Would you spend your advertising budget trying to sell your products to people who cant spend $200 on a PC, or would you spend your advertising budget on some demographic that may have more disposable money that they can spend on buying your products?
Depends on what I'm trying to sell. The assumption that someone who doesn't have $500 to throw down on a new computer doesn't meant they dont' have money. Indeed, it's usually the opposite. They are usually people who don't save money. This means they spend it as soon as they get it.
So if your marketing fast food, snacks, CD's and music, clothes, etc, you will want to target these people.
This is not to say you should spend your money with them. You would be targetting 200,000 people in the UK. You could probably do better advertising on the radio.
No, in fact, I understand his point completely. His point is that these Terrorists have problems with certain things, and while they shouldn't be terrorizing, we should be solving these "problems".
I understand that completely. But you say that we should solve the problems that create the terrorists in the first place. While that is a fine thought, it's not realistic. The terrorists are wrong in what they are doing, regardless of their motive. Killing innocent people is wrong. We should NOT negotiate with terrorists, for the very reason that giving in to them would be to admit that violence is indeed the answer.
It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.
We need to strike back against the terrorists, obviously, while solving the problems. To not strike back is to invite more terrorism. "Look, if we terrorize the US, they will give in to our demands!" is what I don't want to hear.
I found that the previous poster (who I was responding to) was practically defending the terrorists by saying that it's the US's fault that these terrorists are attacking and killing innocent people.
It's the same type of reasoning people use when they say Music or Movies caused these people to commit violent acts. The terrorists are doing wrong, it's as simple as that.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
It "could" be, but it's not.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.
It's nice to know that you support the human rights abuses going on throughout the world. The vast majority of people, however, don't.
Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
That is an argument (the Fox News argument) of the uneducated. Rather than present your case, you attack the person. Next time, spend time on your arguments.
As to your Bonus points question, let me ask you this: So, unless we do something about EVERY oppressive regime around the world at the same time, we shouldn't do anything?
Once again, it's nice to know that you support the oppresion throughout the world.
The 'War on Terror' cannot be won by capturing anyone! You can only 'win' by solving the problems that only serve to create more and more terrorists.
By problem you mean terrorists, right? Because their is no excuse to go around being a terrorist. They may have legitimate gripes, but a violent retalitation is usually not a solution.
A few volunteers decide they don't like the changes being made. They leave, and decide to open up a new site under exactly the same name, even using the same logo. And you think that should just be okay?
So you are letting me know that it's okay if someone produces another Debian distro? That I could create the Free Software Foundation, or the EFF, and the holders of those trademarks should just allow it?
I just want to be clear what you are advocating. That we can all steal names regardless of who we are. You know, because I have always wanted to create a site called SlashDot, or put out a magazine called Sports Illustrated.
Double standards: the road to enlightenment apparently.
You remember when SCO first made these claims, and you had a bunch of people running around saying "they might be right, they might be right...", and basically defending SCO?
"I'm not forced to use Windows - I use it by choice. So does everyone else I know who uses Windows."
Your choice to use Windows was an illusion. Microsoft is a monopoly. It's as simple as that. When you went to buy a computer, and you walked into the little store, did you see a lot Macs, or a crap load of Windows PCs?
Just because their was another option doesn't mean Microsoft was any less of a monopoly. Consider what happened with AT&T and all the baby-bells. You didn't have to use a Phone, their were other forms of communication. Many people made a choice to use the Phone.
The problem is that you didn't choose to buy Windows. You choose to buy a computer, and had not choice buy to get Windows on it. It's only recently this is starting to change.
Well, no, your wrong, even if you think it's your opinion. Opinions can be wrong when they are based on misplaced fact.
First, we aren't talking about a desktop system getting hacked, we are talking about a server getting hacked. Secondly, a hack is a hack. If people at Debian let this slip, then it's their fault in the end. Whether it was MS or Debian, it would be the same thing: they screwed up.
Secondly, Debian doesn't develop all the software they distribute, or even use. Microsoft, however, developed Outlook. So, if a cracker gets into Debian because of an insecure application, it's not Debian coders at fault. However, a cracker that gets in via Outlook, well, it's MS's fault because they developed Outlook. (One could argue it was neither's fault, and rather the crackers fault, but that's another story).
