Actually, that's average. It's survivable, and usually what entry level workers are paid in the cities, but not "quite a bit of money." You definitely won't be owning anything bigger than a TV on this salary. That the CEO of a non-foreign company gets a foreign-level salary should be the real issue here. 14 million yuan would be just compensation relative to the 25000 yuan earned by factory workers, but 14 million DOLLARS is about 100 million yuan. If we assume that the average US worker is paid 35000 a year, then a comparable American CEO would have to make $140 million a year. Only one CEO in the US made close to that amount last year, and it was due to a one time bonus. http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/highest-paid-ceos/#photo-10
I thought it was "everyone with Facebook AND a cable TV subscription" since you need to log in with your cable TV account on nbcolympics.com before you can watch anything (outside of their prime-time event picks)
I had to go on Youtube to watch both versions since I've never seen either. I have to agree with you, but I also think you and the author missed something glaringly obvious -- there's no humor in the American version. ANW is just too serious, or takes itself too seriously. This is also manifest in the obstacles themselves -- whereas come Sasuke obstacles are there just to put the challenger in silly compromising poses for a laugh, the ANW obstacles are all there anticipating feats of strength and agility. The result of this is that, while for Sasuke contestants the entire obstacle course is part challenge/part elaborate practical joke, for ANW contestants it's pure challenge, and egos are on the line. Couple this with the American propensity for gratuitous displays of machismo and ANW becomes do-or-die-to-prove-yourself-to-spectators, which saps all the fun out of the original.
So, in summary: Sasuke = animal circus using people American Ninja Warrior = gym class
And the audacity of equating people who want to assemble and find redress with their local governments with those who want to get free mp3s. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this sad joke of a comparison. You'll only find naivete like this in the West. If you want to make some accurate comparisons, talk about police brutality in both countries, or maybe talk about Assange if he's ever extradited. In the meantime, get some perspective.
Read your post again. It's an example of what I dislike about a lot of online discussions, there's this pressure to take up a judgmental position -- if you're not anti-this then you're pro-that. In every political thread on/. it's like this. There's the sentiment that when another country's problems are in the spotlight, anyone who doesn't make some self-flagellating post about his own country is suspected of hypocrisy. It's gotten nearly to the point where it's impossible to have a frank discussion about the past causes and future effects of events -- everyone is busy whipping themselves for the ills of their country while those who want to talk about the issue at hand get accused of not having perspective, or worse.
If there is a thread about creationists in the US, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some Briton venting about Muslim sharia in England. I want to talk about creationists, their motivations, and what some Americans have done in the past about them, and how local communities have dealt with them. Similarly, if there is a thread about Pakistan's religion-based censorship, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some American venting about Catholics in the southwest. I want to talk about Pakistan's censorship, its origins, the government's various motives, how Pakistanis have dealt with this in the past, and how they deal with this in the future.
What many here regard as signal, is actually noise.
But doesn't hypocrisy depend on contradiction at the same time? In your example, the American contradiction is separated by 200-300 years (not to mention great differences in federal authority between US of 1700's and US of today), whereas the Chinese contradiction is simultaneous in occurrence (and occurring under the same government). So the former doesn't quite fit the definition, while the latter is a perfect fit.
Indeed the US does have many things to be ashamed of, but should people like you and me, citizens who are not intimately involved with political or corporate organizations, limit the scope of our criticism just because we are within the same borders as corrupt entities? For instance would you tell a Frenchman to shut up about US involvement in Iraq because of France's involvement in Libya?
What about blatant corruption in Eastern EU nations? Have Western EU nations done enough to try to solve this problem? What about the corruption in the energy politics of Europe, in its dealings with Gazprom, African dictatorships, and the Middle East?
Do you think Europeans should shut up about the US when these problems still exist? I think we, as people who are outsiders to these organizations and corporations, should be free to criticize them all. However, it seems many in this thread think that just because someone lives within the same borders as a corrupt politician or corporation, that person needs shut up about corruption any place else.
http://slashdot.org/poll/549/where-do-you-live If we accept that Jar Jar is equally despised around the world. This is even allowing for the error of leaving out Africa, which could account for even more non-US slashdot readers.
30% of Slashdotters are from outside the US, most of them from Europe. Europe isn't entirely free of problems, so does that mean they should quit criticizing the US? I think not, but it seems you think they should. Am I understanding you correctly?
HuffPo is an echo chamber not unlike Hannity forums, or every comment-enabled site linked to by Drudge. There's no way but up for the quality of readership of those sites.
How many people actually click through an ad on a warez site and buy something? I seriously doubt anything significant. Even if they have the money (which, relatively speaking, is not likely since they're on a warez site) they're probably savvy enough to not associate something like their Amazon account to their piracy habit through those ad cookies.
