I highly doubt it.
An Olympic boycott was imposed against South Africa by the IOC itself in 1964 because of apartheid; it worked. In 1980, the US and 60 other countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; within three years the USSR was crumbling.
Those who argue against boycotts say that "being there" matters more: I disagree, it just gives comfort to tyrants.
In 1987, President Reagan bluntly told the South Korean junta that, unless it brought in democracy, the US would boycott the 1988 Seoul Olympics: democracy was introduced. Source: Edward McMillan-Scott, the Yorkshire Post, UK, 18 January 2008.
Controlling the people has been traditionally (as far as I recall, anyway) seen as evidence of controlling the land, and thus of being a legitimate government. Fixed that for you.
Never mind the EEE, how about the laptops that have some actual quality in them? It's one thing to shortchange the laptop and use lower quality/knockoff components all around(and get support out of desperation); it's another thing with laptops that are actually worth their expense in proven design and quality components(and get support).
As for the China Problem, once there is someone brave enough to say "no" to them(and to those who step in their place) and enforce patent controls to where we can control quality with our borders.
It does not change the fact that it is still a force (and one that uses "tyranny of the majority" at that) that has a "null" attack surface (no real place to attack unless you don't mind taking on the majority). That's where the humanity of it stops, and the imperfections have become justifications for normally inhumane actions(just because the "minority" is perceived as "silver spoon elitist", "Marxist", "undeserving", and/or "thuggish" if they present an objection).
I doubt that's covered in any of that (over quoted) person's works in that respect.
Aside from the usual "don't believe a politician", you might as well just ask this guy. They seem to care very little about national sovereignty, and would gladly hand the whole nation over to hostile countries such as China and India.
No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
Given that, I understand why they'd want coal, just like I'm sure people in Detroit want the auto industry back, and the midwest wants ethanol. Perhaps if there wasn't that blow delivered to them in the 70's-80's (from environmentalists and people with a hate for Detroit/"Big Labor" that exceeds the hate for Bush), that mistake wouldn't have been realized.
You underestimate the amount of people who will buy Detroit/UAW(and not at exhorbitant prices) despite the push to kill it. They are not of the type that will just settle for an import just because some non-voting person wants us to go in a direction contrary to the citizens' wishes.
I was just in my home state of Pennsylvania yesterday and saw a bumper sticker asking "Why not coal?" (Coal Miner's Union) The major industry around my area used to be anthracite mining, and when that collapsed, the town kinda went to shit, although it's coming back slowly. Maybe there are some that are just turned off by environmentalists, completely.
Re-educate, find something else to do, and go do it. Fine, then get rid of all of the "Right to Work" related laws, and then encourage the extraction of Oil Shale out of the West.
This resistance to change is what keeps communities poor in the global economy, and creates lobbies to bring back technologies and industries that are probably better off dead or significantly re-structured. No, that's what unionbusting has done.
I'd have to agree on the tone of the document for it is well deserved.
The only concept that comes out of this is it being a new form of Revenue Enhancement. While it may be pushed as some form of environmental "benefit", it is just the same kind of force, just with an "unassailable target".
Instead of a cop hiding behind a speed trap, it's now a congestion charge that hides lawmakers and environmentalists behind an "unassailable target". The difference is that I can avoid a known speed trap, a congestion zone is (by design) unavoidable by all practicality.
If you're a proponent of this kind of stuff, just drive through a state such as Ohio. City-set speed limits for small towns, speed traps the size of large suburbs, and unsafe speed changes (45-25 in unbelievably short distances). That is what your congestion pricing will end up being (on a larger scale) - revenue enhancement. The difference is that if they can't get enough revenue to do transit, they'll end up expanding the zone (even if that still does no good, and they won't remove the increase).
This is only a (regressive) money grab with the feel-good environmentalism touch to it. If only IBM would have used this to deep-six the entire concept, they'd have done a ton of good.
No thanks, but keep the business out of my government.
# Endure lines (traffic jams). This sucks for the environment and our dependence on oil, makes the roads less useful for everyone, and costs society a bundle in lost productivity. # Create more supply. Build more roads. We've been trying that for a long, long time. I don't think the Jersey Turnpike can get much bigger. Stop listening to the environmentalists when building those roads.
# Curtail demand. Many ways to do this, including building more public transit and taxing fuel. # Raise prices. This affects the poor more than the rich - big surprise there! So does everything else, why are roads special?
