really are. It took years for OpenOffice.org to reach the level of compatibility that it presently enjoys, and it still cannot claim to be 100% compatible with the proprietary MS formats.
Actually, you shouldn't. In Westminster-style governments, a senator is specifically a member of the Upper House of parliament. In the UK the House of Lords serves this function (nobody is called "senator" in the UK). Members of Parliament (MPs) can be either from the Upper or Lower House.
The reason why the US was a leading force to reduce ozone-depleting substances was that it had companies which had a considerable interest in alternative technologies. Corporations like Dupont stood to gain a lot from these measures.
The same cannot be said for Kyoto and CO2 emissions. US industries are dirtier than those in many other developed nations, and besides nuclear power there are not many US companies big enough to influence government with an interest in cleaner industries. Conversely, oil and coal companies have massive influence over government policy.
Nice troll. Do you have the balls to post under your own name?
Muslims in the US actually have more freedoms than any in the world, including the Arab world.
More than any in the world? I hardly think so. Thre are quite a few countries with IMHO better freedoms than the USA. I suggest you stop waving your flag and look at the facts. All the Muslims I know in the USA are concerned for their own wellbeing. That's not a good sign.
Those in Guantanamo Bay deserve to be there. They were caught committing crimes against humanity. They are not prisoners of war.
What ever happened to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"? Or does the concept only suit you when you see fit? Why are they not given fair and open trials, and permitted to seek legal counsel? If they are truly guilty then they would be convicted despite having their constitutionally-granted freedoms and protections. Why do you want an unfair trial? Isn't this the kind of thing you are fighting against? Isn't the "War on Terror" supposed to be about defending "freedom"?
There are many arguments that many of the people there are not terrorists at all, and there are strong allegations that they have been maltreated. What about Abu Ghraib? There is plenty of proof there.
And generals are not talking about "crusade". Those are Osama's words.
Islam once was thought of a peaceful religion. Now its thought of as a cult, no more than the gothic mysticism that Hitler tried to foist on the German people.
"thought of as a cult" by whom? There are still plenty of people who see Islam for what it should be, a peaceful religion. Don't project the misguidings of you and your bigoted friends upon what what the rest of the world may think. And if you don't know anything about Islam (which I strongly suspect), don't make sweeping assumptions about it.
They thought that the US was like Russia, weak and inept. They didn't count on George Bush. That's why he won.
I think you've been watching too much Faux News. The warlords still control most of Afghanistan, and much of Iraq is in disarray as well. It will probably be years before the situation dies down. The US has committed itself to a protracted war against an elusive enemy. In the meantime they have created a power vacuum which has become a haven for militants and fuels anti-US sentiment globally.
Should Americans be envious that France is more openly racist and is willing to dignify such views with a vote?
And that hasn't happened in the USA? Bush has been following an anti-Islamic agenda supported by Christian fundos. Muslims are harassed and many are imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere with total disregard for human rights. There are even generals in the army talking about a "crusade" and the like. And that was BEFORE the last presidential election. Despite these horrors, he was voted in a second time.
The parent post is probably using Guiness Book of World Records style terminology. If so, oldest would imply that it still survives. In this case, SLS would be the earliest, since it was around beforehand yet does not exist today.
" Many people who speak english non-natively speak with incorrect grammar. "
Hell, many people who speak English natively speak with incorrect grammar. In fact, I have found that these people can be even worse than those who speak English as a second or third language. People who don't have English as a first language are generally willing to improve their skills and will accept constructive criticism. Native English speakers (especially those who only speak English) often have no interest in improving their skills, and an increasing number speak deliberately poorly in some vain effort to sound 'cool' in their particular social group. These are the people who make extensive use of colloquialisms and local vernacular.
BTW I am a native English speaker, but I come from a family that speaks English as a second or third language.
If you surf the web as an Administrator [Root] on OSX, or if you surf the web as an Administrator [Root] on Linux, you're every bit as prone to this stuff as any Microsoft user surfing the web as an Administrator [or you would be, if those operating systems had large enough market share for the spyware people to be bothered with writing spyware for them].
Not quite. I don't know about OS X, but I know in GNU/Linux the user must manually set an executable bit before a binary can be run. You can't automatically make a file executable by adding an extension (like.exe,.scr or.com).
One thing I've always wondered about these 'walks of fame' is if they ever run out of room to place stars. It seems inevitable to me for this to happen eventually. What do they do in this case? Do they make room somewhere else or do they rip out old stars?