Thirdly, you can't compare these two because of the open/closed source nature of either company. If MS were hacked into, how much information would they provide? How about Debian? What concerns me more isn't that Debian was hacked, but how many times has MS been hacked, and we haven't known about it.
Fourthly, you want to blame the user for the foul up when they execute a worm. First, a cracker and a work are two different things, and really can't be compared. However, looking at the work, it merely executes on Windows. The problem is that the security model for Windows sucks (it does, and any belief to the contrary is the same thing as admitting you don't care about security, and know nothing about it), that it allows all of this.
Finally, you say there are a bunch of excuses and rationalizations with all of these posts. This happens, whether it's Linux or Microsoft. The difference is that with Linux, we can check, while with Microsoft, we can't check. We have to go with what they tell us. If they say "Oh, it's merely a small problem," is their any way for us to actually verify this? No. But with Linux, it's usually open and verifiable. And what would you have the people do if they found out the crack was because of a bad password? Lie and say it was something worse. If it was a bad password, it was a bad password, nothing more. But with Linux, this can be verified, whereas with MS, this can't be.
"How can you have a competitive corporate client OS, when you have at least three different desktops, five billion browsers, twelve million text editors, and fifty thousand calculators?"
Don't you think that is why Red Hat, Sun, and Novell/SuSE are working together to choose a enterprise desktop OS? So problems like this don't happen. I mean, if you're the one installing these OS's with "three different desktops, five billion browsers, twelve million text editors, and fifty thousand calculators", then I would blame you! The default install on most Linux OS's comes with 1 (or maybe 2) of the same type of apps.
And of course, it's so wrong to have install gedit AND vi! The horror of those confused people who will open up a command shell and type in vi! They won't know what to do!
I love SuSE, and I love Gnome. I know many people out there may disagree, but having SuSE actually provide better Gnome support is wonderful news to me.
Regardless of that fact, having some big companies work together to create a unified front, a unified showing for Linux on the desktop, whether they use KDE, Gnome, or whatever, is good news as well.
Looks like some fun and interesting things are coming.
"however saying beforehand that it will be a goddamn good movie is a bit much:), for you have not seen the movie yet..
so if you haven't heard anything else about what's in rotk, bitching about missing saruman is quite understandable."
Yes and no. Having seen the other two, and knowing the amount of energy and heart that the cast and crew put into the movie, I am very confident in saying that the movie will be a damn good one. Of course, I could always be wrong... =)
There are many things I could bitch about, but I don't. Why? Because the movies stand well on their own. I would love to see more of Saruman mostly because Chrisopher Lee is great in the movie, and I love him as Saruman. It's just great.
Sure, the Saruman/pipe weed connection is a bit obvious, but I think like many things in the movies, while they can't show everything, they can pay homage to those facts. So while they can't put everything in, they can at least pay homage to these things in a subtle way.
Wired.com is a tech-savvy news website. What did you think they are going to write about? I mean, unless you think Wired is suddenly going to STOP writing tech-savvy articles about movies, and instead, focus on reviewing movies like "She's All That", and talk about the inner struggle between lunacy and sanity.
Yeah, because an article is written about how something is made == whatever is made will obviously suck.
What? I am sorry, but Fellowship deviated a LOT from the book, and it was still a damn good movie. Frodo's age and the whole timing, how Merry and Pippin were introduced, the whole escaping from the shire, Tom was missing, etc. And that was just the beginning! But even the Theatrical release was damn good.
Simply put, Saruman is not important to the plot of the movie: Getting the ring to mount doom. They could easily remove Saruman from the third movie, and it would still be a good theatrical release.
Rather than be a glass if half full, you can start looking at what they have put into the movie.
I just can't imagine why someone would sit there and say that the movie won't be good because the film makers had to make a choice of which parts were indeed vital to the movie, and what parts to remove.
Saruman was "finished off" in the second movie. Their will be no scouring of the shire, hence why bring him back in at the beginning of the third? It's not vital to the main plot: getting the ring to mount doom.