Both the poor and the rich use them, but rich environmentalists come in and suggest an intervention that only shifts the problem away towards Somewhere Else. Invariably, this leads to mission creep where it is then used for a new form of Revenue Enhancement. See London for an example.
In short, avoid 4 like the plague. Of course, you may take flak from environmentalists, but it's not like they can't be ignored.
Make telecommuting and mass transit dirt cheap and very simple
On the other hand, there will be unintended consequences, like a revolt at the polls by people who insist on the right to drive cheaply. Maybe because they're in the right and that this is undue intervention? If someone wants to drive their Crown Victoria or such(even alone) without any artificial (environmentalist derived) intervention, so be it.
When money is being used for a variable proxy for time on the road, no good can come of it. It just encourages mission creep.
When you have a limited resource, you have to discriminate. Either you'll have the people you can pay or the people who don't mind waiting in line It has yet to happen that way. The only thing is that it does is turn the road into a transfer payment for the rich. No thank you, I'll just avoid that city entirely thanks to the presence of those congestion road signs.
Yes, discrimination is anti-egalitarian, but guess what, everything cannot possibly be available to everyone, that's a physical impossibility, discrimination is natural. You have yet to throw enough of the right resource in the right direction.
Get the environmentalists out of the room, and send them back to Aspen or thereabouts, tyvm.
I would choose keep the MS-Windows as a "just in case", even though I would install Linux anyway and use that 99% of the time. Unlike some manufacturers, they won't even mind if you do that. I wouldn't be surprised if an onsite tech knew well enough about it to not care what distribution was on there. Just burn the restore media (DVD or a few CD's), shrink it down to a manageable size, and do a reinstall off the/those disc(s).
Paying big $$$$ for easily replaceable workers simply doesn't work these days in a global economy. Lording over citizens as if businesses and investors were Their Holiness doesn't work either. The Burke Group and others can only do so much before they fail.
Americans have to learn rule #1 in modern times, and that is that you get paid for better skills and you dont get paid for doing something a monkey or robot could do. Or push for something that makes education universally accessible to citizens without connections, ranking, or massive debt. Then that score won't be a problem, but it will only be a matter of getting the knowledge in there. The lack of any practical escape route existing is why you have this populism around.
Nobody is incapable of being educated despite what some in history have indicated.
They don't seem to mind much on warranty support, as long as it shows some evidence of booting up and working as it should. They do have a SuSE option if you haven't been paying attention lately.
Nice, but like what they've done to the R/T series (without a suitable model out there that even comes close to the 2623DDU) is nearly unforgivable. That's where the title of "The ultimate Thinkpad", as you could get that quality you wanted. Now you might as well just extend the warranty on an IPS T42p, R50p(unless you've done 1900x1200 screen work), or T60p. The models where you could get quality that you wanted seem not to exist thanks to them.
Unions have already killed the car and steel industry as well as just about every other industry in America. With some help via Reagan, the manufacturers killed the unions. Completely different (necessary industry) versus blogging (something of questionable importance). Strong worker protections keep things like offshoring in check instead of letting it wreck things entirely as it has.
If you want a good paycheck, have a skill, don't rely on a union to save your untalented ass. Presuming you have a skill that won't just be offshored at the wrong time. That's something not to gamble upon. This point is even made stronger as the exit(education) is made exhorbitantly expensive for what does exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who argue against boycotts say that "being there" matters more: I disagree, it just gives comfort to tyrants.
In 1987, President Reagan bluntly told the South Korean junta that, unless it brought in democracy, the US would boycott the 1988 Seoul Olympics: democracy was introduced. Source: Edward McMillan-Scott, the Yorkshire Post, UK, 18 January 2008.
How would they pay off the various goldfarming shops that employ them?
I haven't, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the rain that falls down in China.
I highly doubt it - they're more likely to be able to get human rights (and not by some economist's perversion of it) improved to US/Canada/EU levels.
I (and a non-ignorable amount of others) will boycott these Olympics.
Never mind the EEE, how about the laptops that have some actual quality in them? It's one thing to shortchange the laptop and use lower quality/knockoff components all around(and get support out of desperation); it's another thing with laptops that are actually worth their expense in proven design and quality components(and get support).
As for the China Problem, once there is someone brave enough to say "no" to them(and to those who step in their place) and enforce patent controls to where we can control quality with our borders.
It does not change the fact that it is still a force (and one that uses "tyranny of the majority" at that) that has a "null" attack surface (no real place to attack unless you don't mind taking on the majority). That's where the humanity of it stops, and the imperfections have become justifications for normally inhumane actions(just because the "minority" is perceived as "silver spoon elitist", "Marxist", "undeserving", and/or "thuggish" if they present an objection).
