If your 2.5 linux kernel install completely hosed your machine, it was due to your own incompetence, or inability to read one of the many guides that were available at the time
So let me get this straight: if I take a working Linux system, upgrade it with beta/unstable packages or kernels, and it refuses to boot, it's now all my fault. But if I do the same thing with Windows, it's Microsoft's fault? That sounds like something I've heard of before...oh, yes, here it is:
double standard Main Entry: double standard Function: noun 1 : BIMETALLISM 2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men
Oh, and let's not forget that you can always uninstall SP2 RC2 (backing up all modified files prior to upgrade is mandatory during the install of RC2 -- you can't tell it not to back up). If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2. The only situation that would leave you totally lost is if you destroyed the disk partition, something I have yet to hear anyone complain about with SP2 RC2.
Yep, it's definitely all Microsoft's fault, isn't it?
Why must any post criticizing the anti-MS bias on Slashdot be immediately pigeonholed as a pro-MS post? There is a middle ground here called "objectivity," where one can safely be a Linux fan but dislike the way some zealots require Microsoft to be painted as the devil incarnate in order to get their point across. FUD from Linux fans is worse than FUD from Microsoft because Linux fans are supposed to abhor that kind of thing, whereas Microsoft has (in the past) used it with abandon. How are we going to beat Microsoft if we become them? If we adopt the same slimy attitude towards facts and truth, we're no better than Bill Gates and his marketing minions. If that's the case, we don't deserve to win this fight.
I'm a user of both Windows and Linux systems. I happen to like both, but each for different reasons. I will not be pigeonholed as either a Microsoft apologist or a Linux fanboy just because the vast Slashdot majority is incapable of conceiving of a middle ground. It's demeaning from a crowd that claims to be the more intelligent, open-minded computing bunch.
We're neither brave nor dumb. We tried the RC1 on a very limited test batch and found it to be exceptionally stable and functional. After the RC2 came out, we upgraded that same small batch and found it to be still just as stable but with a few of the missing functionality in place. Based on that, most of the I.T. department installed it on their personal workstations so we can begin testing how it interacts with our programs and methodologies. I've found the best way to see how these things work is to actually use them, not confine them to a lab. Prudence is necessary, of course, but in this case Microsoft's released a Release Candidate that, in my opinion, would've *been* an actual release in the past. It just seems Redmond is playing this one extremely safe, which I am happy to see.
As for problems with our setup, if we have issues with RC2, it's better it happens to us, the I.T. department, than anyone else. We have more fall-back resources than any other department, we're able to recover from issues faster due to our expertise, and if all else fails, we can re-image the machine without even leaving the department. It's the logical choice once something's deemed fit to leave the test lab.
The parent article is just plain ridiculous. I'm the I.T. Director for a large organization, and practically the entire I.T. department is running SP2 RC2, busily finding out what it breaks (not as much as you'd think, actually). The idea that 3 out of 5 machines "didn't come back up" is either due to (a) really funky, odd hardware or (b) a really screwy WinXP core install. We've had a 100% upgrade success rate and no reason to complain thus far, and we've got way more than 5 systems done.
But it wouldn't matter if we had 100 systems that worked right because it's a statistically insignificant sample of the overall whole. Hey, I had a Linux box not come back up once because I updated the kernel 2.4 kernel package with a 2.5 development release package! I guess the 2.6 kernel needed to go back to testing big time, eh? Do you see the idiocy of the parent article's claim and further assumption?
But then again this is Slashdot, where no good bashing of Microsoft goes unheralded.
Broadcasting over the airwaves, though, is not a right.
Well, I agree with you that it's not a right. But your argument about FCC licensing brings up another point of contention: who owns the airwaves? The government? The people? Big business?
Right now, the current stance is that the FCC owns the airwaves, at least in the U.S. You can make arguments both for and against Federal regulation of the radio spectrum. It's good because it prevents people from stomping all over popular frequency bands, but it's bad because the FCC controls things like what defines "indecent." Personally, all other things being equal, I always side with less government intrusion.
Secondly, not everyone is economically or educationally advantaged enough to use the internet or even read the newspaper.
It is damn near impossible to find a public library not offering free Internet access to anyone walking in the door -- with a library card or otherwise. So that argument is a wash. In fact, the only possible reason you can't get to alternate news sources is if you're too damned lazy.
You missed the point. Wasn't Ted whining about the lack of "variety" and "diversity" of news outlets? If you've got Arabnews.com and Israelnews.net available to you, what's stopping you from visiting both and covering the full spectrum? Who cares who owns what when you can always find someone willing to report the other side of the story?
