I'm sorry old chap, but this is the most bloody boring message I've read in a long while. It's not because it's off-topic. It's not even because of the rather crappy formatting. It's because of the content. I'm just rather afraid I haven't read quite such a collection of poppycock for a long time.
If your teenage daughter gets pregnant, if your kids misbehave... Don't blame society, TV or the school's sex-ed classes. Blame yourself. You've been a bad parent. You had a responsibility to educate, mentor and nourish your chlid. You stuck 'm in front of the bloody TeleTubbies all day for thirteen years and were absent as some pimply eighteen year old finally screwed 'm without a rubber. In your own garage. Repeatedly. Congratulations.
If you are so stupid that you end up prostituting yourself unsafely to get your daily fix of heroin from yesterday's needle, don't blame the government if you die of AIDS. Blame yourself. You could have known better. The fact that you didn't isn't a particularly big loss to us all either.
Coffee was a hot beverage when it was introduced to the West in the 15th century, and not surprisingly it still is. Coffee, and tea for that matter, have been served scalding hot ever since their introduction in Europe, and Western societies' inhabitants have had well over 400 years to internalize this. If you've somehow miraculously managed to not understand that yet, it's your own damn fault you get a wee burn on your thighs, not McDonalds. Who poured the coffee down there anyway?
If you, in the words of Steely Dan, "drink Scotch whiskey all night long, and dive behind the wheel" it's not your bloody bartender's fault. Even if it was his/her responsibility to make sure you didn't drink more than you should (scarcely), tell me, *who* put the keys in the ignition? I daresay it was not the bartender, laddie.
People should really learn how to look at their mistakes, grit their teeth, say "Oops, my bad" and get the fuck on with it.
My brother in law (I'm 17 years younger than he is) always points out to any new girlfriend (or friend, for that matter) I bring home that he's "known him since he was still shitting his pants as a wee laddie".
This embarrassed me. And I don't think I should be expected to be cautious about this issue when in my pre-toddler years.
People don't forget squat, I'm afraid to say. At least computers/google have to be explicitly prompted to go find particular information. My brother in law freely disseminates it on any occasion he damn well pleases.
Lastly, I simply don't agree with the good doctor's assessment. If you come from a culture like the US where everything and everyone is covering their ass against some or other liability already, computer storage could possibly exacerbate those tendencies, but they hardly can be blamed for being the root cause.
If on the other hand you come from a culture where pretty much anything can be said in any type of discussion (Holland and Israel are funnily enough quite alike in that regard), computer storage won't do anything to strip that away. If you find something you said as a kid around here the tendency is to shrug it off or do a "ha-ha, nevermind".
Therefore I would argue that the reaction to the possibility of others seeing what you once said says more about the culture you come from than anything else. What strikes me as funny is that the Doctor is Austrian, and therefore should have a different perspective on things than most people you'd expect at Harvard. Although I saw his photo. In there, it doesn't look as though he has much of a perspective on anything. His whole thesis sounds like an exercise in misunderstanding causality, and poppycock knee-jerk reactions to something someone might have seen sometime somewhere.
I do however believe, from a technical perspective, in the wisdom of classifying data by desired retention times. This is because it's a simple cost-of-ownership question. You can't retain all your irrelevant data all the time on prime data storage solutions. It's just economically unsound and practically undesirable.
If you try to earn your livelihood inside a MMORPG, you are likely to be a bit of a witless dick in the first place.
If you then have such poor command of the Game you're doing this in that your avatar is subjected to tomfoolery like that, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a witless dick.
In this case I would simply say: Turn in your Computer with it's Internet at the door and fuck off. Get a life. Step away from the keyboard with your hands on top of your head.
> for all those people looking for DRM-free top-40-type music
You don't know what you're talking about. I was a member of eMusic, and the service is good, but the collection is too limited.
I am an eclectic music listener, and I had trouble finding the following on eMusic:
- Ray Charles early stuff. They had some albums on lesser labels, but not what I was looking for. - Amy Winehouse. Alright, she's in the top 40, but for once this is utterly correct. - Chet Baker - Haydn's Cello Concerto's 1 and 2 as performed by Msistlav Rostropovitch, released by EMI classics
> The US did stand United. Back during WWII anyway, which is the last war we truly won.
I forgot to reply to this one. I already stated in a previous comment that if it hadn't been for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, I am highly doubtful the US would have entered that fight in the first place. Hell, companies like IBM weren't exactly shirking the Nazis for business partners, now were they? And I do remember a fair share of divided opinions on the subject before the die was thrown, if I'm not mistaken.
So, *we truly won* the War, says the American.
Now I'm not going to downplay all the Americans did in WWII, absolutely not. But I must say that I'm not convinced the Nazis would have won that one if the US hadn't gotten involved. Remember that the Italian forces were getting slaughtered by Greek peasants (since 450 AC, the Roman Empire hasn't produced much of an army, you see), the Norwegians were fighting themselves to death in the resistance, the Russians completely decimated whatever armored forces Germany could muster, and the Brits did admirable jobs in the North-African theatre, the Battle of Britain and on the Atlantic and the North Sea. Hell, most of the European continent had its fair share of forces that were trying to subvert the regime in one way or another. Vive la resistance, I would almost say.
Ultimately, there was too much resistance on all fronts for that Reich to last, that much is plain. Like I said, I am aware of and I respect the sacrifice many Americans made to shorten the war. Along with the thousands of Canadians and Aussies that fought on the Allies' behalf. But for a US citizen to claim "we truly won" the thing is an act that down-plays the other forces at work to the degree of being insulting and ignorant.
