Ajax - n. A regifted, decade-old technology reproducing functionality available in the mid-90s that a new generation of clueless MBAs can use to impress clueless clients with MBAs.
"You're not "safer" because you have a gun, because eventually everyone will think like you, have guns around raising the occurences of abuse."
Virginia began rolling back their gun laws a few years back, even going so far as to allow concealed and open-carrying of weapons. The result has been a drop in crime to levels from 30 years ago. The murder rate has dropped to levels not seen since at least 1960 (the earliest statistics I could find). Violent crime in general has dropped to late 1960s levels.
"hasn't yet caught up to the modern virtue of the pursuit of equality for all whenever possible"
I do believe all people should be treated equally, but as I'm sure you know, not everyone is born exactly the same. I can't jump very high, couldn't hit a 3-pointer to save my life, and don't have just great defense either; should I get to play in the NBA? Why not? What happened to everyone being equal? Some people are simply born with better hand-eye coordination, the ability to jump higher, the ability to run very fast, and/or other physical abnormalities that make them better suited for sports or other such activities. They tend to carry the burden of managing several million dollars by the time they're old enough to vote. Others are born with or later develope the flip-side; that being physical or mental abnormalities that restrict their participation in even every-day activities. This is sad, and we all recognize it as such.
That being said, there is a question raised as to whether people and/or society in general should be forced to expend (in varying amounts) time, effort, and money to make special and out of the ordinary accomodations for those unfortunate enough to have been born physically or otherwise handicapped. The pro-handicapped lobby has somehow shifted the language of the debate to talking about "equality" when what we are actually talking about is business owners, the government, and others having to make changes to support the "special needs" of a group of people.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever said that handicapped individuals are not allowed to enter their business, and no one has said that the handicapped are not allowed to shop with them, so let's just stop with any talk about 'discrimination' or any other such nonesense right there. If an individual who is handicapped has difficulty or finds it impossible to frequent a certain place or to shop at a certain store because of their own personal, physical failings, it is the fault of the handicap and not the business owner. The business owner did not specially design their place of business to exclude those customers who cannot see or walk; they merely designed them the same way places of business and residence have been designed throughout the ages. No one has trained their employees in not using sign language; most people simply don't know it and would need special training in it to use it.
In other words, business owners and the general public did nothing to cause the problem, but are somehow being expected to put forth extra time and money for special building designs/modifications and special employee training to make special accomodations for the specific individuals who have some form of handicap. Let's get something straight: we're not talking about making things equal, we're talking about making everyone identical (in terms of their abilities). The argument being put forth is that it is the responsibility of business owners and the general public to ensure that everyone has some pre-defined and wholey arbitrary minimum capability with regard to everyday life, regardless of their particular handicap. The conclusion drawn from this argument is that a store owner is shirking their responsibility as a member of society if they can't/won't spend $5,000 retrofitting their 80-year old store with a handicap ramp on the off chance that someone, at some point, who chooses or requires a wheelchair for mobility happens to decide that they want to browse the store's offerings for a while.
This is, frankly, absurd. It is, however, not the least bit unexpected from a culture that prides itself on instilling a massive entitlement complex within all its people.
"You are one of these people that make so many good points but for some reason think they have to be all inflammatory to get them across and in doing so simply make themselves very hard to relate to."
I had just woken up when I wrote this after having
"You never use cash? Not for getting a haircut? Buying a newspaper? Buying a coffee? Buying a bus ticket? How about buying a beer in a bar - do you pass your card to be swiped for each drink you purchase?"
I never use cash. Hair Cuttery takes credit/debit cards (even for the tip). Wawa (like a 7-11, only better) sells newspapers and coffee and takes credit/debit cards (with no minimum purchase). I don't ride the bus, but I pay tolls with EZ-pass (which gets money transferred to it from a checking account or credit card). Bars I go to will either swipe the card every time you buy or will keep your card on hand and run a tab for you, then swipe your card when you're ready to settle up with them.
I don't live in a major city, and I don't generally hang out in cities (not very fond of them). What planet/century is it that debit/credit cards aren't accepted for everything? Hell, even cab companies take them now.
"Perhaps you have changed your lifestyle to fit your no cash utopia, but to suggest that others do likewise because they had the misfortune to be born blind or to have lost their eyesight is plain wrong."
Why is it wrong? It's not my fault they're blind - complain to God about it. They should be thrilled beyond belief that they were born in a time and place where they can function as readily as they can in society, and that things have been made so much easier by inventions such as the credit card. Some people just don't seem to get that the word "handicapped" has a meaning, and it isn't "special". The word means that there are some things you can't do, and some things that are more difficult to do. It's not the government's fault, not my fault, and not anyone else's fault that you were born blind/without legs/attached to your twin/whatever. Sucks that you had the bad break, but get over it and be happy you live in a time when parents generally don't just leave handicapped children in a field to die. Be happy so many accomodations have been made to make your life easier instead of constantly bitching that everyone isn't bending over backwards far enough to erase the fact that you're handicapped. Holy mother of Christ - between this and the Target website thing, I'm about ready to start campaigning for the repeal of the ADA and a return to how handicapped peoples' complaints used to be handled (ie ignored).
"The US is the onlycountry on earth with notes that are indistinguishable from one another for the blind."
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. .. WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa.... Other countries have money that looks so much like monopoly money that I honestly don't get how their people tell the real stuff from the counterfeit. With the direction our money design is already going without this garbage, I see plenty of people who look at it now and wonder out loud whether it's real. Every time they add a watermark or a hologram or some other ridiculous "security feature", it serves only to put yet another version of our money out there and instill a sense amoung the population that it's impossible to tell the fake stuff from the real stuff. GREAT job, US Treasury Debt - just great.
