Somebody just missed the point that there is no point in Boycotting.
1) Does it really Boycot Sony? At some point in time, for instance, a fair amount of all the CRT tubes used in TV's of various brands were Panasonic (Philips in the background). Boycotting Panasonic, and getting a Grundig instead didn't amount to one heap of beans: The tube was Panasonic anyhow.
So, the few people that do hold "principles" higher than "a cool flat TV" probably will never know what market companies like Sony have their grubby fingers in. Somehow, somewhere, they will receive kickback on some patent they have, no matter what you buy and from whom.
2) Critical Mass. Let it be known that/. is not representative for the world population. 'Nuffsaid.
3) Someone Else will Step In and Screw You. Congratulations, in spite of the hurdles overcome in 1) and 2), you manage to drive the EvilDoers out of business. Does this mean that the next GreedyCorp Inc. will respect you? Of course it doesn't. My mother would say that she doesn't care if she got bitten by the dog or the wolf, if bitten she'll be anyhow.
Boycotts were a good idea back in the day when you discovered the village doctor was a pedophile and a quack. He'd get hungry and move out of town. In today's corporate environment, I very much doubt it's viable.
I'm quite sure Sony does earn a buck or two by producing great consumer electronics and sponsoring the odd classical concert recording for re-sale. I'm quite sure their entire business and all the people in it are far from ethically bankrupt and morally suspect.
Frankly, I must object to the obvious hate-boi tone of this forum. Fanbois are bad, but hate-bois are just as bad if not worse.
The Dutch had to deal with (in chronological order, but not exclusively): - The Romans - The Franks - The Spanish (not just the Inquisition) - The French - The Germans
Since then we've made it legal for 16 year old kids to drink, so that when a war comes around when they are 18, they are too legless to refuse to shoot.
Hm. Journalism is already no longer necessarily objective, truthful or even well-researched. At the end of the day it's about selling that paper using any means you have at your disposal, so half of New York can read the nice Ad for the PS3/Wii/XboX on page 2. Now we take a guy who spent 2 hours with a cam and a type-writer in front of a run-of-the-mill retail outlet. Who seems to be somewhat biased in the first place.
Some people take these articles at face-value. Some don't. I'm in the latter category. I don't suppose that Steve Jobs hired this homeless guy to run out and scalp a PS3. Business-men, you may find, is a loose definition of a group of people that might or might not actually be involved in serious business.
It strikes me as funny that people blame this or that party, say no ill was done, look at materialism as a trend in society, but noone questions the source of the "news" or its objectivity.
Let me begin by saying I don't really understand the logical link between "Jocks" and "Mensans". Firstly it's vernacular I've not seen since I had the displeasure of watching 21 jump street for the last time, but more importantly "Jocks" never entered the discussion. The question was if Obesity affects the IQ. A related question would be if IQ is worth measuring.
If you enter the discussion on the value of IQ measurements and the intelligence of organizations like MENSA who seemingly value this measurement above all by saying "Jocks are losers", you clearly have missed the point somewhat. It does not bode well for your verbal intelligence, if you will.
Then you go on to say that you're not a typical MENSA member, you don't fraternise with the other members and you don't read the magazine. Still you cough up the fee because it looks good on your resume. Having spent 11 years in corporations in three different countries, I feel I'm qualified to give you a friendly piece of advice: Nobody gives the proverbial rat's ass about your IQ or your MENSA membership. Frankly, putting something as irrelevant to life as a MENSA membership on a resume might not be a good idea. The typical HR representative could prove to be well aware of the immaturity and insecurity that represents.
Aside from staying in a club you feel no linkage with, you read "Jock Magazines" which you hate. Although I don't know what magazines these would be, I feel I must comment on the fact that you seem spend a lot of effort on things that don't mean anything to you. Typically not a sign of intelligence, I'm afraid.
You top it all off by saying that the rest of the populace seems to be divvied up between "Frat Guys", "Car-Junkies", "Drug-Junkies" and, most beautifully put, "Whatever". Nothing interests you, and their literature makes them losers in your eyes. This comment interests me. Let me ask you if you've read *any* of the following literature:
On Drug Junkies.... - "Christiane F: Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo". If you don't read German, pick up the English translation "Christiane F.: An Autobiography of a Child Prostitute and Heroin Addict" - "Naked Lunch" by William S. Burroughs. Not an easy one to read, but important nonetheless. - "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream" by Hunter S. Thompson. If you can't muster the concentration, at least see the movie. - "De moeder van David S." by Yvonne Keuls. Although if you don't read Dutch, you're in trouble on this one.
On Car-Junkies (well, motorcycles, but still... ) - "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig.
On Frat-guys (albeit utterly failed ones): - "Catcher in the rye" by Salinger. A cliche, but a goody. - "Ondskan" by Jan Guillou. If you don't read Swedish, go see the movie. In the US it's also dubbed "Evil", I believe.
If you didn't read any of this, if none of it interests you and if you think that all of these people are losers, please pin your MENSA membership card on your lapel, go buy two yards of rope and string yourself up somewhere.
The last point is that nobody here claimed "Smart people are Stupid". However, after looking at your post, I can wholeheartedly say that Stupid people are, indeed, not Smart. Regardless of their IQ.
> subject to investigation, inconvenience, and possible incarceration,
I don't know about you, but I trust the governments in Europe (Yes, even in Italy and Poland) to think twice before incarcerating me. In most civilised countries I know an inquiry into your person will not lead to incarceration unless you're actually found guilty of something.