Ever heard of the KNIL? Koninklijk Nederlands Indie-Leger it means. It's what the Dutch had in Indonesia when the Japs invaded it. I have family members that fought hard in the Pacific, I have family members that spend 6 years in Japanese camps and Japanese whorehouses. The remnant of the KNIL also did its thing, along with many others in the Pacific, against the Japanese. Again, dropping the bomb shortened the proceedings, but I sincerely doubt it was the only factor that ended it, if you catch my drift.
> Actually the Cold War involved the whole world. The US and the USSR brought the fight to just about every island nation there is
Hm. Except for some peace demonstrations in the Netherlands and other European countries that made clear we'd refuse having the US' warheads on our continent, the lyrics to some songs by Donald Fagen off his album "The Nightfly", and one particularly amusing Frankie Goes to Hollywood video, I don't recall much of a hubbub about the cold war. When you say "every island nation", I guess you must refer to the UK (a limited gene-pool anyhow) or a couple of kingdoms in Micronesia, because it sure as shit didn't make a big bang where I grew up.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, we've have had access to the finest Cuban cigars since the dawn of time. Calling the Cold War WWIII is a wee over the top, wouldn't you say?
> Yeah. Except for almost every other country in the Middle East has tried to kill them.
Sadly enough, this is not an entirely just representation of what happened. Lebanon and Jordan, the next door neighbors, have never been too prone to "kill Israel". True, they were sucked into conflict due to pressure from Syria and Egypt back in the day ('67 and Yom Kippur wars) but they've never been of the invading kind. Even now it's mainly Syria and Iran that pose threats to peace in the Middle East, not necessarily Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon (the government) or Jordan.
Then again, this is not unique to Israel either. Remember the Assyrians? Probably you don't because Assyrians are nigh extinct today. They were crack engineers with a rich legacy of art and high culture, and had empires (3) that spanned most of the Middle East as you know it. People tried to kill them off repeatedly however, and in the end all but succeeded. Then there is the minor issue of the Ottoman empire, the Macedonians, the Crusaders and all others (Romans, Greeks, British to name but a few) trying to invade the entire Middle East and wipe out Arabic (semitic, anyone?) culture. What happened to the Hettites, Luddites and Philistines, by the way? Allegedly they got wiped out by the Israelites (read Exodus for that one).
Both the Arabs and the Jews, in other words the semitic people, have endured their fair share of the rest of the world trying to kill them.
> Not to mention the speeches every other day about how evil Israel is.
Some of those speeches are mis-translated from Arabic for dramatic effect, and some of those speeches are blatantly correct. I live in Israel, and I can tell you that for its many virtues, it still is an Apartheids-regime. If you're not Jewish Israeli, you're simply a second rate citizen. When reminded of this, the average Israeli then has the gall to claim "our Arabs are treated better than they'd be in Syria". If you'd replace "our Arabs" with "our Niggers", you'd get the picture more clearly perhaps.
Then there are many speeches on Israeli TV that claim the entire Arabic/Muslim world is Evil. The propaganda machines on both sides of the conflict do a swell job of demonizing the other side, and this is not unique to the League of Arabic nations. I also refer to the hate-speech type of "news" you get in the US about the Muslims.
Lastly, I've talked to people I really like in Israel (HP colleagues, hairdressers, friends of mine that are quite liberal and like the occasional doobie) who have the most scary and amazing views on how to achieve peace. Some folk here think we ought to militarize the entire nation, march to Damascus and Beirut and kill the current government to "instill common sense into the region once more". This proves to me that the Syrians and Iranians might not be the only ones in the Middle East that have a bit of the old Xenophobia going, now doesn't it?
So, please, tell me how Israel is totally Unique and Different from their brethren in the Middle East. I'm dying to hear an argument that bears close and objective examination.
I know it's a flamebait/troll, but you, sir, are a blithering idiot. Let me take the time to reply anyhow.
> proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives
No, Yes, No. The EU-countries tend to declare all citizens have equal rights, and thus the right to an equal opportunity for education, future, etc etc. Nothing in there says we're all equal.
> They have inspired fear of capitalism
No they didn't. For crying out loud, companies like HP see more than 43% of their total revenue coming from the EU nowadays. Plus, the Dutch invented bloody capitalism together with the Jews. First stock-exchange, first publicly traded company in the world. Hell, the EU has forgotten more about capitalism than the US ever knew.
> leads the same place: Communism.
I don't see how a capitalist system with huge tax breaks for corporations and still a Social policy equals Marxism. To give you an example, in Holland the Dutch Communist party *went bankrupt* at the end of the eighties, and the word communism hasn't been heard since then.
> America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN.
I find this particularly interesting. Are there no Christians in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the UN? Again, Christianity in its current form (including the trinity and the divinity of Jezus) was decided upon by papal edict somewhere around 380 AC.
Protestantism, Calvinism, Lutheran and all that were established during the 15th Century. The Middle East and Europe already had large Christian populations before Columbus ever thought he reached India. Hell, we've forgotten more about Christianity than the US will ever learn.
Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard.
> WWIII was US against the USSR
Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII. It was all a scam to relieve you of your 19-year old sons and your tax money.
> WWV will be America vs. Communism
Way you folks are handling yourself, by the time WWV rolls around the smoldering ruins of what once was the US won't be participating in it, I assure you. The way things are going, China, India and the EU will get bigger and bigger financial clubs to swing, and the US will diminish.
China is even proving today that hard-line communism will also long vanish by that time. I don't know what you're smoking in your shack in Ohio, but neither the US nor Communism will be factors of importance in the future.
> because the US stood united
No they didn't. Ever seen Vietnam war demonstrations? Ever see Iraq war demonstrations? Ever saw the debate about abortion, euthanasia or further wars going on? There is no such thing as the United States standing United. The constitution calls for that. Which is one of the few saving graces of the US, for that matter.