As a LOTR reader of many, many times, I keep hearing the same problems people have with "what they removed" and "what they changed." And frankly, it's getting old.
From the standpoint of the movies, the Saruman plot is finished, over, and done with. The seven minute scene you refer to is NOT important to the overall plot of the move: getting the ring to Mordor. You can argue all you want, but I remember hearing the same things when people complained about the removal of Tom from the Fellowship. But that hardly ruined the film.
While I agree that the extended editions are much, much better than the theatrical release, ROTK will still be a really damn good movie.
As Fran says in the TT extended edition DVD, this is one group of fants interpretation of the LotR. I never expected a blow by blow account of the retelling. Indeed, one of the scenes I missed (the one with Radagast) was never even brought up!
Put another way, if the books had never been written, and LotR had been simply a movie without a book, would that make a difference. Yes, it would. So rather than judge the movie for what they had to leave out, but rather, for what they put into the movie.
There is a show on TLC called "Clean Sweep." The whole idea of the show is to take someone who has amazingly disorganized and cluttered rooms, and to make their rooms organized and uncluttered. Watch a few episodes of this, and you should come up with some great ideas. I know I did, and it worked great.
Saw this on TLC/Discovery a while back. Basically, what they found were that popular music generally were grouped together like star constellations. So what you had were good music grouping together.
Indeed, original music isn't necessarily good. But what was interesting was that in the report, they talked about all the different genres, and even older music, like classical, held true to grouping.
And even music in the same category, like two Pop songs, weren't always in the same grouping.
On another note: the/. suggests finding original music through this method. I don't know, but anyone who bases their reason for liking music on the originality factor doesn't really have musical tastes, IMO. If you like a song, what's wrong with just liking it? Song's don't have to have a completely original sound to be good, they just have to be good.
As someone in the ewallet industry developing a new product that is different from other ewallet solutions, this is slightly disturbing. To think that a common concept such as accepting a credit card is patented. Of course, AT&T will have to go after all those credit card terminals now, because they all do the same thing. A consumer and a merchant processing a credit card through a trusted third party (the one leasing the terminal to the merchant).
However, seeing as my company is small, I have no real worries. Oh, sure, they may sue once they have something big to sue for, buy by then, I can afford to fight back. Hopefully, PayPal will fight for me. By fighting AT&T's patent, they could make it difficult for AT&T to sue for it in the future.
Of course, PayPal could also just make a deal, and this won't get taken care of in court.
Oh, the fun of e-commerce. You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that? Of course, that is probably been said on/. before.
No, actually, coffee makers don't boil the water, and not to 190 degrees fahrenheit. Indeed, commerical home use coffee machines don't do this. However, I challenge you. Go boil some water on the stove. Then poor it through some coffee beans. Then drink it right away.
So essentially what you guys are referring to exists already in Gnome, Gnome's HIG, and FreeDesktop.org. And these changes to a consistant usable desktop are happening. They do take time.
Another major problem is everyone who ever looks at using a browser always suggest Mozilla. As far as being usable, Mozilla isn't. Indeed, Mozilla Firebird doesn't even cut it. However, native applications like Epiphany and Konqueror are better suited as a default browser. Basically, Mozilla people don't follow the Gnome (or KDE?) HIG, care about FreeDesktop.org, or anything.
So a default browser shouldn't be Mozilla or Firebird.
I also don't think every application UserLinux supports should be forced to their standards. That's sort of shooting application developers in the foot. Sure, work with a clean desktop environment from the beginning, but clean up the installation. This way, a default installation gives you A text editor, and A browser, and A media player (not xmms for once). That would go a long way in solving many of these problems.
Of course, the western world should also wake up to the emerging Chinese market. A over a billion people, they aren't a market to ignore. However, most people still ignore the eastern markets like China and Taiwan.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you spend your advertising budget trying to sell your products to people who cant spend $200 on a PC, or would you spend your advertising budget on some demographic that may have more disposable money that they can spend on buying your products?
Depends on what I'm trying to sell. The assumption that someone who doesn't have $500 to throw down on a new computer doesn't meant they dont' have money. Indeed, it's usually the opposite. They are usually people who don't save money. This means they spend it as soon as they get it.