Furthermore, I've never had a bad experience with a police officer. Not in Germany, not in Sweden, not in the UK, not in the Netherlands and not even in Israel. I've had contact with them over some things like speeding, reporting the theft of a mobile phone, driving license issues and such, but never have I been treated with disrespect. This might have something to do with my overall friendly and respectful demeanor when talking to these people, it might simply be they are professionals.
What I'm trying to say is this: As far as I'm concerned, they can inquire all they want. In reality you're still being paranoid. I believe that the likelihood of inquiry, inconvenience and incarceration over nothing is scarily close to naught. Even if it happens, I expect to be treated professionally.
We don't live in an episode of the A-team, gentlemen.
Gee whizz, you're being paranoid as well. This conspiracy-theory-thinking seems to go around a lot on/. It's unhealthy. Quit watching TV, quit thinking about this stuff. It'll improve the quality of your life. But let me take the time to go through your reply bit by bit:
> haven't you ever heard that you should never put anything online that you wouldn't want your mother to find out about. At your > trial
I have no secrets from my mother. Really, the worst things I've done in my life are in the realm of sex and relationships. Other than that, I am a decent guy. The "worst things" being that I tinkered with gay experiences a little bit and I cheated on one of my girlfriends. Being gay or having had gay experiences isn't even "bad" or "detrimental to my character" in societies such as Holland or Sweden, but I guess Americans are still more backward than that, still discussing the validity of Gay marriage and abortion and all that poppycock.
But I digress. Whatever I have done in my life, you can rest assured... My mother knows about it. To cut a long story short: Firstly there is no information I'm not willing to give up, and secondly I don't give a damn what anyone in the world says or writes about me. I know who I am. Do you?
> You also never know how the information might be used in court.
I'm European. We don't go to court. If there is a problem with the neighbour, we talk to them. If there is a traffic accident, the mutual insurance companies take care of repair and compensation according to the policies the parties have with said insurance companies. It's all very civilised, really. Besides, I very much doubt that a French, German or Dutch jury would give a rat's ass about the relationship I'm in when discussing my whiplash damage. It's called common sense and seems to be sorely lacking in your country if you're paranoid about these details.
> who searched for bombs, anthrax and big shoes with false heels. Like heck it is.
Right. Last time I checked, searching for information on Bombs, Anthrax (good rock band, btw) and Big Shoes with False Heels was still very much legal.
Even so, in the unlikely event of the governmant thinking this particular search was a threat to national security and sending a copper round to my house. He'll look for Bombs, Anthrax and Big Shoes with Fake Heels in my house in vain, after which I'll have a cup of coffee with him and talk to him about the ridiculous paranoia that seems to go round these days. Oy vey.
I don't know what your problem is, but you ought to quit trying to think. It's not working for you.
So the question becomes irrelevant. The storing of personal data (including search queries) isn't the issue. They can store what they like.
If the legislative system in a given country is so diseased that any information can be pulled by the government without due cause, the question shouldn't be if we should make Amazon quit storing personal data, the question should be if the privacy laws and the governmental mandate to access information at their leisure ought to be revised.
Still, as long as I'm clean I couldn't care less. And I'm not naive. If someone, somewhere, wants to pin something on me, I'm sure they will have the means to do so without a Google-history in hand. If available information doesn't suffice or can't be misused, I'm sure the right stuff can be faked for the purpose.
I downloaded the odd movie illegally, but was not pleased with the quality, so I quit. Before going to the movie theatre though, I look at what IMDB users say about movies, and loosely base the decision for seeing one movie or the other on the ratings and comments. Then I buy the odd DVD. The last ones I bought were Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles.
Furthermore I live in Israel and don't speak Hebrew, so I need IMDB to tell me what given movies are about in the first place. Lastly, since I live in Israel, I'm not too sure the MPAA, RIAA or whatever organisations are out there will affect me, even if I did. They have bigger fish to fry here than you silly Americans with your *AA and DRM troubles.
That is OK with me. I don't commit crimes. Misdemeanors in the realm of speeding, smoking where I shouldn't and taking a leak against a tree aside, I am pretty much squeaky clean. The government can definately look through my google search history.
For the past 48 hours they will learn where to find bronze ore in MapleStory, they will learn I bought a Denon 1906 DTS 7:1 Receiver at a decent price, and they will learn quite a bit about the Wharfedale 3-way speakers I am currently looking at. Lastly, they will also find out I have looked at some movie reviews on IMDB.
The absolute worse they can find out if they look at my complete history is that I have a healthy interest in sex-toys. What can I say? I bleed red and last time I checked, that was still legal....
> This may be true, but I would bet that online contact is a more frequent cause of harm to teens > than slip and fall in the shower.
I doubt this is true. As a kid, I used to get the willies beaten out of me by my classmates, while strangers never did a thing to harm me. I'm quite sure that if you look at behaviour in the physical world, you'll revise that statement.
In Holland, I saw people smoke dope and drink beer because of peer pressure in the classroom. In Sweden, I saw kids blend 50 kinds of strong liquor to get drunk. I saw boys shove girls around and call them whores in the schoolyard. The US seems to have its own particular set of problems, but I think that the notion that "many" kids get "harmed" on the internet is a media hype that is not based on any scientific statistical research.