Hell, if the Japs hadn't bombed pearl-harbor the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Then their role in WWI was minimal at best. Lastly, WWIII was a figment of your own (McCarthy, anyone?) feverish imagination. So just quit talking bollocks, OK?
Well, let me take the time to reply to what is being said in TFA.
> we used the default settings or an automatic mode if there was one.
This is by default *not* the way I approach photography. It might work for most people that take snaps, but to generate worthwhile photos it's just not the way to work. It offers no control over DoF to begin with, and you'll simply never get creative pictures that way.
Secondly, flash or LEDs were used in most pictures I saw. Personally I like to work with available light with a 1.8-2.8 aperture range to purely focus on the subject matter and preserve the same mood the naked eye would see. External lighting sources oftentimes do more to fubar pictures than actually make them worthwhile, specially if you're not a professional when it comes to flash/lighting. For those that don't understand what I mean, go to the Rijksmuseum and see how Rembrandt approached lighting, and then look at the deer-caught-in-headlights washed out photo's from your cousin Vinnie's wedding last fall.
> the colours are very vibrant, if not a little over saturated.
Well, here I would argue that this is normal for any consumer camera. Pick up anything by Sony, HP or Fuji in the con/pro-sumer range, and there will be algorithms that over-saturate the pictures slightly. Canon DSLR's can also be configured to do this, by the way. This is because a "vibrant" picture has the widest appeal for the type of people that wanna have pictures of their kids playing with the kitty, or want to have a picture of the beautifuw fwowew in the back yard.
However, again, if you see photography as a creative process rather than documentation, this is greatly undesirable. I tend to want to shoot pictures with a lot of darkness, negative space in the composition and perhaps under-saturate them a bit to evoke a particular mood. Typically this is not a possibility with camera phones. Alas.
Canon's entire range of cameras comes pre-configured to represent what the eye sees rather than the "more vibrant" or "poppy" pictures. This is why I find Canon's results more pleasing.
> In our opinion, the 400D took the best-lit and most focused shot overall.
With the kit-lens and Automatic settings used, as TFA stated. I don't think I need to get defensive. TFA is perfectly clear. Now there's one last thing. The CCD size. Having a 11 MegaPixel camera or, in the case of the Nokia, a 5 MegaPixel camera doesn't mean diddley. The absolute size of the CCD in the camera has a huge impact on the quality of the pictures. This is why my aging 300D 6 MP camera will take better pictures than a compact 8 MP camera does.
Squeezing 5 MP out of a pin-head sized CCD means the firmware is busy calculating what is not "seen" by the sensor in terms or resolution, meaning you get an approximation of what you thought you saw as a final result. The final JPG is of 5 MP resolution, but not each pixel lives up to the standards of higher-grade kit, for lack of a better phrase.
I would love to have a camera-phone that can offer me the functionality my DSLR has. I don't particularly like lugging my DSLR and four high-speed (heavy and clunky) lenses around, but right now, I simply don't have a choice.
> Our similarities are greater than our differences and we have common goals. We should work together.
This doesn't just go for the US and Europe, but also for Israel and the league of Arab nations for that matter. Shakespeare wrote the following quotation in the 1500's to make people identify with the Jewish plight:
"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
Now, in 2007 in Israel, I use the same quote to try and explain to the Israelis that the Arabs, Palestinians and Lebanese are human too. I think this world is too full of zealots that refuse to realize that most people bleed red, even racist mother@#$!#s.
> You're not talking about mainstream US Conservatives
No. The true conservatives strive to Conserve (no pun) the values put forth in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and as such a group that I respect. We don't always agree, but I respect 'm.
I'm talking about Neo-Conservatives, indeed the more extremist cronies. They are moving up the value chain though, having various advisory positions to the Pentagon and the White House.
They're the people whose main fans are the dip shits that walk around in Pro-War demonstrations with an American flag tattooed on their face and a banner saying "Iraq now, France's next!".
I fully realize they don't make up the whole spectrum of the American population, just like Jean-Marie Le Pen doesn't speak for all of France.
> That could be a huge disaster for humanity.
Indeed. Although there is nothing like a fresh war to spur innovation and economic growth.
> extremely unlikely that the EU would stand a chance in a war against the US
Firstly, there'd be allies cropping up from strange places. Secondly, you could be surprised how fast the EU could gear itself to war when presented with an external enemy. I think that the exploits of the British, the Norwegians and the Germans in WWII has proven what people in the EU are made of recently, but moreover if you read about the Anglo-Dutch wars, the Swedish wars and so on in History, I doubt the EU should be underestimated.
Hell... The US isn't even able to deal with Iraq properly. Meanwhile, every single male in countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg is trained to pick up a gun if a threat arises, while they've got PLENTY of cash to do so. The statement you make is rather short sighted. Definitely in the longer run. They might walk in there, but they will never get out.
> Europe is definitely not geared toward military conflict with the US.
Ach, history proves man-kind is infinitely flexible and fast to adapt.
I'm Dutch. I can travel most parts of the globe, no visa required and no rules against it, and most countries are actually not unhappy to see me coming.
> kind of an inability to have perspective, to understand scale, to perceive context > why guantanamo garners so much attention
Let me explain. Cuba and Castro don't go shooting their big fucking mouthes off about bringing freedom (tm) and democracy (r) everywhere. Cuba and Castro aren't illegally invading sovereign nations in the name of bringing said freedom (TM) and democracy (R) .
A nation that is always proudly pointing at its Bill of Rights and Constitution, a nation that is always banging on their chest for being the Last Bastion of the Free (TM), a nation that always claims to possess the Moral High Ground (C) should never ever do what is being done on Guantanamo.
I don't suppose the acts committed at Guantanamo are what irks people, it's the massive scale Hypocrisy and Zealotry behind it that kills people. The sheer gall of the US in the face of their own shortcomings.