So if your marketing fast food, snacks, CD's and music, clothes, etc, you will want to target these people.
This is not to say you should spend your money with them. You would be targetting 200,000 people in the UK. You could probably do better advertising on the radio.
I think you're missing his point.
No, in fact, I understand his point completely. His point is that these Terrorists have problems with certain things, and while they shouldn't be terrorizing, we should be solving these "problems".
I understand that completely. But you say that we should solve the problems that create the terrorists in the first place. While that is a fine thought, it's not realistic. The terrorists are wrong in what they are doing, regardless of their motive. Killing innocent people is wrong. We should NOT negotiate with terrorists, for the very reason that giving in to them would be to admit that violence is indeed the answer.
It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.
We need to strike back against the terrorists, obviously, while solving the problems. To not strike back is to invite more terrorism. "Look, if we terrorize the US, they will give in to our demands!" is what I don't want to hear.
I found that the previous poster (who I was responding to) was practically defending the terrorists by saying that it's the US's fault that these terrorists are attacking and killing innocent people.
It's the same type of reasoning people use when they say Music or Movies caused these people to commit violent acts. The terrorists are doing wrong, it's as simple as that.
1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.
It "could" be, but it's not.
2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.
It's nice to know that you support the human rights abuses going on throughout the world. The vast majority of people, however, don't.
Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
That is an argument (the Fox News argument) of the uneducated. Rather than present your case, you attack the person. Next time, spend time on your arguments.
As to your Bonus points question, let me ask you this: So, unless we do something about EVERY oppressive regime around the world at the same time, we shouldn't do anything?
Once again, it's nice to know that you support the oppresion throughout the world.
The 'War on Terror' cannot be won by capturing anyone! You can only 'win' by solving the problems that only serve to create more and more terrorists.
By problem you mean terrorists, right? Because their is no excuse to go around being a terrorist. They may have legitimate gripes, but a violent retalitation is usually not a solution.
FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
So let me get this straight:
A few volunteers decide they don't like the changes being made. They leave, and decide to open up a new site under exactly the same name, even using the same logo. And you think that should just be okay?
So you are letting me know that it's okay if someone produces another Debian distro? That I could create the Free Software Foundation, or the EFF, and the holders of those trademarks should just allow it?
I just want to be clear what you are advocating. That we can all steal names regardless of who we are. You know, because I have always wanted to create a site called SlashDot, or put out a magazine called Sports Illustrated.
Double standards: the road to enlightenment apparently.
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada == SCAM Publishers of Canada
Sorry, just found that mildly amusing.
You remember when SCO first made these claims, and you had a bunch of people running around saying "they might be right, they might be right...", and basically defending SCO?
Where are they now?
"I'm not forced to use Windows - I use it by choice. So does everyone else I know who uses Windows."
Your choice to use Windows was an illusion. Microsoft is a monopoly. It's as simple as that. When you went to buy a computer, and you walked into the little store, did you see a lot Macs, or a crap load of Windows PCs?
Just because their was another option doesn't mean Microsoft was any less of a monopoly. Consider what happened with AT&T and all the baby-bells. You didn't have to use a Phone, their were other forms of communication. Many people made a choice to use the Phone.
The problem is that you didn't choose to buy Windows. You choose to buy a computer, and had not choice buy to get Windows on it. It's only recently this is starting to change.
"Using Microsoft products is not genetics or how we were raised. It's a choice and we're damn proud of it."
Actually, it wasn't a choice. MS had a monopoly, and therefore, you really had no choice.
"I'd like to know who the editor thinks are "forcing" people to use Microsoft products."
People at work who have to use Windows because it's work mandated.
Their's millions of those type of people...
Well, no, your wrong, even if you think it's your opinion. Opinions can be wrong when they are based on misplaced fact.
First, we aren't talking about a desktop system getting hacked, we are talking about a server getting hacked. Secondly, a hack is a hack. If people at Debian let this slip, then it's their fault in the end. Whether it was MS or Debian, it would be the same thing: they screwed up.