"Sure, round them all up and toss them in the bonfire. We'll march around it and sing songs and chants! It'll be a fun time!"
Think they already tried that in Germany once before - some time in the 1930s or so? Can't recall specifics, but I don't think it worked out very well for them...
"Yes, because the acts of a handful of loonies are representative of a billion people."
A handful of loonies? Since when are millions considered a handful? But I do see your point - a few million rotten apples are making the rest look bad...
"The US HAS now entered into wars and acts of hostility against Mahometan nations"
Judging by what has transpired in Beirut, Kuwait City (1983), Madrid (1985), Berlin (1986), Lockerbie Scotland (1988), WTC (1993), Riyadh (1995), Dhahran (1996), Kenya and Tanzania (1998), Yemen (2000), Sept 11 (2001), Karachi (2002), Riyadh (2003, 2004), Jeddah (2004), and Amman (2005), I would say that the Mahometan peoples, many supported by Mahometan nations, have now entered into wars and acts of hostility against us.
A law which places unjust restrictions on the actions of citizens, gives government too much control over citizens, or does not function the way it was intended due to poor wording.
"Is a law bad because it requires businesses to accommodate ALL customers, regardless of whether or not they can see, hear or walk?"
I've never heard of a store which doesn't serve blind, deaf, or wheelchair bound customers. However, if the customer is unable to get to the store, or is unable to communicate with the staff, then the store may be unable to serve them. At that point, it is the store's decision as to whether it is economically feasible and cost-justifiable for them to attempt to make adjustments such that they can serve those customers with specific disabilities. Oh wait, no it isn't, the government has made that decision for them. The government has told citizens that they must output monies they may or may not have, and may or may not ever earn back to make special accomodations for a small segment of society that unfortunately has some disability or another.
"Or are you a part of the group of pseudo-libertarians who think that government should butt out?"
Show me one thing the government does better than citizens and perhaps us 'pseudo-libertarians' will butt out ourselves. Thus far, I've yet to witness a single thing the government does well without screwing up royally. Government is all but worthless at basically all levels, and should only exist as a necessary evil to coordinate the few necessary things individuals would likely choose not to deal with themselves if given the choice - like national defense.
"If it wasn't for ADA, my wife (who is confined to a wheelchair) and I would be extremely limited in where we go, what we do, and where we can shop, eat, or stay."
I'm sorry your wife is confined to a wheelchair, but that is not the fault of businesses, and it's not their responsibility to try and erase her handicap. Tell me, have you sued all your friends who haven't put in handicap ramps and doors at their private homes? Isn't it their responsibility to put out whatever money is necessary to make those places accessible to your wife? After all, the wheelchair musn't prevent her or you from doing anything in the world you want to do, so they, like businesses, should be forced to spend money making 'reasonable accomodations', right? What if you and your wife want to go rock climbing? Should companies that do rock climbing expeditions be forced to assist blind, deaf, and wheelchair bound customers even when they risk life and limb doing so? Where do the so-called 'reasonable accomodations' end?
"So it seems a bit ridiculous to you that Target was the target, and they want them to make the site accessible to the blind. It seems even more ridiculous to me that Target wouldn't do that in the first place (it may cost a bit more, but seeing as how they are a "good corporate citizen (compared to WalMart)", it would be befit their image."
First of all, the second we started looking at corporations as 'citizens', we screwed no one but ourselves. That confers on them rights they simply do not deserve. Secondly, who in the hell am I, are you, is the government to tell Target what their website must have on it? Frankly, if Target replaced their index file with a plaintext "Go Fuck Yourself" (which would be screen reader compliant, of course), they would be perfectly within their rights. I'm sorry there are blind people in the world. Y'know what? That's not Target's fault. Target didn't make those people blind. As such, Target as no responsibility for them. Neither does Walmart or anyone else.
It's a handicap. People just don't see to get what the goddamn word means these days - it means there are some things you just cannot do. I think it's wonderful that companies have created screen readers; I really do. I think that was a brilliant business move by shrewd individuals who've cashed i
You cannot bring legal action for theoretical harms. In other words, one must request payment (as an invoice explicitly does) before one can claim payment was refused. Ergo, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on unless and until Universal is invoiced.
An invoice may be challenged in a lawsuit or its validity may be decided in a lawsuit brought for non-payment. If the fans submitted the invoice, Universal could sue the individuals or the group that submitted the invoice challenging its validity. If they win, the issue is dead. If Universal ignored the invoice, only then could the fans in question bring a suit claiming quantum meritus.
By your logic, Universal's request for payment of $9,000 in retroactive licensing would be prosecutable as fraud if the individual(s) involed successfully challenged Universal's right in court to seek said licensing compensation. That isn't how it works because that just wouldn't make sense - you'd have 100,000 fraud cases a day filling court schedules across the country to the exclusion of all else.
The French left Paris undefended and signed an armistice with Germany. Southern France was well known to be collaborating with the Germans. Sounds like a "do whatever it takes, just don't make them mad!" attitude to me.
"As a German, I can only say: Some of you Americans are such idiots. Seriously, educate yourself. For starters, learn how to spell Führer,"
That's what you have? A spelling error on a word that has no meaning in my language or culture? A freaking typo?
"what it means and why it is only a bad thing in a certain context."
Interesting, considering that IT WAS BAD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS USED. If you don't understand the sentences as written, I'll be happy to explain them to you after class. In the meantime, when you get your thoughts together enough to comprehend - let alone challenge - the substance of what was written, please do feel free to compose a response. Until then, scurry back to your dictionary and look up the word 'pedantic'.
"Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help."