I doubt that's covered in any of that (over quoted) person's works in that respect.
No.
This is the particular one in question. Strongbad is not a threat.
Aside from the usual "don't believe a politician", you might as well just ask this guy. They seem to care very little about national sovereignty, and would gladly hand the whole nation over to hostile countries such as China and India.
No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
You underestimate the amount of people who will buy Detroit/UAW(and not at exhorbitant prices) despite the push to kill it. They are not of the type that will just settle for an import just because some non-voting person wants us to go in a direction contrary to the citizens' wishes. I was just in my home state of Pennsylvania yesterday and saw a bumper sticker asking "Why not coal?" (Coal Miner's Union) The major industry around my area used to be anthracite mining, and when that collapsed, the town kinda went to shit, although it's coming back slowly. Maybe there are some that are just turned off by environmentalists, completely. Re-educate, find something else to do, and go do it. Fine, then get rid of all of the "Right to Work" related laws, and then encourage the extraction of Oil Shale out of the West. This resistance to change is what keeps communities poor in the global economy, and creates lobbies to bring back technologies and industries that are probably better off dead or significantly re-structured. No, that's what unionbusting has done.
I'd have to agree on the tone of the document for it is well deserved.
The only concept that comes out of this is it being a new form of Revenue Enhancement. While it may be pushed as some form of environmental "benefit", it is just the same kind of force, just with an "unassailable target".
Instead of a cop hiding behind a speed trap, it's now a congestion charge that hides lawmakers and environmentalists behind an "unassailable target". The difference is that I can avoid a known speed trap, a congestion zone is (by design) unavoidable by all practicality.
If you're a proponent of this kind of stuff, just drive through a state such as Ohio. City-set speed limits for small towns, speed traps the size of large suburbs, and unsafe speed changes (45-25 in unbelievably short distances). That is what your congestion pricing will end up being (on a larger scale) - revenue enhancement. The difference is that if they can't get enough revenue to do transit, they'll end up expanding the zone (even if that still does no good, and they won't remove the increase).
This is only a (regressive) money grab with the feel-good environmentalism touch to it. If only IBM would have used this to deep-six the entire concept, they'd have done a ton of good.
No thanks, but keep the business out of my government.
# Create more supply. Build more roads. We've been trying that for a long, long time. I don't think the Jersey Turnpike can get much bigger. Stop listening to the environmentalists when building those roads. # Curtail demand. Many ways to do this, including building more public transit and taxing fuel.
# Raise prices. This affects the poor more than the rich - big surprise there! So does everything else, why are roads special? Both the poor and the rich use them, but rich environmentalists come in and suggest an intervention that only shifts the problem away towards Somewhere Else. Invariably, this leads to mission creep where it is then used for a new form of Revenue Enhancement. See London for an example.
In short, avoid 4 like the plague. Of course, you may take flak from environmentalists, but it's not like they can't be ignored.
When money is being used for a variable proxy for time on the road, no good can come of it. It just encourages mission creep.
Get the environmentalists out of the room, and send them back to Aspen or thereabouts, tyvm.
Be more original about it, this sounds near exactly like another post and straight from talk radio.
To copy-paste from that is mere ventriloquy.
Invoking a variant of the "but, but, $DEMOCRAT" clause only shows your true colors. Try being more original than just copy-pasting from talk radio.
Unless of course, you are that outdated talk radio host(which is overdue for "retirement due to Fairness Doctrine").
Nobody is incapable of being educated despite what some in history have indicated.
Since they've axed IPS, that's about it.
They don't seem to mind much on warranty support, as long as it shows some evidence of booting up and working as it should. They do have a SuSE option if you haven't been paying attention lately.
Unfortunately, they rolled what was in the Z series into the T series, quality going by the wayside.
You forgot the option of S-IPS. Once you've become the many to own one with it, you don't go back.
Nice, but like what they've done to the R/T series (without a suitable model out there that even comes close to the 2623DDU) is nearly unforgivable. That's where the title of "The ultimate Thinkpad", as you could get that quality you wanted.
Now you might as well just extend the warranty on an IPS T42p, R50p(unless you've done 1900x1200 screen work), or T60p. The models where you could get quality that you wanted seem not to exist thanks to them.
This is just another distraction.
Neither are the various "union avoidance" firms that spend all the money in the world to remove a labor union(versus negotiating on a fair basis).
A starting point to look at.