Before I start, I should state that such a debate is very theoretical and war (fortunately) unlikely to happen any time soon. If a war were to happen now, I seriously doubt whether the EU could win. Their forces just aren't geared for that kind of war.
You know, the one that has the largest fleet in the world, the largest airforce in the world, and the most advanced equipment in the world? Yeah, that one.
True, but I would imagine that much of the US forces would already be tied up in various places around the world. Even if you could recall them it would take a while for them to arrive. Of course, you would have to leave some behind for homeland defence.
Well, yeah...none of the US lost that war, Britain lost that war. The goal of the war was: We become independent from Britain. The result of the war was: We became independent from Britain. That's called a victory.
My knowledge of the War of 1812 is minimal, but I remember reading somewhere that one of the aims of the US was to annex parts of Canada. If that is the case then they have failed miserably.
Is there any case of a country declining that far, ever? Here's a questions: What first world nation has ever ceased to be a first-world nation? I know of none, and I'm guessing you know of none either.
It depends on your definition of "first-world" (which is an obsolete Cold War term anyway). Many non-Americans would argue that any nation with a wide income disparity, a high degree of poverty, and low standards of education and health can not be considered to be a 'developed' country. How can you claim to be 'developed' when a large proportion of your people live in conditions which are characteristic of an underdeveloped country?
Various studies have shown that the real standard of living in many 'developed' countries has been falling since the 1970s, most of all in the USA. Such measurements take into account 'quality of life' elements like availability of health care and education (NB: this does not depend on public systems; private systems are OK as long as it is affordable and of a decent standard), real income (counting inflation and household debt), pollution, politcal/speech freedom, etc.
Further, look into economics. If the US economy crashes, the world economy crashes. That's the way things are right now. It may suck and be a serious problem, but it's also true.
Yes. Even more frightening is the possibility of the USA defaulting on its borrowings. The USA has accrued massive debts, and it is questionable whether it can all be serviced. That would throw the entire global economy into chaos. Some even fear that this could be used as a tactic by the US government to get what they want. If that happens, nobody can do anything about it, and they'll be forced to acquiesce for fear of destroying their economies.
And as for us have more homeless, starving, and poor people in LA than Europe has throughout, that's not even true if you only consider western Europe.
No it's not true, but the parent post makes a good point. There is a massive dispaity of wealth in the US, and levels of poverty and homelessness are much higher than in other developed countries. I am not a socialist by any means, but there is something seriously wrong when you have the resources to prevent (or at leat reduce) this yet nothing is done.
I dream of a world where I can actually drag an image from Konqueror/Opera/FireFox to GIMP and it actually shows up. (Hint, I can do it from Moz to Photoshop on win32)
I don't think that would be very difficult to implement. AFAIK, all of those apps support the XDND (X Drag 'n' Drop) protocol.
Companies like DuPont made billions from "ozone-layer friendly" coolants
In fact that's the main reason why ozone-depleting chamicals were banned in the first place. Companies like DuPont lobbied the US government into signing the agreement. Economically, the agreement would have help to raise spending, and hence GDP, with the money going to DuPont and co.
That's why the Kyoto Protocols aren't being ratified by the US. There are no (AFAIK) large US companies involved in clean industial or energy technologies in a big way. In contrast, there is lots of this kind of development in Europe.
Good scientists are generally (there are exceptions) quite cautious before they blame anything, and rightly so. More often than not it is the media, corporations and activists who are quick to sensationalise and lay blame.
The worst polluters are the industrialised countries. They are also the ones who have the economies and technology to reduce emissions. Developing nations are not in that position yet. Any amount of change needs to start somewhere, and the best place is with the nations capable of changing now.
Kyoto will only be officially ratified if 55% of emitters sign up, so more than half of the world will effectively be involved. At present it all hinges on Russia or the USA. At the moment, it looks quite likely that Russia will ratify the accord, despite its own massive oil interests and dirty industries. That should say something. Only countries that are addicted to fossil fuels (like my own country, Australia) are resisting.
Pollution is a waste of resources. Why throw something out when you can use it or prevent it from being produced at all? If done well, this can save money in the long term. There are plenty of instances of this happening. Being clean is not synonymous with spending more money.
Developing nations can be brought in later, when they are more able. In the meantime, developed countries have a great opportunity to improve methods and technologies, creating new (or boosting existing) industries in the process. Renewable energy, for instance, is growing much faster than conventional energy. Put your money in that and you're likely to get a better return in 20 years. More employment can be generated, too. Renewable energy industries like solar and win power are more labour-intensive than fossil fuel or nuclear industries. Also, don't forget the emissions trade. The generation of this new commodities market will encourage the trading of money.