And who, exactly, is holding a gun to your head forcing you to visit only the "big media" controlled news sites? Last I checked, I can go to Arabnews.com if I want to get an alternative view on Iraq developments. If I want an alternative view on domestic politics, a view that is deeply critical of the currently-powerful political party, I can go to Moveon.org. The Internet is boundless; I can get my news from pretty much anywhere on the planet I want so long as that news is published on the 'net.
Quite frequently it is, so the real illusion here is Ted Turner's assertion that media is more controlled now than it has ever been. If you restrict your argument to just the big news outlets, his viewpoint seems correct, but the number of choices you have for getting news from anywhere and anyone is staggering.
Now, some will argue that very few people feel like searching out these alternate sites for news, and most are comfortable being spoon fed from the likes of CNN. To that I say this: apathy deserves no reward, and I refuse to back any idea that the freedoms of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. be curtailed because people are too lazy get off their collective asses and find different news sources.
You may be inclined to grant some sort of restrictions on the above networks because you're anti-capitalist, or because you're anti-business, or because you're anti-whatever, but be careful what powers you'd grant your government. Today it might seem neat to you to "stick it to the man" and punish the big media companies, but tomorrow that same argument could be used for increasing government regulation of media. That way leads to losses of freedom far more dire than anything else.
One thing I, as an American, find somewhat funny (funny ha-ha, not funny weird) is how much emotional and historical baggage some Europeans carry around with them about fellow Europeans. The British disklike the Continentals, the Continentals disklike the Brits, the Austrians don't like the Germans, the Germans don't like the French, and the French don't like anybody. This is a "united" Europe? So much squabbling about such petty things. It in many ways resembles the U.N., with lots of posturing and speeches, but what's really going on is the politicians looking out for themselves.
No offense meant, but that's how it looks from this side of the pond. We have this same kind of stuff in Congress, but at least it's just states arguing, not sovereign, and supposedly "mature," countries.
It has nothing to do with wishing it away. I understand that people are going to develop and reinforce stereotypes. I also understand that murder, rape, and robbery exist and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. That doesn't stop me from pontificating on the wrongfullness of engaging in murder, rape, or robbery.
So, the moral of the story is this: you can continue to lump me into the generalized, stereotypical "ugly American" category. You'll also continue to be wrong. If people want to remain wrong, it's their right to live in ignorance. I would hope, however, that ignorant people would seek to eventually become less ignorant.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm one of the Americans who, while travelling abroad, is as sensitive as I can be to the host country I'm in, and I resent being lumped into a generalized "ugly American" category simply because of the land of my birth. When I was in Germany, I took the time to learn enough German that I could be reasonably functional in my daily travels. I didn't demand everyone speak English to me (although most did, voluntarily, when it became obvious my German wasn't up to the "conversational" level). I did the best I could and asked for no special favors.
It was amazing how accomodating the German's were (this was pre-9/11, though) when they realized I was attempting to meet them half way. I took offense at other Americans who were loud, offensive, and constantly griping about "why aren't the signs written in English so everybody can read them?"
Now, to play devil's advocate for a moment, most Europeans have no concept of what it's like to live in a country as large as the U.S. where English is spoken everywhere. In Europe, a few hours travel in any direction will land you in a completely different country. Unless you live near the Canadian or Mexican border, such things do not happen in the U.S. Most Americans have as little concept of such dense multiculturalism as Europeans have of U.S. geographical and cultural dispersion and uniformity.
But in reality, both sides of this "ugly American" thing are in the wrong. Americans, in general, need to be more observant of foreign cultures. Whether you admire it or not, it's worth learning about at the very least, if for no other reason than it's different. Other nations, on the other hand, need to not pre-judge traveling Americans, treating them with contempt and disdain on sight. After all, aren't the liberal idealogues always griping about how unfair it is when people are stereotyped?
That is bad storytelling. If you have time constraints, you cut the scenes that have no relevance to the story and no impact on the flow, not the ones that are both cool and integral to the story.
But you forget, Jar Jar stepping in cow dung is funny. Jar Jar getting farted on by a space cow is funny. Jar Jar shop-lifting food is funny. Or at least it all would be funny if you had an IQ around room temperature, or if you were six years old with a crude sense of humor.
Which kind of describes George Lucas at this point, don't you think?
Do you ACTUALLY think that we will see Jedi "surfing?" That would be *too* stupid.
You do realize that George Lucas is writing and directing this movie, don't you? You do realize this is the same guy who gave us Jar-Jar, virgin-birth Anakin, and mitichlorians, right? Do you seriously think anything is "too stupid" for George Lucas to insert into his next action-figure-selling movie vehicle?