I wonder how many people believe this, while at the same time believe that RIAA/MPAA exploit the artists, riding their publicity to generate money from advertisers. They make money indirectly, so it's not exploitation either right? I mean... "websites", "established commercial distribution channels", what's the difference?
[puts on CCP PR hat] It is true. By the evidence you have seen, USA is still a developing country. It has the 3rd largest population in the world, with a diverse and inharmonious populous, therefore very complex and difficult to manage. It needs to connect two far off coasts to the power grid. Because of this, foreigners should try to understand USA problems. Rich nations in the European West with higher per-capita GDP should therefore offer their help to the USA rather than judge and criticize.
That doesn't make sense, why would anyone keep staff who work maybe only 3 weeks a year? If anything, there should be contractors who can soak up random spikes in demand.
I also don't see the connection between privatization and lack of staff in emergency situations. As if this were a problem that exists solely within private organizations. You also imply that nationalization would over-staff and be inefficient, but you get away with it by calling over-staffing "serve the public's needs" (yeah, serve them by sitting around all year doing nothing, and hanging up some downed lines in July and August)
What the IP holders fear (and rightly so) is that these countries will use the technology not only to help their people, but to supplant their benefactors in the future. I think a balance can be worked out with technology transfers based on a period of export restriction for the recipient country.
I think the issue raised was that girlintraining used the extremist vocal side of "conservatism" in the US as a definition for conservatives, while using the very moderate and benign side of "liberalism" in the US as a definition for liberals. It's like someone using the OWS stereotype to define liberals. Slashdot liberals would naturally find that offensive because it is an obvious bias. The same consideration should be shown to conservatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's average. It's survivable, and usually what entry level workers are paid in the cities, but not "quite a bit of money." You definitely won't be owning anything bigger than a TV on this salary. That the CEO of a non-foreign company gets a foreign-level salary should be the real issue here. 14 million yuan would be just compensation relative to the 25000 yuan earned by factory workers, but 14 million DOLLARS is about 100 million yuan. If we assume that the average US worker is paid 35000 a year, then a comparable American CEO would have to make $140 million a year. Only one CEO in the US made close to that amount last year, and it was due to a one time bonus. http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/highest-paid-ceos/#photo-10
you know what, that was needlessly rude of me. I take it back, sorry man. (I've been on /. too long)
or..could you be attracting maladjusted people as friends?
I thought it was "everyone with Facebook AND a cable TV subscription" since you need to log in with your cable TV account on nbcolympics.com before you can watch anything (outside of their prime-time event picks)
Hear hear. NPR is probably the only tolerable outlet remaining in the mainstream, so very sad.
Both are countries were justice is unreachable for common people, and where dominant groups do basically whatever they want.
I can tell you've never spoken with Chinese people.
whereas *some Sasuke obstacles
I had to go on Youtube to watch both versions since I've never seen either. I have to agree with you, but I also think you and the author missed something glaringly obvious -- there's no humor in the American version. ANW is just too serious, or takes itself too seriously. This is also manifest in the obstacles themselves -- whereas come Sasuke obstacles are there just to put the challenger in silly compromising poses for a laugh, the ANW obstacles are all there anticipating feats of strength and agility. The result of this is that, while for Sasuke contestants the entire obstacle course is part challenge/part elaborate practical joke, for ANW contestants it's pure challenge, and egos are on the line. Couple this with the American propensity for gratuitous displays of machismo and ANW becomes do-or-die-to-prove-yourself-to-spectators, which saps all the fun out of the original.
So, in summary:
Sasuke = animal circus using people
American Ninja Warrior = gym class
Here come the false equivalencies getting +5 in a matter of hours, too.
If you're in America, see if any of these sites are blocked
http://thepiratebay.se/
http://www.mininova.org/
http://isohunt.com/
http://www.demonoid.me/
http://www.torrentreactor.net/
No? Then your claim that "in america posts of copyrighted music are swept from the internet within hours" is false.
And the audacity of equating people who want to assemble and find redress with their local governments with those who want to get free mp3s. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this sad joke of a comparison. You'll only find naivete like this in the West. If you want to make some accurate comparisons, talk about police brutality in both countries, or maybe talk about Assange if he's ever extradited. In the meantime, get some perspective.
Read your post again. It's an example of what I dislike about a lot of online discussions, there's this pressure to take up a judgmental position -- if you're not anti-this then you're pro-that. In every political thread on /. it's like this. There's the sentiment that when another country's problems are in the spotlight, anyone who doesn't make some self-flagellating post about his own country is suspected of hypocrisy. It's gotten nearly to the point where it's impossible to have a frank discussion about the past causes and future effects of events -- everyone is busy whipping themselves for the ills of their country while those who want to talk about the issue at hand get accused of not having perspective, or worse.