North Korea has a million man army, two million reserves, and an enormous stockpile of artillery and short - medium range missiles. North Korea could wipe out every living thing North of Seoul without one boot hitting the edge of the DMZ. Their navy and air forces leave much to be desired, but if that massive army comes flooding through the DMZ supported by rockets, artillery, and missiles, there isn't anything that's going to stop them before they take most of South Korea. They can take Japan out of the game just by managing to deliver a single nuclear warhead to a major Japanese city (those people will never support war against a nuclear-armed foe). As for their sustainability without outside help - Russia, China, Iran, and others would happily (and very quietly) supply them with all the conventional hardware they desired.
Things are never so black and white these days. We live in a world of proxy wars fought by pawns. It's chess; not checkers.
"I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into."
Objective perspectives have their advantages as well. When someone has a gun pointed at your head, logic and clear thinking become difficult. Run the numbers, know the players, and then tell me North Korea couldn't do so much damage so fast that no one - save China, who won't - could possibly respond quickly enough to help South Korea. Thanks be to President Clinton for proving once and for all that missiles and bombs alone do not an enemy defeat.
"I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea. NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of missiles down to Seoul, just to prove that NK is dangerous.
I hope that the U.S. and Japan won't push it too far."
Wait.. wait... this sounds oddly familiar...
"I happen to work in Paris right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Roosevelt & his friends than Germany. Germany will not attack France unprovoked because even their nutcase of a fürer knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of divisions down to Paris, just to prove that Germany is dangerous.
I hope that the U.S. and Britain won't push it too far.
That kind of thinking has gotten us nowhere in the past. A head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-the-ears policy is exactly the kind of climate in which madmen and their armies flourish. How's 50 years of doing absolutely nothing about the threat of North Korea done for Seoul and the rest of South Korea's safety and security? Oh wait, that's right, now you guys are threatened with nuclear weapons in addition to the conventional weapons. So basically, things have improved tremendously.
You do realize that were it not for the US tripwire force at the DMZ, you guys would all be living in the same horrible conditions as North Koreans currently endure, right? The US isn't your enemy, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get some real security. Every time you people bitch and moan about the US presence (which was requested) to your North, you just embolden the man who would happily strip your economy to the bone and work every last one of you people to death if it meant he could maintain his regime for another 10 minutes more than he could without doing that.
No, much like a driver's education course isn't necessary to teach someone how to drive. However, it has serious potential to be helpful when it's time for the real thing. You can do fine without a prep course, but statistically, you can do a heck of a lot better with one. To me, every point in your favor gets you one step closer to things like scholarships.
If $75 for an SAT prep course can save me $20,000 on college thanks to scholarships, then that's one hell of an ROI.
"First, you need more than "9th grade math" or "8th grade education"; among other topics there's geometry (10th grade for most kids) and some probability/data analysis."
For a lot of people, Algebra I is 8th grade. For the vast majority of the rest, it's 9th grade. You may see a small number of very basic geo/trig based questions, but they're generally dirt-simple if you read the question properly. Give a 20-minute overview of geo/trig to a 9th grader and they'll have no problems as long as they understand the question. Now I've watched a high school teacher take an Algebra I SAT question and turn in into a high-end calculus problem. She got the right answer doing some very time-consuming math that would send most high schoolers running for the hills, but was completely confused as to why such an incredibly difficult question would be put on the SAT. Someone else then pointed out that if she'd read the question more carefully, she'd have noticed critical information sitting right there that narrowed the answer down immediately for anyone with a basic Algebra background.
And that's where they get you on those damned things: trying to answer the question you can't answer instead of answering the question they actually asked. The AP exams are no different in that regard.
"Second, it's not really a reasoning test in the way that, for example, an IQ test is."
It's not an IQ test; it's a logic test. At least when I took it, the SAT I was labeled precisely that: "SAT I: Logic Test". That's what gets the totally unprepared kids. They come into it thinking they're taking a math and vocabulary test. No, you're taking a test-taking test. The underlying assumption is that if they just asked you the questions in their most basic form, you'd have no problem getting a near-perfect score every time.
"It *does* test math and language skills, albeit in a rather shallow and limited way."
It does in the sense that without those basic math skills and without the vocabulary, the questions become impossible. You may as well be looking to a first-grader to do logs. That kid could be a towering intellectual giant with superb reasoning abilities and an immense learning capacity, but if he doesn't know what the heck a log is, all that intellect is utterly useless. If you don't know how to do the math required for the most basic form of the question and you don't have a clue what the words mean, then it becomes impossible to work with them at all.
"It also tests *specific* skills, such as identifying the tone of a literary passage or using the formula for the circumference of a circle"
I would argue that identifying the tone of a passage is one of those things where you can work on it in a prep course, but it still comes down to logic ability. The passages are there primarily to dump a bunch of useless garbage into your head, coupled with a few pieces of key information. The questions must then be unraveled, the data processed, and the key pieces identified and reassembled in such a way that the question becomes answerable. I do believe this is one area where prep courses can help students with this, but not so much by enhancing their logic as teaching them the basic methodology to apply to yield usable information. That goes hand-in-hand with instruction within the prep course on how to approach and unravel the questions themselves.
As far as using a formula, that's essentially the foundation of all math. Everything from addition on up is simply applying formulae. The fact that they give you formulae right on the test itself shows they don't care whether you know (pi)r^2 so much as whether you can then use it to yield correct results for their mangled question.
"Third, preparation provably helps, often leading to multiple-hundred point increases."
The preparation classes, more than anything else from my understanding, help with SAT scores. Typically, a student can expect to raise their score by a hundred points or so. Score
It's a logic test - says so right on the thing. What do you need to know? 9th grade math and a decent array of English language words. Beyond that, it's completely up to your brain. The guides you're seeing aren't telling you how to learn; they're telling you how to read and understand the questions, and how to beat the test's tricks. Understanding what the SAT is and knowing how to handle its questions is about 80% of the test. The rest is general knowledge they're expecting most people to have. Honestly, if you're a bright kid, there should be nothing holding you back from scoring a near-perfect SAT score if you have a solid 8th grade education.