Except that Cisco has no real incentive to find bugs in their code
Oh really? And I suppose avoiding a major public relations nightmare is no "incentive" at all for Cisco to check their own code? Did you never stop to think that Cisco has a very BIG incentive to check their code for possible exploits, namely the risk of losing lots of customers if security holes start popping up all over the place?
Some people just won't give a company any credit for doing any kind of fiduciary duty whatsoever. You just assume that the greedy, heartless megacorp is purposefully trying to make the shoddiest product it can and sell it for the highest price it can. While Cisco undoubtedly tries to charge a premium for its products, it does put these products through one helluva QA cycle. How many exploits on Cisco gear do you regularly hear of? Not many, and it's not for want of trying.
Give Cisco some credit, even if they are a capitalistic company. They aren't out to steal candy from babies and enslave the human race, they're trying to make a good product for people and turn a profit at the same time.
You've got a very well reasoned argument. However, the one thing you may have neglected is the more noxious byproducts of burning gasoline. If it were perfectly combusted, things would be fine, but that never happens. Unburned hydrocarbons and NOx make their way out of the tailpipe in addition to CO2 and water vapor. Unburned hydrocarbons are particularly nasty when it comes to breathing.
You mention coal as being dirty. By all rights it is dirty, but your average power plant has an ungodly scrubber in place that can make the emissions from such a plant seem like a fragrant breeze compared to what's coming out of your average SUV tailpipe. Coal is plentiful and, when viewed in this context, provides cheap, relatively clean power.
I'm a big fan of the fuel cell concept, which you correctly identify as just a fancy kind of battery. I'd like it if these "batteries" were recharged with nuclear power plants, but that's unlikely to happen anywhere in the near future. The optimal solution would be for someone to build a solar power farm about the size of the entire southern California desert, and to pipe that power wherever it's needed. Or put solar stations on the moon and microwave the power here. Or put solar stations on Mercury to generate quantities of antimatter for shipment back to Earth. Admittedly, that's way-out-there thinking, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't do it in the next 100 years, leaving Earth essentially emissions-free when it comes to power generation.
Not that the previous poster is right but you are also wrong the electricity comes from waste energy recooped from brakeing and slowing down that would normally just be released into the environment as heat.
No, I'm not wrong, and if you took a moment to understand thermodynamics, you'd see why. In order to make use of regenerative braking (note the spelling this time), the car must be in motion. How did it get in motion? By expending energy, of course! Electrical power becomes kinetic energy, but the overall amount of energy has not changed (taking into account motor inefficiencies, friction, etc.). When you apply the brakes, some of that kinetic energy is reclaimed and returned to the batteries, albeit a significantly smaller amount. But that energy wasn't created out of nowhere, it came from somewhere to begin with. That somewhere is a power station if the car's battery powered, or it came from a refinery somewhere if the car's a hybrid.
So, sorry to dispute your obviously-not-very-well-thought-out argument, but I'm not the one in the wrong here. You are. If you care to debate that point, make sure you've studied up on your physics first, because you're going to have to contradict all of it in order to dispute me.
I thought a not-insignificant fraction of that electricty came from Your Friend, The Atom ?
You are correct, but it is a lesser fraction than most are aware of. Far less than some European nations, as well as the Pacific Rim nations. Still, I was remiss in not pointing it out, and I stand corrected.
Not that any of this matters one iota to enviro-Nazi's. To them, the only thing worse than burning fossil fuels is splitting atoms. Pardon me while I go club a baby seal somewhere;-).
Uhhh, sorry to point out the obvious (again), but in order for regenerative braking to be of any use, the car must first be in motion. What gets it in motion? Ah, we're back to that odd movement of electrons known to modern man as "electricity"...which brings me back to my original statement, namely that there is no energy in the car itself that isn't put there in the first place by either burning fossil fuels or splitting atoms.
Talk about no-logic responses...you take the cake.
Miles per gallon of gas in a Hybrid car are way better for the environment because the Hybrid also uses electricity, where miles per gallon of gas in a regular car are bad for the environment because of emissions, resource depletion, depending on OPEC, all that stuff.
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but just where do you think the precious electricity comes from that drives your hybrid vehicle? Bzzzzt! Time's up! It comes from fossil fuels, that's where it comes from!
Or were you trying to make a joke here by pointing out the obvious two-faced, no-logic tactics so frequently used by environmentalists?
If there is an infinite number of ways, please present 100000 ways, I'm sure that would be no problem.
If you're going to delve into sarcasm and mockery, I'm done with you. When you want to engage me seriously and intellectually, we can continue this conversation.