I am an atheist, but let me take this time to quote some Valued Scripture from the State Religion in the US:
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
The point here is that, by the principles on which it is founded, the US should be striving to become the one without Sin rather than the one who is throwing the rocks in this world. That would be worthy.
I don't really find Stallman's lyrics on Guantanamo ill-informed, embarrassing rantings. Basically he's echoing stuff the entire world has been saying for years now. Then again, we're all ranting, raving commies, aren't we?
All things considered, I kind of liked his rendition of the song, though. Not bad at all, whatever the message. So on top of being a bit of a lunatic, Stallman just made me thing "that sounds neat" for quite a lot longer than 30 seconds.
I don't really understand what your beef is with recording artists, though. You seem to think they are all ill-informed, embarrassing rich dilettantes. Does this mean you got denied a recording contract some time in your past?
Are you calling Johnny Cash, Woodie Guthrie, Frank Zappa, Steely Dan, Bob Dylan, Cornelis Vreeswijk and many other meaningful political/social commentators in Music throughout the years ill-informed rich dilettantes? Have you seen interviews with Marilyn Manson recently? That bloke looks rather well-informed to me, even if he dresses somewhat weirdly.
> but the squandering occurred before the Iraq war
> Here in Sweden the two wars are seen as very different, and in many ways > diametrical opposites
True, true. I was living in Sweden at the time. However, I am Dutch, and in the prelude to the Afghanistan war, the Dutch government issued a statement that basically said "Tread carefully here. Invading Afghanistan without due research into its justifications and without due research into the consequences, be they negative or positive, of such an invasion".
The US administration basically turned around and slapped the Dutch government on the fingers with a "Dragons be here, you're either for us or against us" type of statement.
Consequently, members of the Royal Marine Corps are still in Afghanistan, which is costing Dutch tax-payers an arm and a leg. I still have to see irrefutable proof that the invasion of Afghanistan was a must-do, justified, and bona fide affair.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different animals, but I wouldn't call either of them "justified" off the cuff. Besides, the Afghans have been known to hold their own at the peak of the power of the Soviets' Conventional army, so I don't even know if there'd be a point even if it were justified.
Recently I saw a rather scary documentary on Neo-Conservatives in the US where it was stated Germany and France are dubbed "strategic Enemies" of the US. I almost (almost) hope that at some point in time the US will invade the EU. It's about time certain induhviduals learned the true meaning of the words "strategic Enemies". Global war to prove a point? It's horrible, but if it happens I'll definitely pick up a rifle to enter the debate.
Funny, if 20.000 people drown in floods in Bangladesh, two liberals somewhere issue a two-line statement that "we maybe ought to help those folks a bit". If, on the other hand, some dipshit walks into a school in the Western world and shoots 31 people, I guess I'll be watching that and the discussions surrounding it for weeks on any news outlet I happen to stumble upon.
Way I see it, the 31 of this morning are just a natural part of the 12.000+ people that die due to fire-arm related violence in the US annually. Then again, it's not the guns that kill the people, er?
Frankly, I spent more time reading the useless article on annoying tech than reading about some school in Wichita that got another loony-attack. Because the latter I've heard so many times before, and the first is at least mildly amusing.
Hey, don't look at me. Godfather seemed a solid release, but it's too much Mario/Zelda crap for me, or PS2 2 Wii ports of outdated graphics for the Wii. I like the idea, but it you're into Ghost Recon and CoD3 kinda stuff, Wii is not there yet.
this is hugely off-topic, of course. It is, however, another proof that no matter how blatantly sarcastic one is, there's always some anonymous idiot on/. that has to take one too seriously.
Erm, it's bad for my KarmaChameleon, but I want to verify for the record if are you saying that, in the Console business, MicroSoft are suddenly the *good* guys?
I assume you haven't read Joseph Stiglitz' "Globalization and its malcontents". The problem with globalization is that you get institutions like the World Bank and the IMF that fuck up things for the nations they are "helping". I've read a large number of articles on globalization, and it's not all it's cracked up to be by the conservative money-brokers.
Globalization works best in an environment with free trade where developing nations are left in charge of the programs. A bottom-up approach if you will. As soon as the IMF and Co. step in and dictate the proceedings with their particular view of the world, you'll see that economies erode and the nations in question are thrown into steeper debts.
The United States, as Western Europe, are expert at furthering their own agenda and economic interest. "The Japan Times" might write something different here than "The Mogadishu Herald", given the fact that Japan cannot by any means be seen as a third-world country.
The statement "Global economy best in 30 years" begs the question: "For whom?"
I've now worked for HP since 1996 (I was 20 still) and I agree to much of what you're writing about HP, except for the fact that I do blame Fiorina.
The crazy part is that I've never, ever held a calculator in my hand since I was 12. And at that time, at school, they peddled TI of course. As soon as I got my first real PC (not counting the SX-81 Sinclair, Acorn Electron and MSX I had before that), I've never gone back to anything that fits in the palm of my hand, including pens.
Slashdot Mirror
> need to use an old version of windows and are forced to use command.exe
:-D
Then again, since when do hard-core geeks need to use old versions of Windows?
I'm sorry old chap, but this is the most bloody boring message I've read in a long while. It's not because it's off-topic. It's not even because of the rather crappy formatting. It's because of the content. I'm just rather afraid I haven't read quite such a collection of poppycock for a long time.
If your teenage daughter gets pregnant, if your kids misbehave... Don't blame society, TV or the school's sex-ed classes. Blame yourself. You've been a bad parent. You had a responsibility to educate, mentor and nourish your chlid. You stuck 'm in front of the bloody TeleTubbies all day for thirteen years and were absent as some pimply eighteen year old finally screwed 'm without a rubber. In your own garage. Repeatedly. Congratulations.
