What makes you think this would make the average person more wealthy? Everything we've seen throughout history would dictate that somebody would get rich but not the majority of people.
And there are plenty of wealthy religious people popping out 4+ kids.
You are way too optimistic about humanity. The whole "go forth and multiply" religions encourage people to have lots of kids and tell them that god will fix it all up so don't worry.
If you want to change that then don't you think we should change the words for our days of the week? Unless you think Tyr, Woden, Thor, Frige, and Saturn are less religious based than Jesus.
I am as anti-religion as they come and I think the CE/BCE vs AD/BC thing is ridiculous and petty. If you aren't going to actually change the dates they represent there is no point in changing the letters. It's not like most people even know what AD stands for anymore than they know what AM and PM stand for. There are far more important battles to fight than this one.
Have you tried running them in legacy mode or whatever it is called?
People typically don't want change no matter what. That is a given. But usually after they get the newer/better/faster they hate going back even more. I remember when we migrated to Office 2007 with the new "ribbon". People went nuts but now they are completely inept if you put them in front of the old version toolbars.
Of course, the best solution to the shrinking middle class is to not educate the poor and lower middle class. Let them be happy with their barely literate high school education and mind-numbing menial labor jobs (which by the way are in other countries now).
Do the Republicans have any sane candidates? It makes being and independent really tough.
I know the anti-Microsoft tendencies are strong on this site but Microsoft is definitely not "cementing its monopoly".
IE market share has dropped from 70% in 2008 to 40% in 2011.
While Windows Desktop OS market share is still high, a large part of that is still XP and Mac has made a small dent in the total as well.
Linux continues to make huge inroads on the server OS front.
Smartphones, Windows OS is barely a blimp. And guess what - that's where the future market is. I know several people who fully expect their next "laptop" to actually be a tablet.
So believe it or not, Microsoft sees a future where it is struggling to stay alive and needs to reinvent itself.
Huh? How do you figure? Microsoft had nothing to do with the death of webOS or RIM (not even sure what Meego is) - they committed suicide. And I see this more of Microsoft realizing they have no chance against the Android/Apple juggernauts and want to cash in any way they can. Android's market base is way too big for even Microsoft to take them down at this point.
What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.
I assume you are being sarcastic but if not you realize that that would be completely the opposite of what you'd want to do. You would want to support Motorola or B&N who are fighting Microsoft.
Of course, pretty much every tech company nowadays has patents they are suing over so I am not sure that you can buy a phone without supporting one of them.
But the start of the Pax Romana was AFTER all the big expansion wars. You are saying that Afghanistan was the last major colonialist war that the US is ever going to get into? That seems highly optimistic.
And "social engineering" is the only way we are ever going to end this "war on terrorism". We are undoing the engineering done by the Muslim extremists who are twisting the Koran (and at time contradicting it) to their own ends. If you read "Three cups of Tea" or "Stones for Schools" you'll start to think the only way to win is to educate their women.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Pax Romana was a time of little expansion - sure there were minor wars/skirmishes but there wasn't the rapid expansion as under and before Julius Caesar. It was a time of relative peace and lack of expansion. There is no such thing as complete peace in any time of known human history.
His post was a non-sequitur. He said, based on his friend going to Afghanistran, he doesn't believe that the war in Iraq is ending. It only sounds like it makes sense because they are in the same region and started around the same time but that's all they have in common.
Ok. AC with nothing to add to the discussion calling me names. Now that is neither amazing nor surprising. At least you said "you are" and not "your" like most inferior people like yourself. I wonder how many previews it took you to do that, though.
What about mine do you disagree with? Pax Romana was hundreds of years in relative peace after years of civil wars and expansion. Pax Americana has been used many times before (like after the Civil War and again after WWII) but it never has lasted anywhere near as long - and going to war in Afghanistan obviously is contradictory to peace.
Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars. Your statement was a completely non-sequitur.
And Afghanistan is a problem we created in the first place LONG ago by helping them push the Russians out without putting an alternative into place. Taliban took control and trust me - there aren't much worse in the way of atrocities you can commit there. What's worse is they (along with Pakistan our supposed ally) were harboring the people who actually were successfully attacking us - both on 9/11 and abroad on several instances. We couldn't just leave them there. If you think about it - there is nothing else of value in Afghanistan. It's not oil rich or anything else rich. We are there to defeat our enemies and put in place a solid government like we should have 30+ years ago.
I appreciate the sacrifices soldiers make but considering how unpopular and unjustified the war in Iraq was and how much such a parade would be a target for violence and terrorism, as a New Yorker, I vote they move the parade to DC.
Afghanistan is not actually part of Iraq. If you look on a map you'll find it is a completely different country. I know most people suck at geography but you'll have to trust me on this.
Afghanistan is a whole other war - one that we probably are more justified in being involved with since the Taliban was happily hiding Al Qaeda - the supposed real threat to the US. The Taliban are pretty much worse that Saddam, Osama, and Qaddafi combined. The atrocities they've committed on women are horrific.
Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think this would make the average person more wealthy? Everything we've seen throughout history would dictate that somebody would get rich but not the majority of people.
And there are plenty of wealthy religious people popping out 4+ kids.
You are way too optimistic about humanity. The whole "go forth and multiply" religions encourage people to have lots of kids and tell them that god will fix it all up so don't worry.