Oh, and if you'd spend a tenth of the energy you're currently spending trying to find reasons this won't benefit you instead on trying to find reasons it will benefit you, you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place. The reason there are an infinite number of ways this can benefit you is because the number of choices in life you can make are infinite. Some can be more beneficial than others, but it's up to you to figure them out for your particular situation.
How can I make outsourcing work, which drives profit margins for big money up, help me?
I will direct you to my previous posting. It can help you in the form of lower consumer prices for you as a consumer. It can help your local or national economy, especially if the outsourcing firm were facing closure if it were unable to compete with overseas labor costs. You can purchase stock in the company doing the outsourcing (after reading the prospectus carefully, as always) and reap rewards either through dividends, stock appreciation, or both.
Other ways to directly benefit could be to become a consultant for companies looking to outsource, helping them find the right outsourcing resources for them. If you really want to get involved, you could move to India, hire a bunch of programmers, sell your management experience to North American customers, and make out like a bandit.
The point is, there is an infinite number of ways you could benefit from this situation. Some of them require more work than others, but that's the case with anything rewarding. Stop thinking in the frame of "jobs are leaving the country" and start considering what you'd do if it were simply jobs moving from one state to another. In today's global economy, such a situation is much more similar than you might imagine.
My point is, though, that the risks might come to exceed the rewards if the trend of outsourcing skilled jobs continues.
In this we are in total agreement. However, in order for the scenario you describe to happen, people negatively affected by outsourcing would just have to sit stagnant and do nothing about it. Although I have no doubt many would do just that, they're choosing to be victims at that point. People who are interested in driving their own destinies, however, will adapt to circumstances. If it doesn't pay to "bet" on one particular career track, you evaluate what your best possible options are and pursue from there. Computer Science jobs in the toilet? Biotech is doing well. Jobs for Literature degree holders not doing well? Aerospace is picking up for a change, why not look there instead?
My point is, no matter how bad things are in one area, there's almost always some sector of the economy doing well. Admittedly, it can be difficult for someone who is three years into a four year degree when their degree starts to look worthless, but that's just life. As I said, sometimes you can do all the research in the world before picking your degree field and it can still tank at the worst possible moment. What separates the losers from the winners is what that person does then. The winners pick up, go to plan B, and move on. The losers sit around moaning and whining about how unfair life is, how it's all the fault of the rich, or the government, or the (insert ethnic group here). Sure, it's easier to moan, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes that person a loser, an insult to the human race, a waste of genetic material.
schools in poor sections of a city receive less funding than schools in richer sections.
Study after study has been performed examining how student test performance relates to dollars spent per student, and the results are obvious: student performance has nothing to do with how much money is spent on the student. Here in Atlanta, our city schools spend more dollars per student that just about any other metropolitan (or suburban or rural, for that matter) school district in the nation. Yet the students perform poorer than schools funded half as well.
What really needs reform here is teacher quality, not funding quality. This is something the NEA (National Education Association) steadfastly opposes. Intentionally. Is that class warfare? Nope, it's just pure laziness.
Dude - you just took one little line there and went on a completely irrelevant rant.
The fact that you consider it irrelevant is evidence enough of your denial of it.
A rather typical rant, too. Your rantings are cloaked in typical angry-white-conservative rhetoric, which is often a cloak for jealousy.
Jealousy of what, pray tell? The poor, who get benefits I do not? No, because materially I live a better life than they do. Should I be jealous of the rich? No, I aspire to be one of them, so it'd by kind of hypocritical to be jealous and hateful of them, now, wouldn't it? No, it's not jealousy, it's frustration with "self-righteous little jerks like you" that think all the worlds problems stem from the rich, never stopping to think that there will always be someone richer than someone else unless you have a totally classless society. And classless societies have been tried; they don't work, and create a lot of misery in the process.
And nothing anyone has said has taught you anything.
What precisely should I be learning, and from who? Should I be learning to despise the rich and mouth the brainless mantra of class warfare, all the while ignoring the fact that rich people make investments, start companies, purchase durable goods, and many other things that ultimately benefit everyone? To listen to you, I should be doing just that. Don't bother trying to work hard, don't bother trying to improve myself, don't bother getting back up when I'm knocked down, just sit around and bitch about how the rich get all the breaks and it's not my fault. Blame someone else! It's the American way! We want all the benefits but none of the risk. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, but you continue to believe that it does. You're wrong, but it makes you sound witty and clever. Keep it up.