Of course there is "the man who tried to coerce the 13-year old into sexual activity" and "the couple who kidnapped a 15 year old and abused her". But I more than suspect that these are pretty isolated incidents. Moreover, if your kids are in the demographical group where they are internet savvy, have a stable home, the money for their own computer etc etc, the chances are that they are safer, even while having naughty chats on internet, in the year 2006 than they would have been without a computer in, say, 1806 or worse, 94 BC.
Let's assume I'm not searching for too outlandish things. Let's pretend I do not look for 70's pr0n featuring dogs, or if I do, that my fiance is aware of it and condones it. Being fairly normal and open means I have nothing to hide. They can retain all the data on me they like. It's no skin off my back, if you will.
The only but in that statement is that I don't want them to retain search- or private data under two circumstances:
1) If the search data affects the answers given in future searches 2) If it results in spam or theft of any kind
Now, providing it's securely stored, doesn't affect answers to future queries and helps them enhance their services, I really don't mind.
These calories that you burn, you will consume anyway. Right now, at least you burn them after you finished stuffing your face with various processed parts of miscellaneous animals and sugar. This means that if you stop burning that energy, you will run a greater risk of overweight, heart / coronary diseases and possibly (I've seen it implied somewhere) cancer if you move that particular key closer.
If you create an escape key that is cordless and which is placed strategically 10 km outside of your office, chances are you'll eat the same amount of food, but burn sufficient amounts of energy getting back and forth to the Key to still be a lean, sexy tech worker with great stamina.
And who wouldn't want to be a sexy Tech Worker? Then there's the effects it will have on taxes. IF noone has any of the beforementioned diseases anymore, we don't need hospitals to the same degree we do now. Or research. We'll all quit paying taxes altogether and live to be 130.... hang on a minute... 130... maybe move that button closer anyway. We can't sustain that population.
For some reason, a lot of people hate the police. I've dealt with them in Germany, Sweden, Holland, the UK and Israel. In every single case I was polite and matter-of-factly, and they simply returned the favour 9 out of 10 times.
Cops are, like most of us, human. They have to balance a legal monopoly on violence with common sense in the face of criminal or irresponsible activities by citizens. Sometimes it goes awry, but in many cases they're just regular blokes trying to do the job that you didn't want.
Of course I, as a respectable tax payer, get miffed if they pull me over for something as "harmless" as speeding a little while "real crime" doesn't get the attention I want it to. But it doesn't reduce the illegality of my speeding one bit. Perhaps the kids in this case were indeed misbehaving, and perhaps the cops did have a reason to haul them off.
When I walk the street and I see minors/teenagers do stupid shit, I usually say something about it. And in many cases the replies I get are *very* far from respectful. Now I'm not saying all kids are bad and all cops are good, but I feel that/. tends to chose the perceived underdog's side a little too leisurely in 99% of the cases. Perhaps it would be better to shut up about these things if you weren't there and can't judge the situation.
One observation I can't help but make is that we've *not* come a long way if the general perception is that behaving in a polite, friendly and matter-of-factly way is self-demeaning or masochistic. To me it just seems that your parents' attempts at raising you to be a well balanced idividual simply failed.
I am from Europe. First I was born and raised in the Netherlands, which is a place easily classified as "Mostly Harmless" with all its flat, green bits that have cows on them. Then I lived in Sweden for six years. That place is even more harmless and more politically correct to boot. Now I live in Israel. A place many people don't exactly consider to be mostly harmless.
The common denominator between these three places is however that the governments, misguided as they may be, seem to have their peoples' best interest in mind. I'm not saying that Your Government is likely to be a bunch of altruistic goody-two-shoes, but I'm saying generally Governments want to do some kind of right by their constituency.
The Machiavellian bastard in me would argue that most normal politicians will ultimately do good out of sheer self-interest if nothing else. If you are the President of the a country, and you're making tons of money off of side-activities of that country (Now That's My Bush), you tend to not want to destroy your cash-cow by destroying the country or its inhabitants. Admittedly, you might damage some of the lesser beings a wee to make your omelette, but the goal will remain a tasty, juicy omelette for you and your Uncle Dad.
Now I just spent six years in Sweden, and on occasion I visited a schools and ate with kids. I don't know what it's like in Finland, but the socialistic system has its share of problems too. The average budget for a school meal in Sweden is about 6-9 crowns I believe. In US dollars I would guess a buck to a buck fifty. This is no money whatsoever. By comparison the average budget for a prisoners' meal is 25 crowns (do the math).
This causes the food at schools to be OK at best. I say OK because usually it includes some carbs, some veggies, and some (albeit often processed) meat or fish. Nothing fancy, but not *overly healthy* either. It's not like they're serving sushi or grilled chicken breast with a nice large salad, a vinaigrette and a cascade of fresh fruits every day if you catch my drift.
Then in Sweden some municipalities' inhabitants are richer, more conscious about these things and more educated, so they wouldn't mind supplementing the budget to give kids better food. This in turn causes the wrath of the Socialists because socialism sometimes dictates that "if the worker can't be healthy, neither can you, you rich scumbag!". So that option is out the door too, and you are stuck with mediocre free school lunches. See the issue?
In the UK these free, processed school meals are causing more damage than doing good. The naked chef, a British TV-cook, went on a crusade in England and Scotland to make food healthier. I was shocked to see a whole bunch of 9 year olds that didn't know the difference between a leek and a carrot. Not to mention the fact that their mothers didn't think you could *eat* basil because it was, like, you know, *green*, dude!