The SAT isn't testing your math or language skills; it's testing your ability to reason. As such, it's testing something that's innate (re: ability vs training). The prep classes, study guides, and sample questions are geared toward teaching you how to approach the test itself and the questions. They teach you about how the test is scored, how to pick apart the wording of the questions, and what kind of attitude to take with it. Frankly, if you need help with the knowledge end of things, no prep class on Earth is going to save you. Without the basic knowledge (and we really are talking about basic - 8th grade - knowledge), no amount of reasoning or test taking skills is going to save you.
"Yeah, such as end all human life. Obviously we needed the bombers and subs too."
If I can place bombers over your command and control facilities and have hunter/killer "shadows" on your nuclear subs, I can eliminate your second-strike capability and feel free to launch all the ICBMs I want without the threat of your retaliation oblitering me.
The Eurofighter is still an impressive bit of machinery, but its radar profile is much higher than that of the Raptor, and it just can't match the cruise velocity of the Raptor. If you were expecting dogfighting, the Eurofighter might actually be a better choice. But if you wanted to zoom in undetected, hit your targets, and take out any air-based targets before they see you coming, then you'd want the Raptor. You wouldn't want to fly the Eurofighter, for instance, into the middle of a heavily armed and technologically advanced nation, but you do have that capability (or at least, that's what's expected) with the Raptor. A good bit of the technology in the Eurofighter is right up there with the Raptor, and it has some very nice engines on it, but we have more experience with stealth technology, and more experience with extremely high velocity aircraft, so it's to be expected that we'd have a bit of an advantage in those areas.
The Europeans came up with a surprisingly sophisticated and powerful aircraft design. Let's hope, for their sake, that cold feet and sweaty palms don't tear down what ought to be a damn good combat aircraft.
"Remind me who won the Cold War. Because from here, it doeesn't look like the citizens of either side."
Sales charts of fallout shelters tell a far different story. Those who didn't live through the time when air raid sirens went off in the United States, and when children were taught ways of protecting themselves during a nuclear attack in public schools, and when families huddled in fallout shelters as part of practice drills do not and can not fully understand just how much better things are now compared to then.
"the Tomcat was a killing machine - I see no reason for us all to feel sentimental for something being "retired" (anthropomorphism anyone?) that existed on this earth for the sole reason of killing human beings."
The only thing the Tomcat was intended to "kill" were enemy bombers. They were built as super fast planes with weaponry that could reach out and touch air targets (bombers, specifically). They initially had no ground capability whatsoever. Their primary offensive weaponry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a highly manueverable fighter aircraft. However, they could swoop in quickly, unload on large bomber groups (taking down huge numbers of bombers), and then run like hell from the escort aircraft.
The purpose of the Tomcat was to take down Russian bombers before Russian bombers carpet-bombed and/or dropped nuclear weapons on American cities. It wasn't a killing machine; it was a tool of deterrence. Without reason to believe their bombers would never make it to American shores, the Soviets would have felt a lot more comfortable launching a crippling first attack on America. ICBMs can only do but so much damage. Bombers, on the other hand, could cripple our counter-attack capability and nullify MAD.
In other words, the Tomcat served to help prevent what could have easily been the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in all of human history.
"The best thing I can come up with is that the AF is banking on replacing the F-14 with the F-22 when (if?) the latter comes online."
The F-22 Raptor is already in full production. The trials have been incredibly impressive (near vertical take-offs, anyone?), and the plane itself is designed to be superior to the point of being limited only by the amount of firepower it can haul into the sky. Unlike the F-14, which was designed to jump in fast, blow its load and then run like hell, the Raptor is designed to cruise along at speeds only dreamt about until now, acquire its targets, and slate them for elimination (have precision guided weaponry being delivered to them) before they even see so much as a blip on the radar. The idea is that you don't even realize you're in danger until it's too late for you to save your aircraft.
We currently face no large-scale military threats, and thus do not need an absolutely solid line across the board as we did during the Cold War era. Were a threat to emerge, it would certainly be sized such that aircraft not specifically designed for a particular purpose (F/A-18 anyone?) would ably fill in the gaps while production were further ramped up on next-gen aircraft like the F-22 Raptor. Also keep in mind that one Raptor should be able to do the job of several F-14s. With its design (stealth technology, electronics warfare, etc), you would expect much smaller losses in any conflict than you would of the F-14 and a much higher kill capability.
So basically, there's no immediate necessity for an F-14 replacement, and the F/A-18 will be perfectly fine filling in the gaps until the F-22 production is completed. Once we have enough F-22s in use, US air dominance will remain all but unchallenged for a minimum of 10 years, assuming nothing comes along to replace the F-22. The reason is that it requires a hell of a lot of technical know-how, materials, and cold, hard cash to even get a competitor project started. Getting it through design, testing, and into production takes significant time. If someone (say, a European country, China, or Russia) started working on a plane to rival the F-22 5 years ago, and they threw everything they had at making it go, they might have a handfull coming off the production line in ten more years. That is, unless they cut all kinds of corners and risk having pieces falling off the things mid-flight.
"the hack who put Kerry and Fonda in the same photo during the last election cycle."
For what it's worth, only one of the two photographs floating about purporting to show Kerry and Fonda together was actually a fake. The other, as it turns out, was real. More here.
Slashdot Mirror
Ajax - n. A regifted, decade-old technology reproducing functionality available in the mid-90s that a new generation of clueless MBAs can use to impress clueless clients with MBAs.
"You're not "safer" because you have a gun, because eventually everyone will think like you, have guns around raising the occurences of abuse."