There are strong economic reasons to ratify the Kyoto Protocols, and many industry groups are actually pushing for it. It is not (as some paranoid people like to argue) a 'socialist plot to redistribute global wealth'. Why would the EU want to give away all of its money and make its industries less competitive?
As a European, I find the American use of conservative/liberal confusing sometimes.
Americans have developed some strange idea that liberal is an analogue of socialist, when in fact nothing can be further from the truth. True liberals (although things are less clear in practice) believe in the principles of liberalism, i.e. market liberalisation, individual liberty, etc. They favour minimal state intervention on the economy and on people's lives.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean a slash, not a backslash.
Don't you mean a first time? The US didn't play much of a role in the fighting in WWI, and in WWII the brunt of the fighting was borne by Russia. I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything, but to say that they kicked Germany's butt is a gross exaggeration.
Yes, that they are. Some of India's most corrupt politicians are former movie stars.
(Yes, I got the joke, but there's a serious angle to your statement as well that I felt needed addressing.)
Apple provides no detail on how well their compatibility with other formats really are. It took years for OpenOffice.org to reach the level of compatibility that it presently enjoys, and it still cannot claim to be 100% compatible with the proprietary MS formats.
Actually, you shouldn't. In Westminster-style governments, a senator is specifically a member of the Upper House of parliament. In the UK the House of Lords serves this function (nobody is called "senator" in the UK). Members of Parliament (MPs) can be either from the Upper or Lower House.
The reason why the US was a leading force to reduce ozone-depleting substances was that it had companies which had a considerable interest in alternative technologies. Corporations like Dupont stood to gain a lot from these measures.
The same cannot be said for Kyoto and CO2 emissions. US industries are dirtier than those in many other developed nations, and besides nuclear power there are not many US companies big enough to influence government with an interest in cleaner industries. Conversely, oil and coal companies have massive influence over government policy.
What's wrong with 15 degrees? Sounds like a decent temperature for hockey to me. Not hot, but not freezing either.
More than any in the world? I hardly think so. Thre are quite a few countries with IMHO better freedoms than the USA. I suggest you stop waving your flag and look at the facts. All the Muslims I know in the USA are concerned for their own wellbeing. That's not a good sign.
What ever happened to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"? Or does the concept only suit you when you see fit? Why are they not given fair and open trials, and permitted to seek legal counsel? If they are truly guilty then they would be convicted despite having their constitutionally-granted freedoms and protections. Why do you want an unfair trial? Isn't this the kind of thing you are fighting against? Isn't the "War on Terror" supposed to be about defending "freedom"?
There are many arguments that many of the people there are not terrorists at all, and there are strong allegations that they have been maltreated. What about Abu Ghraib? There is plenty of proof there.
It isn't Osama making this a war against Christians, but those in the Bush administration seem intent on doing so.
"thought of as a cult" by whom? There are still plenty of people who see Islam for what it should be, a peaceful religion. Don't project the misguidings of you and your bigoted friends upon what what the rest of the world may think. And if you don't know anything about Islam (which I strongly suspect), don't make sweeping assumptions about it.
I think you've been watching too much Faux News. The warlords still control most of Afghanistan, and much of Iraq is in disarray as well. It will probably be years before the situation dies down. The US has committed itself to a protracted war against an elusive enemy. In the meantime they have created a power vacuum which has become a haven for militants and fuels anti-US sentiment globally.
Should Americans be envious that France is more openly racist and is willing to dignify such views with a vote?
And that hasn't happened in the USA? Bush has been following an anti-Islamic agenda supported by Christian fundos. Muslims are harassed and many are imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere with total disregard for human rights. There are even generals in the army talking about a "crusade" and the like. And that was BEFORE the last presidential election. Despite these horrors, he was voted in a second time.
Indeed, there are several mass media organisations known as ABC. The oldest news organisation with this name appears to be Spain's Diario ABC. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation commenced operation in 1932. The American Broadcasting Company became known by that name in 1943.
Fox News is brain-dead. I'm sure most Australians would agree.
If you have access to Fox (which means you have cable TV), you would also have access to BBC, CNN and CNBC.
The parent post is probably using Guiness Book of World Records style terminology. If so, oldest would imply that it still survives. In this case, SLS would be the earliest, since it was around beforehand yet does not exist today.