Slashdot Mirror
If your 2.5 linux kernel install completely hosed your machine, it was due to your own incompetence, or inability to read one of the many guides that were available at the time
So let me get this straight: if I take a working Linux system, upgrade it with beta/unstable packages or kernels, and it refuses to boot, it's now all my fault. But if I do the same thing with Windows, it's Microsoft's fault? That sounds like something I've heard of before...oh, yes, here it is:
double standard
Main Entry: double standard
Function: noun
1 : BIMETALLISM
2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men
Oh, and let's not forget that you can always uninstall SP2 RC2 (backing up all modified files prior to upgrade is mandatory during the install of RC2 -- you can't tell it not to back up). If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2. The only situation that would leave you totally lost is if you destroyed the disk partition, something I have yet to hear anyone complain about with SP2 RC2.
Yep, it's definitely all Microsoft's fault, isn't it?
Why must any post criticizing the anti-MS bias on Slashdot be immediately pigeonholed as a pro-MS post? There is a middle ground here called "objectivity," where one can safely be a Linux fan but dislike the way some zealots require Microsoft to be painted as the devil incarnate in order to get their point across. FUD from Linux fans is worse than FUD from Microsoft because Linux fans are supposed to abhor that kind of thing, whereas Microsoft has (in the past) used it with abandon. How are we going to beat Microsoft if we become them? If we adopt the same slimy attitude towards facts and truth, we're no better than Bill Gates and his marketing minions. If that's the case, we don't deserve to win this fight.
I'm a user of both Windows and Linux systems. I happen to like both, but each for different reasons. I will not be pigeonholed as either a Microsoft apologist or a Linux fanboy just because the vast Slashdot majority is incapable of conceiving of a middle ground. It's demeaning from a crowd that claims to be the more intelligent, open-minded computing bunch.
We're neither brave nor dumb. We tried the RC1 on a very limited test batch and found it to be exceptionally stable and functional. After the RC2 came out, we upgraded that same small batch and found it to be still just as stable but with a few of the missing functionality in place. Based on that, most of the I.T. department installed it on their personal workstations so we can begin testing how it interacts with our programs and methodologies. I've found the best way to see how these things work is to actually use them, not confine them to a lab. Prudence is necessary, of course, but in this case Microsoft's released a Release Candidate that, in my opinion, would've *been* an actual release in the past. It just seems Redmond is playing this one extremely safe, which I am happy to see.
As for problems with our setup, if we have issues with RC2, it's better it happens to us, the I.T. department, than anyone else. We have more fall-back resources than any other department, we're able to recover from issues faster due to our expertise, and if all else fails, we can re-image the machine without even leaving the department. It's the logical choice once something's deemed fit to leave the test lab.
The parent article is just plain ridiculous. I'm the I.T. Director for a large organization, and practically the entire I.T. department is running SP2 RC2, busily finding out what it breaks (not as much as you'd think, actually). The idea that 3 out of 5 machines "didn't come back up" is either due to (a) really funky, odd hardware or (b) a really screwy WinXP core install. We've had a 100% upgrade success rate and no reason to complain thus far, and we've got way more than 5 systems done.
But it wouldn't matter if we had 100 systems that worked right because it's a statistically insignificant sample of the overall whole. Hey, I had a Linux box not come back up once because I updated the kernel 2.4 kernel package with a 2.5 development release package! I guess the 2.6 kernel needed to go back to testing big time, eh? Do you see the idiocy of the parent article's claim and further assumption?
But then again this is Slashdot, where no good bashing of Microsoft goes unheralded.
Broadcasting over the airwaves, though, is not a right.
Well, I agree with you that it's not a right. But your argument about FCC licensing brings up another point of contention: who owns the airwaves? The government? The people? Big business?
Right now, the current stance is that the FCC owns the airwaves, at least in the U.S. You can make arguments both for and against Federal regulation of the radio spectrum. It's good because it prevents people from stomping all over popular frequency bands, but it's bad because the FCC controls things like what defines "indecent." Personally, all other things being equal, I always side with less government intrusion.
Secondly, not everyone is economically or educationally advantaged enough to use the internet or even read the newspaper.
It is damn near impossible to find a public library not offering free Internet access to anyone walking in the door -- with a library card or otherwise. So that argument is a wash. In fact, the only possible reason you can't get to alternate news sources is if you're too damned lazy.
You missed the point. Wasn't Ted whining about the lack of "variety" and "diversity" of news outlets? If you've got Arabnews.com and Israelnews.net available to you, what's stopping you from visiting both and covering the full spectrum? Who cares who owns what when you can always find someone willing to report the other side of the story?