If you are so stupid that you end up prostituting yourself unsafely to get your daily fix of heroin from yesterday's needle, don't blame the government if you die of AIDS. Blame yourself. You could have known better. The fact that you didn't isn't a particularly big loss to us all either.
Coffee was a hot beverage when it was introduced to the West in the 15th century, and not surprisingly it still is. Coffee, and tea for that matter, have been served scalding hot ever since their introduction in Europe, and Western societies' inhabitants have had well over 400 years to internalize this. If you've somehow miraculously managed to not understand that yet, it's your own damn fault you get a wee burn on your thighs, not McDonalds. Who poured the coffee down there anyway?
If you, in the words of Steely Dan, "drink Scotch whiskey all night long, and dive behind the wheel" it's not your bloody bartender's fault. Even if it was his/her responsibility to make sure you didn't drink more than you should (scarcely), tell me, *who* put the keys in the ignition? I daresay it was not the bartender, laddie.
People should really learn how to look at their mistakes, grit their teeth, say "Oops, my bad" and get the fuck on with it.
My brother in law (I'm 17 years younger than he is) always points out to any new girlfriend (or friend, for that matter) I bring home that he's "known him since he was still shitting his pants as a wee laddie".
This embarrassed me. And I don't think I should be expected to be cautious about this issue when in my pre-toddler years.
People don't forget squat, I'm afraid to say. At least computers/google have to be explicitly prompted to go find particular information. My brother in law freely disseminates it on any occasion he damn well pleases.
Lastly, I simply don't agree with the good doctor's assessment. If you come from a culture like the US where everything and everyone is covering their ass against some or other liability already, computer storage could possibly exacerbate those tendencies, but they hardly can be blamed for being the root cause.
If on the other hand you come from a culture where pretty much anything can be said in any type of discussion (Holland and Israel are funnily enough quite alike in that regard), computer storage won't do anything to strip that away. If you find something you said as a kid around here the tendency is to shrug it off or do a "ha-ha, nevermind".
Therefore I would argue that the reaction to the possibility of others seeing what you once said says more about the culture you come from than anything else. What strikes me as funny is that the Doctor is Austrian, and therefore should have a different perspective on things than most people you'd expect at Harvard. Although I saw his photo. In there, it doesn't look as though he has much of a perspective on anything. His whole thesis sounds like an exercise in misunderstanding causality, and poppycock knee-jerk reactions to something someone might have seen sometime somewhere.
I do however believe, from a technical perspective, in the wisdom of classifying data by desired retention times. This is because it's a simple cost-of-ownership question. You can't retain all your irrelevant data all the time on prime data storage solutions. It's just economically unsound and practically undesirable.
Since when do hard-core geeks mis-type paths? :-P
> especially if you're doing business on SL.
If you try to earn your livelihood inside a MMORPG, you are likely to be a bit of a witless dick in the first place.
If you then have such poor command of the Game you're doing this in that your avatar is subjected to tomfoolery like that, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a witless dick.
In this case I would simply say: Turn in your Computer with it's Internet at the door and fuck off. Get a life. Step away from the keyboard with your hands on top of your head.
I don't code, you insensitive clod!
> for all those people looking for DRM-free top-40-type music
You don't know what you're talking about. I was a member of eMusic, and the service is good, but the collection is too limited.
I am an eclectic music listener, and I had trouble finding the following on eMusic:
- Ray Charles early stuff. They had some albums on lesser labels, but not what I was looking for.
- Amy Winehouse. Alright, she's in the top 40, but for once this is utterly correct.
- Chet Baker
- Haydn's Cello Concerto's 1 and 2 as performed by Msistlav Rostropovitch, released by EMI classics
You call that TOP 40 Stuff?
> The US did stand United. Back during WWII anyway, which is the last war we truly won.
I forgot to reply to this one. I already stated in a previous comment that if it hadn't been for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, I am highly doubtful the US would have entered that fight in the first place. Hell, companies like IBM weren't exactly shirking the Nazis for business partners, now were they? And I do remember a fair share of divided opinions on the subject before the die was thrown, if I'm not mistaken.
So, *we truly won* the War, says the American.
Now I'm not going to downplay all the Americans did in WWII, absolutely not. But I must say that I'm not convinced the Nazis would have won that one if the US hadn't gotten involved. Remember that the Italian forces were getting slaughtered by Greek peasants (since 450 AC, the Roman Empire hasn't produced much of an army, you see), the Norwegians were fighting themselves to death in the resistance, the Russians completely decimated whatever armored forces Germany could muster, and the Brits did admirable jobs in the North-African theatre, the Battle of Britain and on the Atlantic and the North Sea. Hell, most of the European continent had its fair share of forces that were trying to subvert the regime in one way or another. Vive la resistance, I would almost say.
Ultimately, there was too much resistance on all fronts for that Reich to last, that much is plain. Like I said, I am aware of and I respect the sacrifice many Americans made to shorten the war. Along with the thousands of Canadians and Aussies that fought on the Allies' behalf. But for a US citizen to claim "we truly won" the thing is an act that down-plays the other forces at work to the degree of being insulting and ignorant.
Ever heard of the KNIL? Koninklijk Nederlands Indie-Leger it means. It's what the Dutch had in Indonesia when the Japs invaded it. I have family members that fought hard in the Pacific, I have family members that spend 6 years in Japanese camps and Japanese whorehouses. The remnant of the KNIL also did its thing, along with many others in the Pacific, against the Japanese. Again, dropping the bomb shortened the proceedings, but I sincerely doubt it was the only factor that ended it, if you catch my drift.