How can someone choose where they themselves are born?
" Many people who speak english non-natively speak with incorrect grammar. "
Hell, many people who speak English natively speak with incorrect grammar. In fact, I have found that these people can be even worse than those who speak English as a second or third language. People who don't have English as a first language are generally willing to improve their skills and will accept constructive criticism. Native English speakers (especially those who only speak English) often have no interest in improving their skills, and an increasing number speak deliberately poorly in some vain effort to sound 'cool' in their particular social group. These are the people who make extensive use of colloquialisms and local vernacular.
BTW I am a native English speaker, but I come from a family that speaks English as a second or third language.
One thing I've always wondered about these 'walks of fame' is if they ever run out of room to place stars. It seems inevitable to me for this to happen eventually. What do they do in this case? Do they make room somewhere else or do they rip out old stars?
Various studies have shown that the real standard of living in many 'developed' countries has been falling since the 1970s, most of all in the USA. Such measurements take into account 'quality of life' elements like availability of health care and education (NB: this does not depend on public systems; private systems are OK as long as it is affordable and of a decent standard), real income (counting inflation and household debt), pollution, politcal/speech freedom, etc.
Yes. Even more frightening is the possibility of the USA defaulting on its borrowings. The USA has accrued massive debts, and it is questionable whether it can all be serviced. That would throw the entire global economy into chaos. Some even fear that this could be used as a tactic by the US government to get what they want. If that happens, nobody can do anything about it, and they'll be forced to acquiesce for fear of destroying their economies. No it's not true, but the parent post makes a good point. There is a massive dispaity of wealth in the US, and levels of poverty and homelessness are much higher than in other developed countries. I am not a socialist by any means, but there is something seriously wrong when you have the resources to prevent (or at leat reduce) this yet nothing is done.Companies like DuPont made billions from "ozone-layer friendly" coolants
In fact that's the main reason why ozone-depleting chamicals were banned in the first place. Companies like DuPont lobbied the US government into signing the agreement. Economically, the agreement would have help to raise spending, and hence GDP, with the money going to DuPont and co.
That's why the Kyoto Protocols aren't being ratified by the US. There are no (AFAIK) large US companies involved in clean industial or energy technologies in a big way. In contrast, there is lots of this kind of development in Europe.
Good scientists are generally (there are exceptions) quite cautious before they blame anything, and rightly so. More often than not it is the media, corporations and activists who are quick to sensationalise and lay blame.
The worst polluters are the industrialised countries. They are also the ones who have the economies and technology to reduce emissions. Developing nations are not in that position yet. Any amount of change needs to start somewhere, and the best place is with the nations capable of changing now.
Kyoto will only be officially ratified if 55% of emitters sign up, so more than half of the world will effectively be involved. At present it all hinges on Russia or the USA. At the moment, it looks quite likely that Russia will ratify the accord, despite its own massive oil interests and dirty industries. That should say something. Only countries that are addicted to fossil fuels (like my own country, Australia) are resisting.
Pollution is a waste of resources. Why throw something out when you can use it or prevent it from being produced at all? If done well, this can save money in the long term. There are plenty of instances of this happening. Being clean is not synonymous with spending more money.
Developing nations can be brought in later, when they are more able. In the meantime, developed countries have a great opportunity to improve methods and technologies, creating new (or boosting existing) industries in the process. Renewable energy, for instance, is growing much faster than conventional energy. Put your money in that and you're likely to get a better return in 20 years. More employment can be generated, too. Renewable energy industries like solar and win power are more labour-intensive than fossil fuel or nuclear industries. Also, don't forget the emissions trade. The generation of this new commodities market will encourage the trading of money.
There are strong economic reasons to ratify the Kyoto Protocols, and many industry groups are actually pushing for it. It is not (as some paranoid people like to argue) a 'socialist plot to redistribute global wealth'. Why would the EU want to give away all of its money and make its industries less competitive?
As a European, I find the American use of conservative/liberal confusing sometimes.
Americans have developed some strange idea that liberal is an analogue of socialist, when in fact nothing can be further from the truth. True liberals (although things are less clear in practice) believe in the principles of liberalism, i.e. market liberalisation, individual liberty, etc. They favour minimal state intervention on the economy and on people's lives.
there are many new-liberals here (not liberal in the classical, US founder's sense, but liberal in the neo-modern sense
You mean liberal in the American sense. In other countries, the term hasn't been bastardised nearly as much.