If there is a thread about creationists in the US, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some Briton venting about Muslim sharia in England. I want to talk about creationists, their motivations, and what some Americans have done in the past about them, and how local communities have dealt with them. Similarly, if there is a thread about Pakistan's religion-based censorship, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some American venting about Catholics in the southwest. I want to talk about Pakistan's censorship, its origins, the government's various motives, how Pakistanis have dealt with this in the past, and how they deal with this in the future.
What many here regard as signal, is actually noise.
Doesn't it actually show how MUCH people learn from history when you've outlined the way countries have followed the beaten path?
But doesn't hypocrisy depend on contradiction at the same time? In your example, the American contradiction is separated by 200-300 years (not to mention great differences in federal authority between US of 1700's and US of today), whereas the Chinese contradiction is simultaneous in occurrence (and occurring under the same government). So the former doesn't quite fit the definition, while the latter is a perfect fit.
Indeed the US does have many things to be ashamed of, but should people like you and me, citizens who are not intimately involved with political or corporate organizations, limit the scope of our criticism just because we are within the same borders as corrupt entities? For instance would you tell a Frenchman to shut up about US involvement in Iraq because of France's involvement in Libya?
What about blatant corruption in Eastern EU nations? Have Western EU nations done enough to try to solve this problem? What about the corruption in the energy politics of Europe, in its dealings with Gazprom, African dictatorships, and the Middle East?
Do you think Europeans should shut up about the US when these problems still exist? I think we, as people who are outsiders to these organizations and corporations, should be free to criticize them all. However, it seems many in this thread think that just because someone lives within the same borders as a corrupt politician or corporation, that person needs shut up about corruption any place else.
http://slashdot.org/poll/549/where-do-you-live
If we accept that Jar Jar is equally despised around the world. This is even allowing for the error of leaving out Africa, which could account for even more non-US slashdot readers.
30% of Slashdotters are from outside the US, most of them from Europe. Europe isn't entirely free of problems, so does that mean they should quit criticizing the US? I think not, but it seems you think they should. Am I understanding you correctly?
I think he's making the point that trolling is a art.
HuffPo is an echo chamber not unlike Hannity forums, or every comment-enabled site linked to by Drudge. There's no way but up for the quality of readership of those sites.
How many people actually click through an ad on a warez site and buy something? I seriously doubt anything significant. Even if they have the money (which, relatively speaking, is not likely since they're on a warez site) they're probably savvy enough to not associate something like their Amazon account to their piracy habit through those ad cookies.
I wonder how many people believe this, while at the same time believe that RIAA/MPAA exploit the artists, riding their publicity to generate money from advertisers. They make money indirectly, so it's not exploitation either right? I mean... "websites", "established commercial distribution channels", what's the difference?
[puts on CCP PR hat]
It is true. By the evidence you have seen, USA is still a developing country. It has the 3rd largest population in the world, with a diverse and inharmonious populous, therefore very complex and difficult to manage. It needs to connect two far off coasts to the power grid. Because of this, foreigners should try to understand USA problems. Rich nations in the European West with higher per-capita GDP should therefore offer their help to the USA rather than judge and criticize.
That doesn't make sense, why would anyone keep staff who work maybe only 3 weeks a year? If anything, there should be contractors who can soak up random spikes in demand.
I also don't see the connection between privatization and lack of staff in emergency situations. As if this were a problem that exists solely within private organizations. You also imply that nationalization would over-staff and be inefficient, but you get away with it by calling over-staffing "serve the public's needs" (yeah, serve them by sitting around all year doing nothing, and hanging up some downed lines in July and August)
Cuba was sanctioned for having strong welfare, education and medical policies designed to bring them up to first world status.
I thought it was because they were aligned with the Soviet Union, and also because they nationalized billions worth of US assets.
No, it wouldn't be the end of patent holders, as long as those developing countries help their local people and do not export any of their production. For example http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/1716206/indian-govt-uses-special-powers-to-slash-cancer-drug-price-by-97 would work if India keeps all production inside their borders.
What the IP holders fear (and rightly so) is that these countries will use the technology not only to help their people, but to supplant their benefactors in the future. I think a balance can be worked out with technology transfers based on a period of export restriction for the recipient country.
I think the issue raised was that girlintraining used the extremist vocal side of "conservatism" in the US as a definition for conservatives, while using the very moderate and benign side of "liberalism" in the US as a definition for liberals. It's like someone using the OWS stereotype to define liberals. Slashdot liberals would naturally find that offensive because it is an obvious bias. The same consideration should be shown to conservatives.