Virginia began rolling back their gun laws a few years back, even going so far as to allow concealed and open-carrying of weapons. The result has been a drop in crime to levels from 30 years ago. The murder rate has dropped to levels not seen since at least 1960 (the earliest statistics I could find). Violent crime in general has dropped to late 1960s levels.
A well-armed society is a polite society.
"hasn't yet caught up to the modern virtue of the pursuit of equality for all whenever possible"
I do believe all people should be treated equally, but as I'm sure you know, not everyone is born exactly the same. I can't jump very high, couldn't hit a 3-pointer to save my life, and don't have just great defense either; should I get to play in the NBA? Why not? What happened to everyone being equal? Some people are simply born with better hand-eye coordination, the ability to jump higher, the ability to run very fast, and/or other physical abnormalities that make them better suited for sports or other such activities. They tend to carry the burden of managing several million dollars by the time they're old enough to vote. Others are born with or later develope the flip-side; that being physical or mental abnormalities that restrict their participation in even every-day activities. This is sad, and we all recognize it as such.
That being said, there is a question raised as to whether people and/or society in general should be forced to expend (in varying amounts) time, effort, and money to make special and out of the ordinary accomodations for those unfortunate enough to have been born physically or otherwise handicapped. The pro-handicapped lobby has somehow shifted the language of the debate to talking about "equality" when what we are actually talking about is business owners, the government, and others having to make changes to support the "special needs" of a group of people.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever said that handicapped individuals are not allowed to enter their business, and no one has said that the handicapped are not allowed to shop with them, so let's just stop with any talk about 'discrimination' or any other such nonesense right there. If an individual who is handicapped has difficulty or finds it impossible to frequent a certain place or to shop at a certain store because of their own personal, physical failings, it is the fault of the handicap and not the business owner. The business owner did not specially design their place of business to exclude those customers who cannot see or walk; they merely designed them the same way places of business and residence have been designed throughout the ages. No one has trained their employees in not using sign language; most people simply don't know it and would need special training in it to use it.
In other words, business owners and the general public did nothing to cause the problem, but are somehow being expected to put forth extra time and money for special building designs/modifications and special employee training to make special accomodations for the specific individuals who have some form of handicap. Let's get something straight: we're not talking about making things equal, we're talking about making everyone identical (in terms of their abilities). The argument being put forth is that it is the responsibility of business owners and the general public to ensure that everyone has some pre-defined and wholey arbitrary minimum capability with regard to everyday life, regardless of their particular handicap. The conclusion drawn from this argument is that a store owner is shirking their responsibility as a member of society if they can't/won't spend $5,000 retrofitting their 80-year old store with a handicap ramp on the off chance that someone, at some point, who chooses or requires a wheelchair for mobility happens to decide that they want to browse the store's offerings for a while.
This is, frankly, absurd. It is, however, not the least bit unexpected from a culture that prides itself on instilling a massive entitlement complex within all its people.
"You are one of these people that make so many good points but for some reason think they have to be all inflammatory to get them across and in doing so simply make themselves very hard to relate to."
I had just woken up when I wrote this after having
"Enlightened countries"
Oh goodie, do please tell us who it is that is so very "enlightened"?
"You never use cash? Not for getting a haircut? Buying a newspaper? Buying a coffee? Buying a bus ticket? How about buying a beer in a bar - do you pass your card to be swiped for each drink you purchase?"
. .. WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa.... Other countries have money that looks so much like monopoly money that I honestly don't get how their people tell the real stuff from the counterfeit. With the direction our money design is already going without this garbage, I see plenty of people who look at it now and wonder out loud whether it's real. Every time they add a watermark or a hologram or some other ridiculous "security feature", it serves only to put yet another version of our money out there and instill a sense amoung the population that it's impossible to tell the fake stuff from the real stuff. GREAT job, US Treasury Debt - just great.
I never use cash. Hair Cuttery takes credit/debit cards (even for the tip). Wawa (like a 7-11, only better) sells newspapers and coffee and takes credit/debit cards (with no minimum purchase). I don't ride the bus, but I pay tolls with EZ-pass (which gets money transferred to it from a checking account or credit card). Bars I go to will either swipe the card every time you buy or will keep your card on hand and run a tab for you, then swipe your card when you're ready to settle up with them.
I don't live in a major city, and I don't generally hang out in cities (not very fond of them). What planet/century is it that debit/credit cards aren't accepted for everything? Hell, even cab companies take them now.
"Perhaps you have changed your lifestyle to fit your no cash utopia, but to suggest that others do likewise because they had the misfortune to be born blind or to have lost their eyesight is plain wrong."
Why is it wrong? It's not my fault they're blind - complain to God about it. They should be thrilled beyond belief that they were born in a time and place where they can function as readily as they can in society, and that things have been made so much easier by inventions such as the credit card. Some people just don't seem to get that the word "handicapped" has a meaning, and it isn't "special". The word means that there are some things you can't do, and some things that are more difficult to do. It's not the government's fault, not my fault, and not anyone else's fault that you were born blind/without legs/attached to your twin/whatever. Sucks that you had the bad break, but get over it and be happy you live in a time when parents generally don't just leave handicapped children in a field to die. Be happy so many accomodations have been made to make your life easier instead of constantly bitching that everyone isn't bending over backwards far enough to erase the fact that you're handicapped. Holy mother of Christ - between this and the Target website thing, I'm about ready to start campaigning for the repeal of the ADA and a return to how handicapped peoples' complaints used to be handled (ie ignored).
"The US is the onlycountry on earth with notes that are indistinguishable from one another for the blind."
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
"Sure, round them all up and toss them in the bonfire. We'll march around it and sing songs and chants! It'll be a fun time!"