> Actually the Cold War involved the whole world. The US and the USSR brought the fight to just about every island nation there is
Hm. Except for some peace demonstrations in the Netherlands and other European countries that made clear we'd refuse having the US' warheads on our continent, the lyrics to some songs by Donald Fagen off his album "The Nightfly", and one particularly amusing Frankie Goes to Hollywood video, I don't recall much of a hubbub about the cold war. When you say "every island nation", I guess you must refer to the UK (a limited gene-pool anyhow) or a couple of kingdoms in Micronesia, because it sure as shit didn't make a big bang where I grew up.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, we've have had access to the finest Cuban cigars since the dawn of time. Calling the Cold War WWIII is a wee over the top, wouldn't you say?
> Yeah. Except for almost every other country in the Middle East has tried to kill them.
Sadly enough, this is not an entirely just representation of what happened. Lebanon and Jordan, the next door neighbors, have never been too prone to "kill Israel". True, they were sucked into conflict due to pressure from Syria and Egypt back in the day ('67 and Yom Kippur wars) but they've never been of the invading kind. Even now it's mainly Syria and Iran that pose threats to peace in the Middle East, not necessarily Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon (the government) or Jordan.
Then again, this is not unique to Israel either. Remember the Assyrians? Probably you don't because Assyrians are nigh extinct today. They were crack engineers with a rich legacy of art and high culture, and had empires (3) that spanned most of the Middle East as you know it. People tried to kill them off repeatedly however, and in the end all but succeeded. Then there is the minor issue of the Ottoman empire, the Macedonians, the Crusaders and all others (Romans, Greeks, British to name but a few) trying to invade the entire Middle East and wipe out Arabic (semitic, anyone?) culture. What happened to the Hettites, Luddites and Philistines, by the way? Allegedly they got wiped out by the Israelites (read Exodus for that one).
Both the Arabs and the Jews, in other words the semitic people, have endured their fair share of the rest of the world trying to kill them.
> Not to mention the speeches every other day about how evil Israel is.
Some of those speeches are mis-translated from Arabic for dramatic effect, and some of those speeches are blatantly correct. I live in Israel, and I can tell you that for its many virtues, it still is an Apartheids-regime. If you're not Jewish Israeli, you're simply a second rate citizen. When reminded of this, the average Israeli then has the gall to claim "our Arabs are treated better than they'd be in Syria". If you'd replace "our Arabs" with "our Niggers", you'd get the picture more clearly perhaps.
Then there are many speeches on Israeli TV that claim the entire Arabic/Muslim world is Evil. The propaganda machines on both sides of the conflict do a swell job of demonizing the other side, and this is not unique to the League of Arabic nations. I also refer to the hate-speech type of "news" you get in the US about the Muslims.
Lastly, I've talked to people I really like in Israel (HP colleagues, hairdressers, friends of mine that are quite liberal and like the occasional doobie) who have the most scary and amazing views on how to achieve peace. Some folk here think we ought to militarize the entire nation, march to Damascus and Beirut and kill the current government to "instill common sense into the region once more". This proves to me that the Syrians and Iranians might not be the only ones in the Middle East that have a bit of the old Xenophobia going, now doesn't it?
So, please, tell me how Israel is totally Unique and Different from their brethren in the Middle East. I'm dying to hear an argument that bears close and objective examination.
I know it's a flamebait/troll, but you, sir, are a blithering idiot. Let me take the time to reply anyhow.
> proclaimed that all people are equal, have equal rights, should have equal lives
No, Yes, No. The EU-countries tend to declare all citizens have equal rights, and thus the right to an equal opportunity for education, future, etc etc. Nothing in there says we're all equal.
> They have inspired fear of capitalism
No they didn't. For crying out loud, companies like HP see more than 43% of their total revenue coming from the EU nowadays. Plus, the Dutch invented bloody capitalism together with the Jews. First stock-exchange, first publicly traded company in the world. Hell, the EU has forgotten more about capitalism than the US ever knew.
> leads the same place: Communism.
I don't see how a capitalist system with huge tax breaks for corporations and still a Social policy equals Marxism. To give you an example, in Holland the Dutch Communist party *went bankrupt* at the end of the eighties, and the word communism hasn't been heard since then.
> America/Israel/The Jews/Christians vs. Islam, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, China, the UN.
I find this particularly interesting. Are there no Christians in the Middle East, Europe, Russia and the UN? Again, Christianity in its current form (including the trinity and the divinity of Jezus) was decided upon by papal edict somewhere around 380 AC.
Protestantism, Calvinism, Lutheran and all that were established during the 15th Century. The Middle East and Europe already had large Christian populations before Columbus ever thought he reached India. Hell, we've forgotten more about Christianity than the US will ever learn.
Israel, by the way, is also in the Middle East. It shares the same food, music and general culture of hospitality with the Arab nations in the vicinity. Then again, you wouldn't know that since you seem to be a bit of a redneck retard.
> WWIII was US against the USSR
Heh. Nobody outside of the USSR and the US actually cared much about this. There hasn't been a WWIII. It was all a scam to relieve you of your 19-year old sons and your tax money.
> WWV will be America vs. Communism
Way you folks are handling yourself, by the time WWV rolls around the smoldering ruins of what once was the US won't be participating in it, I assure you. The way things are going, China, India and the EU will get bigger and bigger financial clubs to swing, and the US will diminish.
China is even proving today that hard-line communism will also long vanish by that time. I don't know what you're smoking in your shack in Ohio, but neither the US nor Communism will be factors of importance in the future.
> because the US stood united
No they didn't. Ever seen Vietnam war demonstrations? Ever see Iraq war demonstrations? Ever saw the debate about abortion, euthanasia or further wars going on? There is no such thing as the United States standing United. The constitution calls for that. Which is one of the few saving graces of the US, for that matter.