Being thin/healthy will become a matter of money in most Western countries. Those demographic groups that have access to money and education will engage their kids in sports and feed them food made of real fresh ingredients, while coal-miners' daughters will be eating mashed potatoes, gravy and deep-fried chicken(ahem!) fingers for the rest of their short, fat, natural lives while working in a chip-shop or flipping burgers.
One thing I would propose to counter some of this effect is somewhat socialistic in nature. Drop all VAT on healthy foods such as veggies, fruits, fresh (not salted and roasted) nuts and fish, and raise taxes on junk sky-high. Many lower middle class to poorer families will think twice if a Big Mac will cost them 20 bucks a pop while a salad goes for fifty cents, no matter how hard the kids scream.
The reason this will not happen is that Coca-Cola Co and their grubby friends probably own congress in more countries than we care to admit. "Business interests" are more important than people's health, and such is the way of the world.
Indeed, my phrasing was a bit off. Of course Belarusse and Turkey are in Europe, and not Western Europe. I mentioned Western Europe to demonstrate that even if you leave off the East (including indeed the whole Balkan region), we still have more than one country that is not in the union. Although I must say Norway is definately Western Europe. Not only geographically (it's due north from Holland, might stretch east in the north, but still... give me a break) but most certainly culturally and socio-economically.
But as you so rightly surmised, my reply was far from scientific or complete. I just touched upon a number of things that actually happened. There were catastrophic losses from investments which caused the pension situation in Norway only to be kept afloat by the grace of oil money, the financial history of Switzerland isn't exactly laudable, and both countries' respective fixes on several issues is far from 100% correct.
To cut a long story short, I am a citizen of the Netherlands. I lived in Sweden for six years, and now reside in Israel. In my life I have noticed that a lot of people are taking pot-shots at the EU, member states or other entities without thinking for a second about the flaws and troubles of their own nations. My statement, albeit sarcastic and harsh in tone, was aimed at maybe making someone out there realise that outright de-humanisation or demonising of entities or people is seldom productive. I see that on a daily basis here in Israel, as a matter of fact.
To end this on a biblical note: Before commenting the splinter in your neighbour's eye, you should think about the beam in your own.
I must say I much enjoyed reading the specifics behind your reply. If you're Norwegian: Jag är inte avundsjuk på Pizza-, bil- och bostadspriserna i Norge, men gratulerar med en fortfarande substantiell pension. 1905 måste sticka lite i Svenska ögon med tanke på alla härliga resurser de går miste om. Däremot sticker perioden före 1905 samt 1940-1945 mycket mer i Norska ögon.:-D
Er, there are TWO countries in Western Europe that don't belong to the EU, if I disregard Turkey and Belarusse for a second.
1) You're from Norway. You pay over 25 Euros for a Pizza that costs 5 Euros in Sweden because Norway became, like, really rich off oil-money, and then completely squandered that money on bad investments, leaving you with the highest taxes in the world and a pension fund that dwindles in comparison to what you should have had from the beginning. A car that costs 25.000 Euros in Sweden costs you more than 3 times that amount, and 95% of that money goes into the losses of said bad investments. You have nice fjords, but tend to commit mass suicide because it's cold and dark all year, and a pint of beer costs more than a car.
2) You're from Switzerland. Your parents didn't do anything as the Nazi's were slaughtering Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals during the holocaust. Moreover, you gave the same Nazi's bank accounts in which they dumped property and money from said Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. When the Nazi's lost the war, you basically kept the money to yourself. With that money you built a nice country which is clean, has nice buildings and good roads, and where all the clocks run very accurately. You pay 20 Euros for a meal at McDonalds in spite of the fact that social welfare is something you have to save up/pay for in advance. Also, in spite of a hard attitude towards drugs, you have more junkies in Zürich's central station than in all of the BeNeLux.
Now tell me, does that sound as though you have a right to complain about the EU? It doesn't sound to me as though you should open your mouth for one second even.
By the sound of it, you are French- or Italian-speaking Swiss, because no Norwegian would ever speak English that badly. This means three things:
1) You know all about vague bank accounts in which money from dubious parties disappears. You know far more about it than any country or government in the EU.
2) We don't want your lot in the EU in the first place, thank you very much.
3) I currently live in Israel. I want my wife's granddad Avi's golden teeth back, with 60 years of interest, thank you.
- English tends to drown in colloquialisms and the sheer vastness of its own idiom - Dutch is riddled with millions more exceptions than situations where the rule applies - Swedish is simplistic and dummi-fied artificially, an inflected language without a decent mode of expression - Norwegian is like Swedish, but just really funny-sounding - Danish is Norwegian, but sounds like a throat-disease - Flemish is like Dutch, but just really funny-sounding - Zuid-Afrikaans is like Flemish, but worse - Latin and Ancient greek are dead
German has exact words for most situations/feelings/circumstances and a rigid grammatical structure to place those in context/relation to each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy Crap, Batman!
/. is not representative for the world population. 'Nuffsaid.
Somebody just missed the point that there is no point in Boycotting.
1) Does it really Boycot Sony?
At some point in time, for instance, a fair amount of all the CRT tubes used in TV's of various brands were Panasonic (Philips in the background). Boycotting Panasonic, and getting a Grundig instead didn't amount to one heap of beans: The tube was Panasonic anyhow.