And who, exactly, is holding a gun to your head forcing you to visit only the "big media" controlled news sites? Last I checked, I can go to Arabnews.com if I want to get an alternative view on Iraq developments. If I want an alternative view on domestic politics, a view that is deeply critical of the currently-powerful political party, I can go to Moveon.org. The Internet is boundless; I can get my news from pretty much anywhere on the planet I want so long as that news is published on the 'net.
Quite frequently it is, so the real illusion here is Ted Turner's assertion that media is more controlled now than it has ever been. If you restrict your argument to just the big news outlets, his viewpoint seems correct, but the number of choices you have for getting news from anywhere and anyone is staggering.
Now, some will argue that very few people feel like searching out these alternate sites for news, and most are comfortable being spoon fed from the likes of CNN. To that I say this: apathy deserves no reward, and I refuse to back any idea that the freedoms of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. be curtailed because people are too lazy get off their collective asses and find different news sources.
You may be inclined to grant some sort of restrictions on the above networks because you're anti-capitalist, or because you're anti-business, or because you're anti-whatever, but be careful what powers you'd grant your government. Today it might seem neat to you to "stick it to the man" and punish the big media companies, but tomorrow that same argument could be used for increasing government regulation of media. That way leads to losses of freedom far more dire than anything else.
One thing I, as an American, find somewhat funny (funny ha-ha, not funny weird) is how much emotional and historical baggage some Europeans carry around with them about fellow Europeans. The British disklike the Continentals, the Continentals disklike the Brits, the Austrians don't like the Germans, the Germans don't like the French, and the French don't like anybody. This is a "united" Europe? So much squabbling about such petty things. It in many ways resembles the U.N., with lots of posturing and speeches, but what's really going on is the politicians looking out for themselves.
No offense meant, but that's how it looks from this side of the pond. We have this same kind of stuff in Congress, but at least it's just states arguing, not sovereign, and supposedly "mature," countries.
It has nothing to do with wishing it away. I understand that people are going to develop and reinforce stereotypes. I also understand that murder, rape, and robbery exist and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. That doesn't stop me from pontificating on the wrongfullness of engaging in murder, rape, or robbery.
So, the moral of the story is this: you can continue to lump me into the generalized, stereotypical "ugly American" category. You'll also continue to be wrong. If people want to remain wrong, it's their right to live in ignorance. I would hope, however, that ignorant people would seek to eventually become less ignorant.
I'm one of the Americans who, while travelling abroad, is as sensitive as I can be to the host country I'm in, and I resent being lumped into a generalized "ugly American" category simply because of the land of my birth. When I was in Germany, I took the time to learn enough German that I could be reasonably functional in my daily travels. I didn't demand everyone speak English to me (although most did, voluntarily, when it became obvious my German wasn't up to the "conversational" level). I did the best I could and asked for no special favors.
It was amazing how accomodating the German's were (this was pre-9/11, though) when they realized I was attempting to meet them half way. I took offense at other Americans who were loud, offensive, and constantly griping about "why aren't the signs written in English so everybody can read them?"
Now, to play devil's advocate for a moment, most Europeans have no concept of what it's like to live in a country as large as the U.S. where English is spoken everywhere. In Europe, a few hours travel in any direction will land you in a completely different country. Unless you live near the Canadian or Mexican border, such things do not happen in the U.S. Most Americans have as little concept of such dense multiculturalism as Europeans have of U.S. geographical and cultural dispersion and uniformity.
But in reality, both sides of this "ugly American" thing are in the wrong. Americans, in general, need to be more observant of foreign cultures. Whether you admire it or not, it's worth learning about at the very least, if for no other reason than it's different. Other nations, on the other hand, need to not pre-judge traveling Americans, treating them with contempt and disdain on sight. After all, aren't the liberal idealogues always griping about how unfair it is when people are stereotyped?
I know the New York Times is a blatantly left-slanted, Democrat-loving publication, but referring to John Kerry as "magnetic" is just too much.
Oh well, at least they did have the decency to call him what he really is: a flip-flop.
Moderators: Laugh. It's called political humor.
That is bad storytelling. If you have time constraints, you cut the scenes that have no relevance to the story and no impact on the flow, not the ones that are both cool and integral to the story.
But you forget, Jar Jar stepping in cow dung is funny. Jar Jar getting farted on by a space cow is funny. Jar Jar shop-lifting food is funny. Or at least it all would be funny if you had an IQ around room temperature, or if you were six years old with a crude sense of humor.
Which kind of describes George Lucas at this point, don't you think?
Do you ACTUALLY think that we will see Jedi "surfing?" That would be *too* stupid.
You do realize that George Lucas is writing and directing this movie, don't you? You do realize this is the same guy who gave us Jar-Jar, virgin-birth Anakin, and mitichlorians, right? Do you seriously think anything is "too stupid" for George Lucas to insert into his next action-figure-selling movie vehicle?