Think they already tried that in Germany once before - some time in the 1930s or so? Can't recall specifics, but I don't think it worked out very well for them...
"Yes, because the acts of a handful of loonies are representative of a billion people."
A handful of loonies? Since when are millions considered a handful? But I do see your point - a few million rotten apples are making the rest look bad...
"The US HAS now entered into wars and acts of hostility against Mahometan nations"
Judging by what has transpired in Beirut, Kuwait City (1983), Madrid (1985), Berlin (1986), Lockerbie Scotland (1988), WTC (1993), Riyadh (1995), Dhahran (1996), Kenya and Tanzania (1998), Yemen (2000), Sept 11 (2001), Karachi (2002), Riyadh (2003, 2004), Jeddah (2004), and Amman (2005), I would say that the Mahometan peoples, many supported by Mahometan nations, have now entered into wars and acts of hostility against us.
"Define bad law for me."
A law which places unjust restrictions on the actions of citizens, gives government too much control over citizens, or does not function the way it was intended due to poor wording.
"Is a law bad because it requires businesses to accommodate ALL customers, regardless of whether or not they can see, hear or walk?"
I've never heard of a store which doesn't serve blind, deaf, or wheelchair bound customers. However, if the customer is unable to get to the store, or is unable to communicate with the staff, then the store may be unable to serve them. At that point, it is the store's decision as to whether it is economically feasible and cost-justifiable for them to attempt to make adjustments such that they can serve those customers with specific disabilities. Oh wait, no it isn't, the government has made that decision for them. The government has told citizens that they must output monies they may or may not have, and may or may not ever earn back to make special accomodations for a small segment of society that unfortunately has some disability or another.
"Or are you a part of the group of pseudo-libertarians who think that government should butt out?"
Show me one thing the government does better than citizens and perhaps us 'pseudo-libertarians' will butt out ourselves. Thus far, I've yet to witness a single thing the government does well without screwing up royally. Government is all but worthless at basically all levels, and should only exist as a necessary evil to coordinate the few necessary things individuals would likely choose not to deal with themselves if given the choice - like national defense.
"If it wasn't for ADA, my wife (who is confined to a wheelchair) and I would be extremely limited in where we go, what we do, and where we can shop, eat, or stay."
I'm sorry your wife is confined to a wheelchair, but that is not the fault of businesses, and it's not their responsibility to try and erase her handicap. Tell me, have you sued all your friends who haven't put in handicap ramps and doors at their private homes? Isn't it their responsibility to put out whatever money is necessary to make those places accessible to your wife? After all, the wheelchair musn't prevent her or you from doing anything in the world you want to do, so they, like businesses, should be forced to spend money making 'reasonable accomodations', right? What if you and your wife want to go rock climbing? Should companies that do rock climbing expeditions be forced to assist blind, deaf, and wheelchair bound customers even when they risk life and limb doing so? Where do the so-called 'reasonable accomodations' end?
"So it seems a bit ridiculous to you that Target was the target, and they want them to make the site accessible to the blind. It seems even more ridiculous to me that Target wouldn't do that in the first place (it may cost a bit more, but seeing as how they are a "good corporate citizen (compared to WalMart)", it would be befit their image."
First of all, the second we started looking at corporations as 'citizens', we screwed no one but ourselves. That confers on them rights they simply do not deserve. Secondly, who in the hell am I, are you, is the government to tell Target what their website must have on it? Frankly, if Target replaced their index file with a plaintext "Go Fuck Yourself" (which would be screen reader compliant, of course), they would be perfectly within their rights. I'm sorry there are blind people in the world. Y'know what? That's not Target's fault. Target didn't make those people blind. As such, Target as no responsibility for them. Neither does Walmart or anyone else.
It's a handicap. People just don't see to get what the goddamn word means these days - it means there are some things you just cannot do. I think it's wonderful that companies have created screen readers; I really do. I think that was a brilliant business move by shrewd individuals who've cashed i
"The fact that fraud is as wide-spread as you claim it is doesn't change the fact that it is fraud."
In the social sense of the word, possibly; but not in the legal sense.
You cannot bring legal action for theoretical harms. In other words, one must request payment (as an invoice explicitly does) before one can claim payment was refused. Ergo, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on unless and until Universal is invoiced.
An invoice may be challenged in a lawsuit or its validity may be decided in a lawsuit brought for non-payment. If the fans submitted the invoice, Universal could sue the individuals or the group that submitted the invoice challenging its validity. If they win, the issue is dead. If Universal ignored the invoice, only then could the fans in question bring a suit claiming quantum meritus.
By your logic, Universal's request for payment of $9,000 in retroactive licensing would be prosecutable as fraud if the individual(s) involed successfully challenged Universal's right in court to seek said licensing compensation. That isn't how it works because that just wouldn't make sense - you'd have 100,000 fraud cases a day filling court schedules across the country to the exclusion of all else.
The French left Paris undefended and signed an armistice with Germany. Southern France was well known to be collaborating with the Germans. Sounds like a "do whatever it takes, just don't make them mad!" attitude to me.
"As a German, I can only say: Some of you Americans are such idiots. Seriously, educate yourself. For starters, learn how to spell Führer,"
That's what you have? A spelling error on a word that has no meaning in my language or culture? A freaking typo?
"what it means and why it is only a bad thing in a certain context."
Interesting, considering that IT WAS BAD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS USED. If you don't understand the sentences as written, I'll be happy to explain them to you after class. In the meantime, when you get your thoughts together enough to comprehend - let alone challenge - the substance of what was written, please do feel free to compose a response. Until then, scurry back to your dictionary and look up the word 'pedantic'.
"Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help."