So, the few people that do hold "principles" higher than "a cool flat TV" probably will never know what market companies like Sony have their grubby fingers in. Somehow, somewhere, they will receive kickback on some patent they have, no matter what you buy and from whom.
2) Critical Mass.
Let it be known that
3) Someone Else will Step In and Screw You.
Congratulations, in spite of the hurdles overcome in 1) and 2), you manage to drive the EvilDoers out of business. Does this mean that the next GreedyCorp Inc. will respect you? Of course it doesn't. My mother would say that she doesn't care if she got bitten by the dog or the wolf, if bitten she'll be anyhow.
Boycotts were a good idea back in the day when you discovered the village doctor was a pedophile and a quack. He'd get hungry and move out of town. In today's corporate environment, I very much doubt it's viable.
I'm quite sure Sony does earn a buck or two by producing great consumer electronics and sponsoring the odd classical concert recording for re-sale. I'm quite sure their entire business and all the people in it are far from ethically bankrupt and morally suspect.
Frankly, I must object to the obvious hate-boi tone of this forum. Fanbois are bad, but hate-bois are just as bad if not worse.
This would then turn into a good case study for your Top Ten Reasons To Upgrade To Vista?
No we didn't!
Did they lift the taboo surrounding tits yet?
The Dutch had to deal with (in chronological order, but not exclusively):
- The Romans
- The Franks
- The Spanish (not just the Inquisition)
- The French
- The Germans
Since then we've made it legal for 16 year old kids to drink, so that when a war comes around when they are 18, they are too legless to refuse to shoot.
"Businessmen"....
Hm. Journalism is already no longer necessarily objective, truthful or even well-researched. At the end of the day it's about selling that paper using any means you have at your disposal, so half of New York can read the nice Ad for the PS3/Wii/XboX on page 2. Now we take a guy who spent 2 hours with a cam and a type-writer in front of a run-of-the-mill retail outlet. Who seems to be somewhat biased in the first place.
Some people take these articles at face-value. Some don't. I'm in the latter category. I don't suppose that Steve Jobs hired this homeless guy to run out and scalp a PS3. Business-men, you may find, is a loose definition of a group of people that might or might not actually be involved in serious business.
It strikes me as funny that people blame this or that party, say no ill was done, look at materialism as a trend in society, but noone questions the source of the "news" or its objectivity.
I don't think the Tories are in the position to judge who's clever and who's not.
Let me begin by saying I don't really understand the logical link between "Jocks" and "Mensans". Firstly it's vernacular I've not seen since I had the displeasure of watching 21 jump street for the last time, but more importantly "Jocks" never entered the discussion. The question was if Obesity affects the IQ. A related question would be if IQ is worth measuring.
If you enter the discussion on the value of IQ measurements and the intelligence of organizations like MENSA who seemingly value this measurement above all by saying "Jocks are losers", you clearly have missed the point somewhat. It does not bode well for your verbal intelligence, if you will.
Then you go on to say that you're not a typical MENSA member, you don't fraternise with the other members and you don't read the magazine. Still you cough up the fee because it looks good on your resume. Having spent 11 years in corporations in three different countries, I feel I'm qualified to give you a friendly piece of advice: Nobody gives the proverbial rat's ass about your IQ or your MENSA membership. Frankly, putting something as irrelevant to life as a MENSA membership on a resume might not be a good idea. The typical HR representative could prove to be well aware of the immaturity and insecurity that represents.
Aside from staying in a club you feel no linkage with, you read "Jock Magazines" which you hate. Although I don't know what magazines these would be, I feel I must comment on the fact that you seem spend a lot of effort on things that don't mean anything to you. Typically not a sign of intelligence, I'm afraid.
You top it all off by saying that the rest of the populace seems to be divvied up between "Frat Guys", "Car-Junkies", "Drug-Junkies" and, most beautifully put, "Whatever". Nothing interests you, and their literature makes them losers in your eyes. This comment interests me. Let me ask you if you've read *any* of the following literature:
On Drug Junkies....
- "Christiane F: Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo". If you don't read German, pick up the English translation "Christiane F.: An Autobiography of a Child Prostitute and Heroin Addict"
- "Naked Lunch" by William S. Burroughs. Not an easy one to read, but important nonetheless.
- "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream" by Hunter S. Thompson. If you can't muster the concentration, at least see the movie.
- "De moeder van David S." by Yvonne Keuls. Although if you don't read Dutch, you're in trouble on this one.
On Car-Junkies (well, motorcycles, but still... )
- "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig.
On Frat-guys (albeit utterly failed ones):
- "Catcher in the rye" by Salinger. A cliche, but a goody.
- "Ondskan" by Jan Guillou. If you don't read Swedish, go see the movie. In the US it's also dubbed "Evil", I believe.
If you didn't read any of this, if none of it interests you and if you think that all of these people are losers, please pin your MENSA membership card on your lapel, go buy two yards of rope and string yourself up somewhere.
The last point is that nobody here claimed "Smart people are Stupid". However, after looking at your post, I can wholeheartedly say that Stupid people are, indeed, not Smart. Regardless of their IQ.
Not to worry. You were definately funny. :-D
I just replied in this dry fashion to demonstrate how easy it is to debase foregone conclusions.
Just like you debased my conclusion you must be a silly American for mentioning the *AA as something relevant to Life, the Universe and Everything.