Except that Cisco has no real incentive to find bugs in their code
Oh really? And I suppose avoiding a major public relations nightmare is no "incentive" at all for Cisco to check their own code? Did you never stop to think that Cisco has a very BIG incentive to check their code for possible exploits, namely the risk of losing lots of customers if security holes start popping up all over the place?
Some people just won't give a company any credit for doing any kind of fiduciary duty whatsoever. You just assume that the greedy, heartless megacorp is purposefully trying to make the shoddiest product it can and sell it for the highest price it can. While Cisco undoubtedly tries to charge a premium for its products, it does put these products through one helluva QA cycle. How many exploits on Cisco gear do you regularly hear of? Not many, and it's not for want of trying.
Give Cisco some credit, even if they are a capitalistic company. They aren't out to steal candy from babies and enslave the human race, they're trying to make a good product for people and turn a profit at the same time.
You've got a very well reasoned argument. However, the one thing you may have neglected is the more noxious byproducts of burning gasoline. If it were perfectly combusted, things would be fine, but that never happens. Unburned hydrocarbons and NOx make their way out of the tailpipe in addition to CO2 and water vapor. Unburned hydrocarbons are particularly nasty when it comes to breathing.
You mention coal as being dirty. By all rights it is dirty, but your average power plant has an ungodly scrubber in place that can make the emissions from such a plant seem like a fragrant breeze compared to what's coming out of your average SUV tailpipe. Coal is plentiful and, when viewed in this context, provides cheap, relatively clean power.
I'm a big fan of the fuel cell concept, which you correctly identify as just a fancy kind of battery. I'd like it if these "batteries" were recharged with nuclear power plants, but that's unlikely to happen anywhere in the near future. The optimal solution would be for someone to build a solar power farm about the size of the entire southern California desert, and to pipe that power wherever it's needed. Or put solar stations on the moon and microwave the power here. Or put solar stations on Mercury to generate quantities of antimatter for shipment back to Earth. Admittedly, that's way-out-there thinking, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't do it in the next 100 years, leaving Earth essentially emissions-free when it comes to power generation.
Not that the previous poster is right but you are also wrong the electricity comes from waste energy recooped from brakeing and slowing down that would normally just be released into the environment as heat.
No, I'm not wrong, and if you took a moment to understand thermodynamics, you'd see why. In order to make use of regenerative braking (note the spelling this time), the car must be in motion. How did it get in motion? By expending energy, of course! Electrical power becomes kinetic energy, but the overall amount of energy has not changed (taking into account motor inefficiencies, friction, etc.). When you apply the brakes, some of that kinetic energy is reclaimed and returned to the batteries, albeit a significantly smaller amount. But that energy wasn't created out of nowhere, it came from somewhere to begin with. That somewhere is a power station if the car's battery powered, or it came from a refinery somewhere if the car's a hybrid.
So, sorry to dispute your obviously-not-very-well-thought-out argument, but I'm not the one in the wrong here. You are. If you care to debate that point, make sure you've studied up on your physics first, because you're going to have to contradict all of it in order to dispute me.
I thought a not-insignificant fraction of that electricty came from Your Friend, The Atom ?
;-).
You are correct, but it is a lesser fraction than most are aware of. Far less than some European nations, as well as the Pacific Rim nations. Still, I was remiss in not pointing it out, and I stand corrected.
Not that any of this matters one iota to enviro-Nazi's. To them, the only thing worse than burning fossil fuels is splitting atoms. Pardon me while I go club a baby seal somewhere
Uhhh, sorry to point out the obvious (again), but in order for regenerative braking to be of any use, the car must first be in motion. What gets it in motion? Ah, we're back to that odd movement of electrons known to modern man as "electricity"...which brings me back to my original statement, namely that there is no energy in the car itself that isn't put there in the first place by either burning fossil fuels or splitting atoms.
Talk about no-logic responses...you take the cake.
Miles per gallon of gas in a Hybrid car are way better for the environment because the Hybrid also uses electricity, where miles per gallon of gas in a regular car are bad for the environment because of emissions, resource depletion, depending on OPEC, all that stuff.
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but just where do you think the precious electricity comes from that drives your hybrid vehicle? Bzzzzt! Time's up! It comes from fossil fuels, that's where it comes from!
Or were you trying to make a joke here by pointing out the obvious two-faced, no-logic tactics so frequently used by environmentalists?
If there is an infinite number of ways, please present 100000 ways, I'm sure that would be no problem.
If you're going to delve into sarcasm and mockery, I'm done with you. When you want to engage me seriously and intellectually, we can continue this conversation.