Secondly, Debian doesn't develop all the software they distribute, or even use. Microsoft, however, developed Outlook. So, if a cracker gets into Debian because of an insecure application, it's not Debian coders at fault. However, a cracker that gets in via Outlook, well, it's MS's fault because they developed Outlook. (One could argue it was neither's fault, and rather the crackers fault, but that's another story).
Thirdly, you can't compare these two because of the open/closed source nature of either company. If MS were hacked into, how much information would they provide? How about Debian? What concerns me more isn't that Debian was hacked, but how many times has MS been hacked, and we haven't known about it.
Fourthly, you want to blame the user for the foul up when they execute a worm. First, a cracker and a work are two different things, and really can't be compared. However, looking at the work, it merely executes on Windows. The problem is that the security model for Windows sucks (it does, and any belief to the contrary is the same thing as admitting you don't care about security, and know nothing about it), that it allows all of this.
Finally, you say there are a bunch of excuses and rationalizations with all of these posts. This happens, whether it's Linux or Microsoft. The difference is that with Linux, we can check, while with Microsoft, we can't check. We have to go with what they tell us. If they say "Oh, it's merely a small problem," is their any way for us to actually verify this? No. But with Linux, it's usually open and verifiable. And what would you have the people do if they found out the crack was because of a bad password? Lie and say it was something worse. If it was a bad password, it was a bad password, nothing more. But with Linux, this can be verified, whereas with MS, this can't be.
Maybe you enjoy being lied to. I don't.
"How can you have a competitive corporate client OS, when you have at least three different desktops, five billion browsers, twelve million text editors, and fifty thousand calculators?"
Don't you think that is why Red Hat, Sun, and Novell/SuSE are working together to choose a enterprise desktop OS? So problems like this don't happen. I mean, if you're the one installing these OS's with "three different desktops, five billion browsers, twelve million text editors, and fifty thousand calculators", then I would blame you! The default install on most Linux OS's comes with 1 (or maybe 2) of the same type of apps.
And of course, it's so wrong to have install gedit AND vi! The horror of those confused people who will open up a command shell and type in vi! They won't know what to do!
I love SuSE, and I love Gnome. I know many people out there may disagree, but having SuSE actually provide better Gnome support is wonderful news to me.
Regardless of that fact, having some big companies work together to create a unified front, a unified showing for Linux on the desktop, whether they use KDE, Gnome, or whatever, is good news as well.
Looks like some fun and interesting things are coming.
"however saying beforehand that it will be a goddamn good movie is a bit much :), for you have not seen the movie yet..
so if you haven't heard anything else about what's in rotk, bitching about missing saruman is quite understandable."
Yes and no. Having seen the other two, and knowing the amount of energy and heart that the cast and crew put into the movie, I am very confident in saying that the movie will be a damn good one. Of course, I could always be wrong... =)
There are many things I could bitch about, but I don't. Why? Because the movies stand well on their own. I would love to see more of Saruman mostly because Chrisopher Lee is great in the movie, and I love him as Saruman. It's just great.
Sure, the Saruman/pipe weed connection is a bit obvious, but I think like many things in the movies, while they can't show everything, they can pay homage to those facts. So while they can't put everything in, they can at least pay homage to these things in a subtle way.
Wired.com is a tech-savvy news website. What did you think they are going to write about? I mean, unless you think Wired is suddenly going to STOP writing tech-savvy articles about movies, and instead, focus on reviewing movies like "She's All That", and talk about the inner struggle between lunacy and sanity.
Yeah, because an article is written about how something is made == whatever is made will obviously suck.
What? I am sorry, but Fellowship deviated a LOT from the book, and it was still a damn good movie. Frodo's age and the whole timing, how Merry and Pippin were introduced, the whole escaping from the shire, Tom was missing, etc. And that was just the beginning! But even the Theatrical release was damn good.
Simply put, Saruman is not important to the plot of the movie: Getting the ring to mount doom. They could easily remove Saruman from the third movie, and it would still be a good theatrical release.
Rather than be a glass if half full, you can start looking at what they have put into the movie.
I just can't imagine why someone would sit there and say that the movie won't be good because the film makers had to make a choice of which parts were indeed vital to the movie, and what parts to remove.
Saruman was "finished off" in the second movie. Their will be no scouring of the shire, hence why bring him back in at the beginning of the third? It's not vital to the main plot: getting the ring to mount doom.