> subject to investigation, inconvenience, and possible incarceration,
I don't know about you, but I trust the governments in Europe (Yes, even in Italy and Poland) to think twice before incarcerating me. In most civilised countries I know an inquiry into your person will not lead to incarceration unless you're actually found guilty of something.
Furthermore, I've never had a bad experience with a police officer. Not in Germany, not in Sweden, not in the UK, not in the Netherlands and not even in Israel. I've had contact with them over some things like speeding, reporting the theft of a mobile phone, driving license issues and such, but never have I been treated with disrespect. This might have something to do with my overall friendly and respectful demeanor when talking to these people, it might simply be they are professionals.
What I'm trying to say is this: As far as I'm concerned, they can inquire all they want. In reality you're still being paranoid. I believe that the likelihood of inquiry, inconvenience and incarceration over nothing is scarily close to naught. Even if it happens, I expect to be treated professionally.
We don't live in an episode of the A-team, gentlemen.
Gee whizz, you're being paranoid as well. This conspiracy-theory-thinking seems to go around a lot on /. It's unhealthy. Quit watching TV, quit thinking about this stuff. It'll improve the quality of your life. But let me take the time to go through your reply bit by bit:
> haven't you ever heard that you should never put anything online that you wouldn't want your mother to find out about. At your
> trial
I have no secrets from my mother. Really, the worst things I've done in my life are in the realm of sex and relationships. Other than that, I am a decent guy. The "worst things" being that I tinkered with gay experiences a little bit and I cheated on one of my girlfriends. Being gay or having had gay experiences isn't even "bad" or "detrimental to my character" in societies such as Holland or Sweden, but I guess Americans are still more backward than that, still discussing the validity of Gay marriage and abortion and all that poppycock.
But I digress. Whatever I have done in my life, you can rest assured... My mother knows about it. To cut a long story short: Firstly there is no information I'm not willing to give up, and secondly I don't give a damn what anyone in the world says or writes about me. I know who I am. Do you?
> You also never know how the information might be used in court.
I'm European. We don't go to court. If there is a problem with the neighbour, we talk to them. If there is a traffic accident, the mutual insurance companies take care of repair and compensation according to the policies the parties have with said insurance companies. It's all very civilised, really. Besides, I very much doubt that a French, German or Dutch jury would give a rat's ass about the relationship I'm in when discussing my whiplash damage. It's called common sense and seems to be sorely lacking in your country if you're paranoid about these details.
> who searched for bombs, anthrax and big shoes with false heels. Like heck it is.
Right. Last time I checked, searching for information on Bombs, Anthrax (good rock band, btw) and Big Shoes with False Heels was still very much legal.
Even so, in the unlikely event of the governmant thinking this particular search was a threat to national security and sending a copper round to my house. He'll look for Bombs, Anthrax and Big Shoes with Fake Heels in my house in vain, after which I'll have a cup of coffee with him and talk to him about the ridiculous paranoia that seems to go round these days. Oy vey.
I don't know what your problem is, but you ought to quit trying to think. It's not working for you.
So the question becomes irrelevant. The storing of personal data (including search queries) isn't the issue. They can store what they like.
If the legislative system in a given country is so diseased that any information can be pulled by the government without due cause, the question shouldn't be if we should make Amazon quit storing personal data, the question should be if the privacy laws and the governmental mandate to access information at their leisure ought to be revised.
Still, as long as I'm clean I couldn't care less. And I'm not naive. If someone, somewhere, wants to pin something on me, I'm sure they will have the means to do so without a Google-history in hand. If available information doesn't suffice or can't be misused, I'm sure the right stuff can be faked for the purpose.
Actually, no.
I downloaded the odd movie illegally, but was not pleased with the quality, so I quit. Before going to the movie theatre though, I look at what IMDB users say about movies, and loosely base the decision for seeing one movie or the other on the ratings and comments. Then I buy the odd DVD. The last ones I bought were Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles.
Furthermore I live in Israel and don't speak Hebrew, so I need IMDB to tell me what given movies are about in the first place. Lastly, since I live in Israel, I'm not too sure the MPAA, RIAA or whatever organisations are out there will affect me, even if I did. They have bigger fish to fry here than you silly Americans with your *AA and DRM troubles.
Yes,
That is OK with me. I don't commit crimes. Misdemeanors in the realm of speeding, smoking where I shouldn't and taking a leak against a tree aside, I am pretty much squeaky clean. The government can definately look through my google search history.
For the past 48 hours they will learn where to find bronze ore in MapleStory, they will learn I bought a Denon 1906 DTS 7:1 Receiver at a decent price, and they will learn quite a bit about the Wharfedale 3-way speakers I am currently looking at. Lastly, they will also find out I have looked at some movie reviews on IMDB.
The absolute worse they can find out if they look at my complete history is that I have a healthy interest in sex-toys. What can I say? I bleed red and last time I checked, that was still legal....
> This may be true, but I would bet that online contact is a more frequent cause of harm to teens
> than slip and fall in the shower.
I doubt this is true. As a kid, I used to get the willies beaten out of me by my classmates, while strangers never did a thing to harm me. I'm quite sure that if you look at behaviour in the physical world, you'll revise that statement.
In Holland, I saw people smoke dope and drink beer because of peer pressure in the classroom. In Sweden, I saw kids blend 50 kinds of strong liquor to get drunk. I saw boys shove girls around and call them whores in the schoolyard. The US seems to have its own particular set of problems, but I think that the notion that "many" kids get "harmed" on the internet is a media hype that is not based on any scientific statistical research.