North Korea has a million man army, two million reserves, and an enormous stockpile of artillery and short - medium range missiles. North Korea could wipe out every living thing North of Seoul without one boot hitting the edge of the DMZ. Their navy and air forces leave much to be desired, but if that massive army comes flooding through the DMZ supported by rockets, artillery, and missiles, there isn't anything that's going to stop them before they take most of South Korea. They can take Japan out of the game just by managing to deliver a single nuclear warhead to a major Japanese city (those people will never support war against a nuclear-armed foe). As for their sustainability without outside help - Russia, China, Iran, and others would happily (and very quietly) supply them with all the conventional hardware they desired.
Things are never so black and white these days. We live in a world of proxy wars fought by pawns. It's chess; not checkers.
"I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into."
Objective perspectives have their advantages as well. When someone has a gun pointed at your head, logic and clear thinking become difficult. Run the numbers, know the players, and then tell me North Korea couldn't do so much damage so fast that no one - save China, who won't - could possibly respond quickly enough to help South Korea. Thanks be to President Clinton for proving once and for all that missiles and bombs alone do not an enemy defeat.
"I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea. NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of missiles down to Seoul, just to prove that NK is dangerous.
I hope that the U.S. and Japan won't push it too far."
Wait.. wait... this sounds oddly familiar...
"I happen to work in Paris right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Roosevelt & his friends than Germany. Germany will not attack France unprovoked because even their nutcase of a fürer knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of divisions down to Paris, just to prove that Germany is dangerous.
I hope that the U.S. and Britain won't push it too far.
That kind of thinking has gotten us nowhere in the past. A head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-the-ears policy is exactly the kind of climate in which madmen and their armies flourish. How's 50 years of doing absolutely nothing about the threat of North Korea done for Seoul and the rest of South Korea's safety and security? Oh wait, that's right, now you guys are threatened with nuclear weapons in addition to the conventional weapons. So basically, things have improved tremendously.
You do realize that were it not for the US tripwire force at the DMZ, you guys would all be living in the same horrible conditions as North Koreans currently endure, right? The US isn't your enemy, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get some real security. Every time you people bitch and moan about the US presence (which was requested) to your North, you just embolden the man who would happily strip your economy to the bone and work every last one of you people to death if it meant he could maintain his regime for another 10 minutes more than he could without doing that.
"A prep course isn't absolutely necessary."
No, much like a driver's education course isn't necessary to teach someone how to drive. However, it has serious potential to be helpful when it's time for the real thing. You can do fine without a prep course, but statistically, you can do a heck of a lot better with one. To me, every point in your favor gets you one step closer to things like scholarships.
If $75 for an SAT prep course can save me $20,000 on college thanks to scholarships, then that's one hell of an ROI.
"First, you need more than "9th grade math" or "8th grade education"; among other topics there's geometry (10th grade for most kids) and some probability/data analysis."
For a lot of people, Algebra I is 8th grade. For the vast majority of the rest, it's 9th grade. You may see a small number of very basic geo/trig based questions, but they're generally dirt-simple if you read the question properly. Give a 20-minute overview of geo/trig to a 9th grader and they'll have no problems as long as they understand the question. Now I've watched a high school teacher take an Algebra I SAT question and turn in into a high-end calculus problem. She got the right answer doing some very time-consuming math that would send most high schoolers running for the hills, but was completely confused as to why such an incredibly difficult question would be put on the SAT. Someone else then pointed out that if she'd read the question more carefully, she'd have noticed critical information sitting right there that narrowed the answer down immediately for anyone with a basic Algebra background.
And that's where they get you on those damned things: trying to answer the question you can't answer instead of answering the question they actually asked. The AP exams are no different in that regard.
"Second, it's not really a reasoning test in the way that, for example, an IQ test is."
It's not an IQ test; it's a logic test. At least when I took it, the SAT I was labeled precisely that: "SAT I: Logic Test". That's what gets the totally unprepared kids. They come into it thinking they're taking a math and vocabulary test. No, you're taking a test-taking test. The underlying assumption is that if they just asked you the questions in their most basic form, you'd have no problem getting a near-perfect score every time.
"It *does* test math and language skills, albeit in a rather shallow and limited way."
It does in the sense that without those basic math skills and without the vocabulary, the questions become impossible. You may as well be looking to a first-grader to do logs. That kid could be a towering intellectual giant with superb reasoning abilities and an immense learning capacity, but if he doesn't know what the heck a log is, all that intellect is utterly useless. If you don't know how to do the math required for the most basic form of the question and you don't have a clue what the words mean, then it becomes impossible to work with them at all.
"It also tests *specific* skills, such as identifying the tone of a literary passage or using the formula for the circumference of a circle"
I would argue that identifying the tone of a passage is one of those things where you can work on it in a prep course, but it still comes down to logic ability. The passages are there primarily to dump a bunch of useless garbage into your head, coupled with a few pieces of key information. The questions must then be unraveled, the data processed, and the key pieces identified and reassembled in such a way that the question becomes answerable. I do believe this is one area where prep courses can help students with this, but not so much by enhancing their logic as teaching them the basic methodology to apply to yield usable information. That goes hand-in-hand with instruction within the prep course on how to approach and unravel the questions themselves.
As far as using a formula, that's essentially the foundation of all math. Everything from addition on up is simply applying formulae. The fact that they give you formulae right on the test itself shows they don't care whether you know (pi)r^2 so much as whether you can then use it to yield correct results for their mangled question.
"Third, preparation provably helps, often leading to multiple-hundred point increases."
The preparation classes, more than anything else from my understanding, help with SAT scores. Typically, a student can expect to raise their score by a hundred points or so. Score
It's a logic test - says so right on the thing. What do you need to know? 9th grade math and a decent array of English language words. Beyond that, it's completely up to your brain. The guides you're seeing aren't telling you how to learn; they're telling you how to read and understand the questions, and how to beat the test's tricks. Understanding what the SAT is and knowing how to handle its questions is about 80% of the test. The rest is general knowledge they're expecting most people to have. Honestly, if you're a bright kid, there should be nothing holding you back from scoring a near-perfect SAT score if you have a solid 8th grade education.