Your assuming that any significant amount of people are actually controlling their reproduction based on the world's remaining resources.
They is really completely arbitrary and subjective, though. I am sure that some people still worship the old Norse gods.
And to respond to myself...
If you want to change that then don't you think we should change the words for our days of the week? Unless you think Tyr, Woden, Thor, Frige, and Saturn are less religious based than Jesus.
I am as anti-religion as they come and I think the CE/BCE vs AD/BC thing is ridiculous and petty. If you aren't going to actually change the dates they represent there is no point in changing the letters. It's not like most people even know what AD stands for anymore than they know what AM and PM stand for. There are far more important battles to fight than this one.
There was a little lag when I tested it but she basically ignored my questions and asked her own. So in that sense it is like a typical woman.
Considering how easily people are fooled (like the 92% that believe in God, angels, etc.) you'd think it would be a much higher percentage.
Have you tried running them in legacy mode or whatever it is called?
People typically don't want change no matter what. That is a given. But usually after they get the newer/better/faster they hate going back even more. I remember when we migrated to Office 2007 with the new "ribbon". People went nuts but now they are completely inept if you put them in front of the old version toolbars.
Of course, the best solution to the shrinking middle class is to not educate the poor and lower middle class. Let them be happy with their barely literate high school education and mind-numbing menial labor jobs (which by the way are in other countries now).
Do the Republicans have any sane candidates? It makes being and independent really tough.
I know the anti-Microsoft tendencies are strong on this site but Microsoft is definitely not "cementing its monopoly".
IE market share has dropped from 70% in 2008 to 40% in 2011.
While Windows Desktop OS market share is still high, a large part of that is still XP and Mac has made a small dent in the total as well.
Linux continues to make huge inroads on the server OS front.
Smartphones, Windows OS is barely a blimp. And guess what - that's where the future market is. I know several people who fully expect their next "laptop" to actually be a tablet.
So believe it or not, Microsoft sees a future where it is struggling to stay alive and needs to reinvent itself.
Huh? How do you figure? Microsoft had nothing to do with the death of webOS or RIM (not even sure what Meego is) - they committed suicide. And I see this more of Microsoft realizing they have no chance against the Android/Apple juggernauts and want to cash in any way they can. Android's market base is way too big for even Microsoft to take them down at this point.
What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.
I assume you are being sarcastic but if not you realize that that would be completely the opposite of what you'd want to do. You would want to support Motorola or B&N who are fighting Microsoft.
Of course, pretty much every tech company nowadays has patents they are suing over so I am not sure that you can buy a phone without supporting one of them.
Not free as in beer. And this is about hardware - not the OS.
But the start of the Pax Romana was AFTER all the big expansion wars. You are saying that Afghanistan was the last major colonialist war that the US is ever going to get into? That seems highly optimistic.
And "social engineering" is the only way we are ever going to end this "war on terrorism". We are undoing the engineering done by the Muslim extremists who are twisting the Koran (and at time contradicting it) to their own ends. If you read "Three cups of Tea" or "Stones for Schools" you'll start to think the only way to win is to educate their women.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Pax Romana was a time of little expansion - sure there were minor wars/skirmishes but there wasn't the rapid expansion as under and before Julius Caesar. It was a time of relative peace and lack of expansion. There is no such thing as complete peace in any time of known human history.
His post was a non-sequitur. He said, based on his friend going to Afghanistran, he doesn't believe that the war in Iraq is ending. It only sounds like it makes sense because they are in the same region and started around the same time but that's all they have in common.
Ok. AC with nothing to add to the discussion calling me names. Now that is neither amazing nor surprising. At least you said "you are" and not "your" like most inferior people like yourself. I wonder how many previews it took you to do that, though.
What about mine do you disagree with? Pax Romana was hundreds of years in relative peace after years of civil wars and expansion. Pax Americana has been used many times before (like after the Civil War and again after WWII) but it never has lasted anywhere near as long - and going to war in Afghanistan obviously is contradictory to peace.
Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars. Your statement was a completely non-sequitur.
And Afghanistan is a problem we created in the first place LONG ago by helping them push the Russians out without putting an alternative into place. Taliban took control and trust me - there aren't much worse in the way of atrocities you can commit there. What's worse is they (along with Pakistan our supposed ally) were harboring the people who actually were successfully attacking us - both on 9/11 and abroad on several instances. We couldn't just leave them there. If you think about it - there is nothing else of value in Afghanistan. It's not oil rich or anything else rich. We are there to defeat our enemies and put in place a solid government like we should have 30+ years ago.
How does going into a war mean a period of peace? How does that make any sense? Maybe you don't know what the Pax Romana was?
I appreciate the sacrifices soldiers make but considering how unpopular and unjustified the war in Iraq was and how much such a parade would be a target for violence and terrorism, as a New Yorker, I vote they move the parade to DC.
Afghanistan is not actually part of Iraq. If you look on a map you'll find it is a completely different country. I know most people suck at geography but you'll have to trust me on this.
Afghanistan is a whole other war - one that we probably are more justified in being involved with since the Taliban was happily hiding Al Qaeda - the supposed real threat to the US. The Taliban are pretty much worse that Saddam, Osama, and Qaddafi combined. The atrocities they've committed on women are horrific.
Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.