Of course there is "the man who tried to coerce the 13-year old into sexual activity" and "the couple who kidnapped a 15 year old and abused her". But I more than suspect that these are pretty isolated incidents. Moreover, if your kids are in the demographical group where they are internet savvy, have a stable home, the money for their own computer etc etc, the chances are that they are safer, even while having naughty chats on internet, in the year 2006 than they would have been without a computer in, say, 1806 or worse, 94 BC.
Let's assume I'm not searching for too outlandish things. Let's pretend I do not look for 70's pr0n featuring dogs, or if I do, that my fiance is aware of it and condones it. Being fairly normal and open means I have nothing to hide. They can retain all the data on me they like. It's no skin off my back, if you will.
The only but in that statement is that I don't want them to retain search- or private data under two circumstances:
1) If the search data affects the answers given in future searches
2) If it results in spam or theft of any kind
Now, providing it's securely stored, doesn't affect answers to future queries and helps them enhance their services, I really don't mind.
These calories that you burn, you will consume anyway. Right now, at least you burn them after you finished stuffing your face with various processed parts of miscellaneous animals and sugar. This means that if you stop burning that energy, you will run a greater risk of overweight, heart / coronary diseases and possibly (I've seen it implied somewhere) cancer if you move that particular key closer.
If you create an escape key that is cordless and which is placed strategically 10 km outside of your office, chances are you'll eat the same amount of food, but burn sufficient amounts of energy getting back and forth to the Key to still be a lean, sexy tech worker with great stamina.
And who wouldn't want to be a sexy Tech Worker? Then there's the effects it will have on taxes. IF noone has any of the beforementioned diseases anymore, we don't need hospitals to the same degree we do now. Or research. We'll all quit paying taxes altogether and live to be 130.... hang on a minute... 130... maybe move that button closer anyway. We can't sustain that population.
For some reason, a lot of people hate the police. I've dealt with them in Germany, Sweden, Holland, the UK and Israel. In every single case I was polite and matter-of-factly, and they simply returned the favour 9 out of 10 times.
/. tends to chose the perceived underdog's side a little too leisurely in 99% of the cases. Perhaps it would be better to shut up about these things if you weren't there and can't judge the situation.
Cops are, like most of us, human. They have to balance a legal monopoly on violence with common sense in the face of criminal or irresponsible activities by citizens. Sometimes it goes awry, but in many cases they're just regular blokes trying to do the job that you didn't want.
Of course I, as a respectable tax payer, get miffed if they pull me over for something as "harmless" as speeding a little while "real crime" doesn't get the attention I want it to. But it doesn't reduce the illegality of my speeding one bit. Perhaps the kids in this case were indeed misbehaving, and perhaps the cops did have a reason to haul them off.
When I walk the street and I see minors/teenagers do stupid shit, I usually say something about it. And in many cases the replies I get are *very* far from respectful. Now I'm not saying all kids are bad and all cops are good, but I feel that
One observation I can't help but make is that we've *not* come a long way if the general perception is that behaving in a polite, friendly and matter-of-factly way is self-demeaning or masochistic. To me it just seems that your parents' attempts at raising you to be a well balanced idividual simply failed.
I am from Europe. First I was born and raised in the Netherlands, which is a place easily classified as "Mostly Harmless" with all its flat, green bits that have cows on them. Then I lived in Sweden for six years. That place is even more harmless and more politically correct to boot. Now I live in Israel. A place many people don't exactly consider to be mostly harmless.
The common denominator between these three places is however that the governments, misguided as they may be, seem to have their peoples' best interest in mind. I'm not saying that Your Government is likely to be a bunch of altruistic goody-two-shoes, but I'm saying generally Governments want to do some kind of right by their constituency.
The Machiavellian bastard in me would argue that most normal politicians will ultimately do good out of sheer self-interest if nothing else. If you are the President of the a country, and you're making tons of money off of side-activities of that country (Now That's My Bush), you tend to not want to destroy your cash-cow by destroying the country or its inhabitants. Admittedly, you might damage some of the lesser beings a wee to make your omelette, but the goal will remain a tasty, juicy omelette for you and your Uncle Dad.
Now I just spent six years in Sweden, and on occasion I visited a schools and ate with kids. I don't know what it's like in Finland, but the socialistic system has its share of problems too. The average budget for a school meal in Sweden is about 6-9 crowns I believe. In US dollars I would guess a buck to a buck fifty. This is no money whatsoever. By comparison the average budget for a prisoners' meal is 25 crowns (do the math).
This causes the food at schools to be OK at best. I say OK because usually it includes some carbs, some veggies, and some (albeit often processed) meat or fish. Nothing fancy, but not *overly healthy* either. It's not like they're serving sushi or grilled chicken breast with a nice large salad, a vinaigrette and a cascade of fresh fruits every day if you catch my drift.
Then in Sweden some municipalities' inhabitants are richer, more conscious about these things and more educated, so they wouldn't mind supplementing the budget to give kids better food. This in turn causes the wrath of the Socialists because socialism sometimes dictates that "if the worker can't be healthy, neither can you, you rich scumbag!". So that option is out the door too, and you are stuck with mediocre free school lunches. See the issue?