The SAT isn't testing your math or language skills; it's testing your ability to reason. As such, it's testing something that's innate (re: ability vs training). The prep classes, study guides, and sample questions are geared toward teaching you how to approach the test itself and the questions. They teach you about how the test is scored, how to pick apart the wording of the questions, and what kind of attitude to take with it. Frankly, if you need help with the knowledge end of things, no prep class on Earth is going to save you. Without the basic knowledge (and we really are talking about basic - 8th grade - knowledge), no amount of reasoning or test taking skills is going to save you.
First : Post as This question : absolutely stupid
Seriously, please just do what everyone else on Earth does for this thing - take a prep class and hope you've got the logic skills to perform well.
"Yeah, such as end all human life. Obviously we needed the bombers and subs too."
If I can place bombers over your command and control facilities and have hunter/killer "shadows" on your nuclear subs, I can eliminate your second-strike capability and feel free to launch all the ICBMs I want without the threat of your retaliation oblitering me.
The Eurofighter is still an impressive bit of machinery, but its radar profile is much higher than that of the Raptor, and it just can't match the cruise velocity of the Raptor. If you were expecting dogfighting, the Eurofighter might actually be a better choice. But if you wanted to zoom in undetected, hit your targets, and take out any air-based targets before they see you coming, then you'd want the Raptor. You wouldn't want to fly the Eurofighter, for instance, into the middle of a heavily armed and technologically advanced nation, but you do have that capability (or at least, that's what's expected) with the Raptor. A good bit of the technology in the Eurofighter is right up there with the Raptor, and it has some very nice engines on it, but we have more experience with stealth technology, and more experience with extremely high velocity aircraft, so it's to be expected that we'd have a bit of an advantage in those areas.
The Europeans came up with a surprisingly sophisticated and powerful aircraft design. Let's hope, for their sake, that cold feet and sweaty palms don't tear down what ought to be a damn good combat aircraft.
"Remind me who won the Cold War. Because from here, it doeesn't look like the citizens of either side."
Sales charts of fallout shelters tell a far different story. Those who didn't live through the time when air raid sirens went off in the United States, and when children were taught ways of protecting themselves during a nuclear attack in public schools, and when families huddled in fallout shelters as part of practice drills do not and can not fully understand just how much better things are now compared to then.
"the Tomcat was a killing machine - I see no reason for us all to feel sentimental for something being "retired" (anthropomorphism anyone?) that existed on this earth for the sole reason of killing human beings."
The only thing the Tomcat was intended to "kill" were enemy bombers. They were built as super fast planes with weaponry that could reach out and touch air targets (bombers, specifically). They initially had no ground capability whatsoever. Their primary offensive weaponry couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a highly manueverable fighter aircraft. However, they could swoop in quickly, unload on large bomber groups (taking down huge numbers of bombers), and then run like hell from the escort aircraft.
The purpose of the Tomcat was to take down Russian bombers before Russian bombers carpet-bombed and/or dropped nuclear weapons on American cities. It wasn't a killing machine; it was a tool of deterrence. Without reason to believe their bombers would never make it to American shores, the Soviets would have felt a lot more comfortable launching a crippling first attack on America. ICBMs can only do but so much damage. Bombers, on the other hand, could cripple our counter-attack capability and nullify MAD.
In other words, the Tomcat served to help prevent what could have easily been the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in all of human history.
"The best thing I can come up with is that the AF is banking on replacing the F-14 with the F-22 when (if?) the latter comes online."
The F-22 Raptor is already in full production. The trials have been incredibly impressive (near vertical take-offs, anyone?), and the plane itself is designed to be superior to the point of being limited only by the amount of firepower it can haul into the sky. Unlike the F-14, which was designed to jump in fast, blow its load and then run like hell, the Raptor is designed to cruise along at speeds only dreamt about until now, acquire its targets, and slate them for elimination (have precision guided weaponry being delivered to them) before they even see so much as a blip on the radar. The idea is that you don't even realize you're in danger until it's too late for you to save your aircraft.
We currently face no large-scale military threats, and thus do not need an absolutely solid line across the board as we did during the Cold War era. Were a threat to emerge, it would certainly be sized such that aircraft not specifically designed for a particular purpose (F/A-18 anyone?) would ably fill in the gaps while production were further ramped up on next-gen aircraft like the F-22 Raptor. Also keep in mind that one Raptor should be able to do the job of several F-14s. With its design (stealth technology, electronics warfare, etc), you would expect much smaller losses in any conflict than you would of the F-14 and a much higher kill capability.
So basically, there's no immediate necessity for an F-14 replacement, and the F/A-18 will be perfectly fine filling in the gaps until the F-22 production is completed. Once we have enough F-22s in use, US air dominance will remain all but unchallenged for a minimum of 10 years, assuming nothing comes along to replace the F-22. The reason is that it requires a hell of a lot of technical know-how, materials, and cold, hard cash to even get a competitor project started. Getting it through design, testing, and into production takes significant time. If someone (say, a European country, China, or Russia) started working on a plane to rival the F-22 5 years ago, and they threw everything they had at making it go, they might have a handfull coming off the production line in ten more years. That is, unless they cut all kinds of corners and risk having pieces falling off the things mid-flight.
"the hack who put Kerry and Fonda in the same photo during the last election cycle."
For what it's worth, only one of the two photographs floating about purporting to show Kerry and Fonda together was actually a fake. The other, as it turns out, was real. More here.