Hell, if the Japs hadn't bombed pearl-harbor the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII. Then their role in WWI was minimal at best. Lastly, WWIII was a figment of your own (McCarthy, anyone?) feverish imagination. So just quit talking bollocks, OK?
Well, let me take the time to reply to what is being said in TFA.
> we used the default settings or an automatic mode if there was one.
This is by default *not* the way I approach photography. It might work for most people that take snaps, but to generate worthwhile photos it's just not the way to work. It offers no control over DoF to begin with, and you'll simply never get creative pictures that way.
Secondly, flash or LEDs were used in most pictures I saw. Personally I like to work with available light with a 1.8-2.8 aperture range to purely focus on the subject matter and preserve the same mood the naked eye would see. External lighting sources oftentimes do more to fubar pictures than actually make them worthwhile, specially if you're not a professional when it comes to flash/lighting. For those that don't understand what I mean, go to the Rijksmuseum and see how Rembrandt approached lighting, and then look at the deer-caught-in-headlights washed out photo's from your cousin Vinnie's wedding last fall.
> the colours are very vibrant, if not a little over saturated.
Well, here I would argue that this is normal for any consumer camera. Pick up anything by Sony, HP or Fuji in the con/pro-sumer range, and there will be algorithms that over-saturate the pictures slightly. Canon DSLR's can also be configured to do this, by the way. This is because a "vibrant" picture has the widest appeal for the type of people that wanna have pictures of their kids playing with the kitty, or want to have a picture of the beautifuw fwowew in the back yard.
However, again, if you see photography as a creative process rather than documentation, this is greatly undesirable. I tend to want to shoot pictures with a lot of darkness, negative space in the composition and perhaps under-saturate them a bit to evoke a particular mood. Typically this is not a possibility with camera phones. Alas.
Canon's entire range of cameras comes pre-configured to represent what the eye sees rather than the "more vibrant" or "poppy" pictures. This is why I find Canon's results more pleasing.
> In our opinion, the 400D took the best-lit and most focused shot overall.
With the kit-lens and Automatic settings used, as TFA stated. I don't think I need to get defensive. TFA is perfectly clear. Now there's one last thing. The CCD size. Having a 11 MegaPixel camera or, in the case of the Nokia, a 5 MegaPixel camera doesn't mean diddley. The absolute size of the CCD in the camera has a huge impact on the quality of the pictures. This is why my aging 300D 6 MP camera will take better pictures than a compact 8 MP camera does.
Squeezing 5 MP out of a pin-head sized CCD means the firmware is busy calculating what is not "seen" by the sensor in terms or resolution, meaning you get an approximation of what you thought you saw as a final result. The final JPG is of 5 MP resolution, but not each pixel lives up to the standards of higher-grade kit, for lack of a better phrase.
I would love to have a camera-phone that can offer me the functionality my DSLR has. I don't particularly like lugging my DSLR and four high-speed (heavy and clunky) lenses around, but right now, I simply don't have a choice.
> Our similarities are greater than our differences and we have common goals. We should work together.
This doesn't just go for the US and Europe, but also for Israel and the league of Arab nations for that matter. Shakespeare wrote the following quotation in the 1500's to make people identify with the Jewish plight:
"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions?
fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer,
as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?
and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
Now, in 2007 in Israel, I use the same quote to try and explain to the Israelis that the Arabs, Palestinians and Lebanese are human too. I think this world is too full of zealots that refuse to realize that most people bleed red, even racist mother@#$!#s.
> You're not talking about mainstream US Conservatives
No. The true conservatives strive to Conserve (no pun) the values put forth in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and as such a group that I respect. We don't always agree, but I respect 'm.
I'm talking about Neo-Conservatives, indeed the more extremist cronies. They are moving up the value chain though, having various advisory positions to the Pentagon and the White House.
They're the people whose main fans are the dip shits that walk around in Pro-War demonstrations with an American flag tattooed on their face and a banner saying "Iraq now, France's next!".
I fully realize they don't make up the whole spectrum of the American population, just like Jean-Marie Le Pen doesn't speak for all of France.
> That could be a huge disaster for humanity.
Indeed. Although there is nothing like a fresh war to spur innovation and economic growth.
> extremely unlikely that the EU would stand a chance in a war against the US
Firstly, there'd be allies cropping up from strange places. Secondly, you could be surprised how fast the EU could gear itself to war when presented with an external enemy. I think that the exploits of the British, the Norwegians and the Germans in WWII has proven what people in the EU are made of recently, but moreover if you read about the Anglo-Dutch wars, the Swedish wars and so on in History, I doubt the EU should be underestimated.
Hell... The US isn't even able to deal with Iraq properly. Meanwhile, every single male in countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg is trained to pick up a gun if a threat arises, while they've got PLENTY of cash to do so. The statement you make is rather short sighted. Definitely in the longer run. They might walk in there, but they will never get out.
> Europe is definitely not geared toward military conflict with the US.
Ach, history proves man-kind is infinitely flexible and fast to adapt.
Tee hee.
I'm Dutch. I can travel most parts of the globe, no visa required and no rules against it, and most countries are actually not unhappy to see me coming.
Hanging on to my passport, 's all I'm saying.
> kind of an inability to have perspective, to understand scale, to perceive context
> why guantanamo garners so much attention
Let me explain. Cuba and Castro don't go shooting their big fucking mouthes off about bringing freedom (tm) and democracy (r) everywhere. Cuba and Castro aren't illegally invading sovereign nations in the name of bringing said freedom (TM) and democracy (R) .
A nation that is always proudly pointing at its Bill of Rights and Constitution, a nation that is always banging on their chest for being the Last Bastion of the Free (TM), a nation that always claims to possess the Moral High Ground (C) should never ever do what is being done on Guantanamo.