As a LOTR reader of many, many times, I keep hearing the same problems people have with "what they removed" and "what they changed." And frankly, it's getting old.
From the standpoint of the movies, the Saruman plot is finished, over, and done with. The seven minute scene you refer to is NOT important to the overall plot of the move: getting the ring to Mordor. You can argue all you want, but I remember hearing the same things when people complained about the removal of Tom from the Fellowship. But that hardly ruined the film.
While I agree that the extended editions are much, much better than the theatrical release, ROTK will still be a really damn good movie.
As Fran says in the TT extended edition DVD, this is one group of fants interpretation of the LotR. I never expected a blow by blow account of the retelling. Indeed, one of the scenes I missed (the one with Radagast) was never even brought up!
Put another way, if the books had never been written, and LotR had been simply a movie without a book, would that make a difference. Yes, it would. So rather than judge the movie for what they had to leave out, but rather, for what they put into the movie.
There is a show on TLC called "Clean Sweep." The whole idea of the show is to take someone who has amazingly disorganized and cluttered rooms, and to make their rooms organized and uncluttered. Watch a few episodes of this, and you should come up with some great ideas. I know I did, and it worked great.
I live in Montreal as well, but I am from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. You mention a static IP. Which provider offers that? I would like to know.
Saw this on TLC/Discovery a while back. Basically, what they found were that popular music generally were grouped together like star constellations. So what you had were good music grouping together.
/. suggests finding original music through this method. I don't know, but anyone who bases their reason for liking music on the originality factor doesn't really have musical tastes, IMO. If you like a song, what's wrong with just liking it? Song's don't have to have a completely original sound to be good, they just have to be good.
Indeed, original music isn't necessarily good. But what was interesting was that in the report, they talked about all the different genres, and even older music, like classical, held true to grouping.
And even music in the same category, like two Pop songs, weren't always in the same grouping.
On another note: the
As someone in the ewallet industry developing a new product that is different from other ewallet solutions, this is slightly disturbing. To think that a common concept such as accepting a credit card is patented. Of course, AT&T will have to go after all those credit card terminals now, because they all do the same thing. A consumer and a merchant processing a credit card through a trusted third party (the one leasing the terminal to the merchant).
/. before.
However, seeing as my company is small, I have no real worries. Oh, sure, they may sue once they have something big to sue for, buy by then, I can afford to fight back. Hopefully, PayPal will fight for me. By fighting AT&T's patent, they could make it difficult for AT&T to sue for it in the future.
Of course, PayPal could also just make a deal, and this won't get taken care of in court.
Oh, the fun of e-commerce. You know, makes me want to patent some of my ideas, not to sue people, but just to make sure people don't sue me or my company. Patenting to defend yourself...hrm, maybe I could patent that? Of course, that is probably been said on
No, actually, coffee makers don't boil the water, and not to 190 degrees fahrenheit. Indeed, commerical home use coffee machines don't do this. However, I challenge you. Go boil some water on the stove. Then poor it through some coffee beans. Then drink it right away.
Fun, isn't it?
So essentially what you guys are referring to exists already in Gnome, Gnome's HIG, and FreeDesktop.org. And these changes to a consistant usable desktop are happening. They do take time.
Another major problem is everyone who ever looks at using a browser always suggest Mozilla. As far as being usable, Mozilla isn't. Indeed, Mozilla Firebird doesn't even cut it. However, native applications like Epiphany and Konqueror are better suited as a default browser. Basically, Mozilla people don't follow the Gnome (or KDE?) HIG, care about FreeDesktop.org, or anything.
So a default browser shouldn't be Mozilla or Firebird.
I also don't think every application UserLinux supports should be forced to their standards. That's sort of shooting application developers in the foot. Sure, work with a clean desktop environment from the beginning, but clean up the installation. This way, a default installation gives you A text editor, and A browser, and A media player (not xmms for once). That would go a long way in solving many of these problems.
Of course, the western world should also wake up to the emerging Chinese market. A over a billion people, they aren't a market to ignore. However, most people still ignore the eastern markets like China and Taiwan.