In the UK these free, processed school meals are causing more damage than doing good. The naked chef, a British TV-cook, went on a crusade in England and Scotland to make food healthier. I was shocked to see a whole bunch of 9 year olds that didn't know the difference between a leek and a carrot. Not to mention the fact that their mothers didn't think you could *eat* basil because it was, like, you know, *green*, dude!
Being thin/healthy will become a matter of money in most Western countries. Those demographic groups that have access to money and education will engage their kids in sports and feed them food made of real fresh ingredients, while coal-miners' daughters will be eating mashed potatoes, gravy and deep-fried chicken(ahem!) fingers for the rest of their short, fat, natural lives while working in a chip-shop or flipping burgers.
One thing I would propose to counter some of this effect is somewhat socialistic in nature. Drop all VAT on healthy foods such as veggies, fruits, fresh (not salted and roasted) nuts and fish, and raise taxes on junk sky-high. Many lower middle class to poorer families will think twice if a Big Mac will cost them 20 bucks a pop while a salad goes for fifty cents, no matter how hard the kids scream.
The reason this will not happen is that Coca-Cola Co and their grubby friends probably own congress in more countries than we care to admit. "Business interests" are more important than people's health, and such is the way of the world.
I'm sure I'd remain healthier on whale meat and green tea than on Big Macs and Dr Pepper though.
While whale meat might be morally questionable, it sure beats McD or processed food.
Indeed, my phrasing was a bit off. Of course Belarusse and Turkey are in Europe, and not Western Europe. I mentioned Western Europe to demonstrate that even if you leave off the East (including indeed the whole Balkan region), we still have more than one country that is not in the union. Although I must say Norway is definately Western Europe. Not only geographically (it's due north from Holland, might stretch east in the north, but still... give me a break) but most certainly culturally and socio-economically.
:-D
But as you so rightly surmised, my reply was far from scientific or complete. I just touched upon a number of things that actually happened. There were catastrophic losses from investments which caused the pension situation in Norway only to be kept afloat by the grace of oil money, the financial history of Switzerland isn't exactly laudable, and both countries' respective fixes on several issues is far from 100% correct.
To cut a long story short, I am a citizen of the Netherlands. I lived in Sweden for six years, and now reside in Israel. In my life I have noticed that a lot of people are taking pot-shots at the EU, member states or other entities without thinking for a second about the flaws and troubles of their own nations. My statement, albeit sarcastic and harsh in tone, was aimed at maybe making someone out there realise that outright de-humanisation or demonising of entities or people is seldom productive. I see that on a daily basis here in Israel, as a matter of fact.
To end this on a biblical note: Before commenting the splinter in your neighbour's eye, you should think about the beam in your own.
I must say I much enjoyed reading the specifics behind your reply. If you're Norwegian: Jag är inte avundsjuk på Pizza-, bil- och bostadspriserna i Norge, men gratulerar med en fortfarande substantiell pension. 1905 måste sticka lite i Svenska ögon med tanke på alla härliga resurser de går miste om. Däremot sticker perioden före 1905 samt 1940-1945 mycket mer i Norska ögon.
Er, there are TWO countries in Western Europe that don't belong to the EU, if I disregard Turkey and Belarusse for a second.
1) You're from Norway.
You pay over 25 Euros for a Pizza that costs 5 Euros in Sweden because Norway became, like, really rich off oil-money, and then completely squandered that money on bad investments, leaving you with the highest taxes in the world and a pension fund that dwindles in comparison to what you should have had from the beginning. A car that costs 25.000 Euros in Sweden costs you more than 3 times that amount, and 95% of that money goes into the losses of said bad investments. You have nice fjords, but tend to commit mass suicide because it's cold and dark all year, and a pint of beer costs more than a car.
2) You're from Switzerland.
Your parents didn't do anything as the Nazi's were slaughtering Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals during the holocaust. Moreover, you gave the same Nazi's bank accounts in which they dumped property and money from said Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. When the Nazi's lost the war, you basically kept the money to yourself. With that money you built a nice country which is clean, has nice buildings and good roads, and where all the clocks run very accurately. You pay 20 Euros for a meal at McDonalds in spite of the fact that social welfare is something you have to save up/pay for in advance. Also, in spite of a hard attitude towards drugs, you have more junkies in Zürich's central station than in all of the BeNeLux.
Now tell me, does that sound as though you have a right to complain about the EU? It doesn't sound to me as though you should open your mouth for one second even.
By the sound of it, you are French- or Italian-speaking Swiss, because no Norwegian would ever speak English that badly. This means three things:
1) You know all about vague bank accounts in which money from dubious parties disappears. You know far more about it than any country or government in the EU.
2) We don't want your lot in the EU in the first place, thank you very much.
3) I currently live in Israel. I want my wife's granddad Avi's golden teeth back, with 60 years of interest, thank you.
German is by far the best language I learnt.
- English tends to drown in colloquialisms and the sheer vastness of its own idiom
- Dutch is riddled with millions more exceptions than situations where the rule applies
- Swedish is simplistic and dummi-fied artificially, an inflected language without a decent mode of expression
- Norwegian is like Swedish, but just really funny-sounding
- Danish is Norwegian, but sounds like a throat-disease
- Flemish is like Dutch, but just really funny-sounding
- Zuid-Afrikaans is like Flemish, but worse
- Latin and Ancient greek are dead
German has exact words for most situations/feelings/circumstances and a rigid grammatical structure to place those in context/relation to each other.