I don't suppose the acts committed at Guantanamo are what irks people, it's the massive scale Hypocrisy and Zealotry behind it that kills people. The sheer gall of the US in the face of their own shortcomings.
I am an atheist, but let me take this time to quote some Valued Scripture from the State Religion in the US:
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
The point here is that, by the principles on which it is founded, the US should be striving to become the one without Sin rather than the one who is throwing the rocks in this world. That would be worthy.
I don't really find Stallman's lyrics on Guantanamo ill-informed, embarrassing rantings. Basically he's echoing stuff the entire world has been saying for years now. Then again, we're all ranting, raving commies, aren't we?
All things considered, I kind of liked his rendition of the song, though. Not bad at all, whatever the message. So on top of being a bit of a lunatic, Stallman just made me thing "that sounds neat" for quite a lot longer than 30 seconds.
I don't really understand what your beef is with recording artists, though. You seem to think they are all ill-informed, embarrassing rich dilettantes. Does this mean you got denied a recording contract some time in your past?
Are you calling Johnny Cash, Woodie Guthrie, Frank Zappa, Steely Dan, Bob Dylan, Cornelis Vreeswijk and many other meaningful political/social commentators in Music throughout the years ill-informed rich dilettantes? Have you seen interviews with Marilyn Manson recently? That bloke looks rather well-informed to me, even if he dresses somewhat weirdly.
> but the squandering occurred before the Iraq war
> Here in Sweden the two wars are seen as very different, and in many ways
> diametrical opposites
True, true. I was living in Sweden at the time. However, I am Dutch, and in the prelude to the Afghanistan war, the Dutch government issued a statement that basically said "Tread carefully here. Invading Afghanistan without due research into its justifications and without due research into the consequences, be they negative or positive, of such an invasion".
The US administration basically turned around and slapped the Dutch government on the fingers with a "Dragons be here, you're either for us or against us" type of statement.
Consequently, members of the Royal Marine Corps are still in Afghanistan, which is costing Dutch tax-payers an arm and a leg. I still have to see irrefutable proof that the invasion of Afghanistan was a must-do, justified, and bona fide affair.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different animals, but I wouldn't call either of them "justified" off the cuff. Besides, the Afghans have been known to hold their own at the peak of the power of the Soviets' Conventional army, so I don't even know if there'd be a point even if it were justified.
Recently I saw a rather scary documentary on Neo-Conservatives in the US where it was stated Germany and France are dubbed "strategic Enemies" of the US. I almost (almost) hope that at some point in time the US will invade the EU. It's about time certain induhviduals learned the true meaning of the words "strategic Enemies". Global war to prove a point? It's horrible, but if it happens I'll definitely pick up a rifle to enter the debate.
Although the gist of your point is alright, I do wish you'd rephrased that.
"The Western World" is arguably larger (and its nations oftentimes older) than just the US and the UK.
sheesh, I work for HP, the fourth spender. You may fart in my general direction, but my recommendation for you is to stay the hell off the Booz.
I couldn't agree more.
Funny, if 20.000 people drown in floods in Bangladesh, two liberals somewhere issue a two-line statement that "we maybe ought to help those folks a bit". If, on the other hand, some dipshit walks into a school in the Western world and shoots 31 people, I guess I'll be watching that and the discussions surrounding it for weeks on any news outlet I happen to stumble upon.
Way I see it, the 31 of this morning are just a natural part of the 12.000+ people that die due to fire-arm related violence in the US annually. Then again, it's not the guns that kill the people, er?
Frankly, I spent more time reading the useless article on annoying tech than reading about some school in Wichita that got another loony-attack. Because the latter I've heard so many times before, and the first is at least mildly amusing.
Hey, don't look at me. Godfather seemed a solid release, but it's too much Mario/Zelda crap for me, or PS2 2 Wii ports of outdated graphics for the Wii. I like the idea, but it you're into Ghost Recon and CoD3 kinda stuff, Wii is not there yet.
/. that has to take one too seriously.
this is hugely off-topic, of course. It is, however, another proof that no matter how blatantly sarcastic one is, there's always some anonymous idiot on
> say NO to anything from Sony
Erm, it's bad for my KarmaChameleon, but I want to verify for the record if are you saying that, in the Console business, MicroSoft are suddenly the *good* guys?
Erm... Globalization and its Discontents. Not Malcontents. That's a wee too negative, isn't it? Freudian slip, I guess.
> globalization to enrich the poor of the world
Hm.
I assume you haven't read Joseph Stiglitz' "Globalization and its malcontents". The problem with globalization is that you get institutions like the World Bank and the IMF that fuck up things for the nations they are "helping". I've read a large number of articles on globalization, and it's not all it's cracked up to be by the conservative money-brokers.
Globalization works best in an environment with free trade where developing nations are left in charge of the programs. A bottom-up approach if you will. As soon as the IMF and Co. step in and dictate the proceedings with their particular view of the world, you'll see that economies erode and the nations in question are thrown into steeper debts.
The United States, as Western Europe, are expert at furthering their own agenda and economic interest. "The Japan Times" might write something different here than "The Mogadishu Herald", given the fact that Japan cannot by any means be seen as a third-world country.
The statement "Global economy best in 30 years" begs the question: "For whom?"
Funny, this.
I've now worked for HP since 1996 (I was 20 still) and I agree to much of what you're writing about HP, except for the fact that I do blame Fiorina.
The crazy part is that I've never, ever held a calculator in my hand since I was 12. And at that time, at school, they peddled TI of course. As soon as I got my first real PC (not counting the SX-81 Sinclair, Acorn Electron and MSX I had before that), I've never gone back to anything that fits in the palm of my hand, including pens.