Oh, and if you'd spend a tenth of the energy you're currently spending trying to find reasons this won't benefit you instead on trying to find reasons it will benefit you, you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place. The reason there are an infinite number of ways this can benefit you is because the number of choices in life you can make are infinite. Some can be more beneficial than others, but it's up to you to figure them out for your particular situation.
How can I make outsourcing work, which drives profit margins for big money up, help me?
I will direct you to my previous posting. It can help you in the form of lower consumer prices for you as a consumer. It can help your local or national economy, especially if the outsourcing firm were facing closure if it were unable to compete with overseas labor costs. You can purchase stock in the company doing the outsourcing (after reading the prospectus carefully, as always) and reap rewards either through dividends, stock appreciation, or both.
Other ways to directly benefit could be to become a consultant for companies looking to outsource, helping them find the right outsourcing resources for them. If you really want to get involved, you could move to India, hire a bunch of programmers, sell your management experience to North American customers, and make out like a bandit.
The point is, there is an infinite number of ways you could benefit from this situation. Some of them require more work than others, but that's the case with anything rewarding. Stop thinking in the frame of "jobs are leaving the country" and start considering what you'd do if it were simply jobs moving from one state to another. In today's global economy, such a situation is much more similar than you might imagine.
My point is, though, that the risks might come to exceed the rewards if the trend of outsourcing skilled jobs continues.
In this we are in total agreement. However, in order for the scenario you describe to happen, people negatively affected by outsourcing would just have to sit stagnant and do nothing about it. Although I have no doubt many would do just that, they're choosing to be victims at that point. People who are interested in driving their own destinies, however, will adapt to circumstances. If it doesn't pay to "bet" on one particular career track, you evaluate what your best possible options are and pursue from there. Computer Science jobs in the toilet? Biotech is doing well. Jobs for Literature degree holders not doing well? Aerospace is picking up for a change, why not look there instead?
My point is, no matter how bad things are in one area, there's almost always some sector of the economy doing well. Admittedly, it can be difficult for someone who is three years into a four year degree when their degree starts to look worthless, but that's just life. As I said, sometimes you can do all the research in the world before picking your degree field and it can still tank at the worst possible moment. What separates the losers from the winners is what that person does then. The winners pick up, go to plan B, and move on. The losers sit around moaning and whining about how unfair life is, how it's all the fault of the rich, or the government, or the (insert ethnic group here). Sure, it's easier to moan, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes that person a loser, an insult to the human race, a waste of genetic material.
What? When did I say that?
Don't try being disingenous. You're no good at it and it doesn't suit you.
schools in poor sections of a city receive less funding than schools in richer sections.
Study after study has been performed examining how student test performance relates to dollars spent per student, and the results are obvious: student performance has nothing to do with how much money is spent on the student. Here in Atlanta, our city schools spend more dollars per student that just about any other metropolitan (or suburban or rural, for that matter) school district in the nation. Yet the students perform poorer than schools funded half as well.
What really needs reform here is teacher quality, not funding quality. This is something the NEA (National Education Association) steadfastly opposes. Intentionally. Is that class warfare? Nope, it's just pure laziness.
Dude - you just took one little line there and went on a completely irrelevant rant.
The fact that you consider it irrelevant is evidence enough of your denial of it.
A rather typical rant, too. Your rantings are cloaked in typical angry-white-conservative rhetoric, which is often a cloak for jealousy.
Jealousy of what, pray tell? The poor, who get benefits I do not? No, because materially I live a better life than they do. Should I be jealous of the rich? No, I aspire to be one of them, so it'd by kind of hypocritical to be jealous and hateful of them, now, wouldn't it? No, it's not jealousy, it's frustration with "self-righteous little jerks like you" that think all the worlds problems stem from the rich, never stopping to think that there will always be someone richer than someone else unless you have a totally classless society. And classless societies have been tried; they don't work, and create a lot of misery in the process.
And nothing anyone has said has taught you anything.
What precisely should I be learning, and from who? Should I be learning to despise the rich and mouth the brainless mantra of class warfare, all the while ignoring the fact that rich people make investments, start companies, purchase durable goods, and many other things that ultimately benefit everyone? To listen to you, I should be doing just that. Don't bother trying to work hard, don't bother trying to improve myself, don't bother getting back up when I'm knocked down, just sit around and bitch about how the rich get all the breaks and it's not my fault. Blame someone else! It's the American way! We want all the benefits but none of the risk. Sorry, life doesn't work that way, but you continue to believe that it does. You're wrong, but it makes you sound witty and clever. Keep it up.