A "low end" BMW (325i) is going to cost me $28,000 , and that's for a 185hp rear wheel drive car.
Instead I could throw down $18,000 for Hyundai Tiburon thats still going to be kind of fun to drive. Or if I really do want a fast car I could instead buy myself a Subaru WRX that's going to cost me $4,000 less and for that I'm getting all wheel drive, 40 more horse power and better acceleration. But if you get into a WRX, and then into a BMW...its not going to be the same experience. You get in WRX, its fast, its cool...but it is not a BMW. A BMW feels like a great car. Its the kind of car you can really fall in love with. Everything looks cool, the controls are all in the right place. The door makes the sweet thud of German engineering.
Its been said before, and I agree that Apple is really trying to be the BMW of computers (and consumer electronics with the ipod). A mac looks cool. You whip out your tibook and it STILL is going to turn heads. The keyboard feels good. The OS is rock solid. Its the same feeling as a BMW. If you just want a fast computer, sure, get a PC, its going to do the job. But if you want a computer that gives you that apple feeling, and you've got the dough to spend, well you will not be dissapointed.
Authors note: I drive a WRX and my desktop is a PIV 2.53ghz...but my other computer is a TiBook.
My favorite is that red pepper sauce you see in chinese resteraunts. (here's my bad mistake) I think it is call spirocha or something like that...Anyway, it has a little blurb about the product in like five languages on the side. The english one is fine, but the french one is basically gibberish. It really read like they just put it through babelfish and called it a translation. The company is based in Los Angeles as well, how hard can it have been to find a native french speaker to do the translation? Anyway, the part I remember was meant to translate "made from red peppers". In french read "made starting on spicy pepper", where they used a word that only means "beginning" as in the date, not as in what its made of. Also good was when it said "can benefit from some food that gives it a good flavor".
And what you are saying is that because Betamax and betacam are not the same, and betacam is better, therefore betamax wasn't. Sure beta failed, we accept this. But no one, I mean no one, ought to be claiming that VHS does anything but suck. Sure its good enough for most consumers, but its acceptance had NOTHING to do with it being technically better than betamax, which it wasn't. I have used pro VHS equipment. And you know what? It stinks. Its horrid. The generational degredation is just shocking. I am not an engineer, and I really don't understand the ultimate causes of VHS sucking so badly, but I have seen it murder the best shot footage. VHS may continue to be popular in industrial applications, but I assume thats because it was cheaper than beta, and now its just pure momentum.
Nvidia has really captured the "DCC" pro graphics market, because frankly, the stratospheric prices of ATIs pro cards put them out of reach for most of us. I can buy a Quadro4 750xgl for $350 which will absolutly smoke a fire 8800. I imagine that the price point on the FX-based Quadro card will make it pretty attractive (although not as attractive as the inevitable deals on the 750xgl and the 900xgl). And on the driver note, try running Maya on a Radeon for new and ugly crashes.
As far as I know, you just described what record labels (and film studios) basically do today, with the exception of perks for talent. They are banks that loan money for production, and then make huge piles of cash distritbuting the content. Well, they used to make huge piles of case. The reason they could do this is because they controled distribution. And guess what? They don't anymore. Which is the gist of the article, the business model is ddead.
Settle. Don't panic. Mozilla is doing great. The browser wars are back on. Judging by my own server access logs mozilla is gaining share. Mozilla is finally as good, if not better, than IE. Opera is also excellent. We have choices again. Just because a couple side projects aren't full steam ahead doesn't mean mozilla is going to go away. It certainly won't be replaced by IE on Linux.
You are right. It is subjective. In another post I mentioned the honda CR-V, which is another fuel efficient SUV. I think the real culprits are things like the Escalade and the Navigator, or god forbid, the Hummer H2. Which drive like tanks, get truly horrible mileage and are a menace to other drivers. Its absurd to do what I did and group all suvs together. I think most people who are outraged are outraged by cars like the Navigator and Escalade, which really are little more than an embodyment of conspicuous consumption. It is possible that some people would find an SUV more fun to drive than a WRX. But I personally can't see how.
My (fair) version of my anti-suv sentiment: if you need to haul huge amounts of gear frequently or tow boats, by all means get an SUV or a truck. (preferably diesel, makes more sense for your wallet and the environment) Because you need it. But if you are just picking the kids up from soccer or commuting to work, consider a station wagon. Or if you really, really, have to have the SUV styling, consider one of the smaller more sensible SUVs, like the escape or the CR-V. Which are really not SUVs, but more like station wagons in an suv-ish shape. And if you really have to spend more than $50,000 on a car that looks off-roady or could even go off road, consider an Audi A4 allroad. Those things are cool. And if you really, honestly like driving offroad and think an offroad car is the most fun thing to have, may I direct your attention to the Jeep Wrangler...that's what its for. Its cheap too.
I challenge you to test drive a WRX before you make claims about accelerating like a madman. I didn't claim to have a super efficient engine fuel wise. But I think its decent for a car with a 227hp engine....that is super, super, super fun to drive.
The Oldsmobile Silhouette. The cadillac of minivans.
What you say is true. And I feel sort of guilty about running around spouting environmentalist vitriole while driving a car that gets 27mpg. BUT at the same time, I freaking love my car. (which can and does win autocrosses, but sadly, not with me in it. They do say you should upgrade the driver before the car) And 27mpg is a LOT better than an escalade, which gets 16. Its just average. Interestingly enough, the Honda CR-V suvs get about the same milage as my car, which makes me wonder why anyone would want a crappy american land yacht. Those VW turbo diesels are really nice and get awesome milage with great performance. But why, why, why can't we have the 4-motion GTI in the states?
A friend and I were discussing the sad state of the world when so many men (who usually like fast cars and enjoy driving) are stuck behind the wheel of such unpleasant beasts. Just because you aren't in an suv doesn't mean you have to drive a geo metro.
You could drive my car, for example. To be honest doesn't get 45mpg. But its gets 27, which I think is mediocre to bad, globally speaking, but its way better than an SUV. And really good for a car with this kind of power. Way more fun to drive, has all the advantages (powerful engine, 4wd, lots of cargo room). It also costs a little less than an suv. And you can smoke almost anyone on the road. And win autocross races.
(and I reply, 5 days later, I wonder if this will ever get read)
"there simply isn't enough information to determine who is right yet."
This is the argument the conservative crowd (esp. the Bush administration) has been using to put off any new environmental regulation. But this is easily refuted by a simple cost/benefit analysis: Cost of doing nothing if the greens are right: environmental disaster. Cost if they are wrong: zero. Benefit if they are right or wrong: slightly stronger economy
Cost of new international regulation to reduce green house emissions if they are right: a smallish amount of economic productivity. (provided all nations don't sign on, thus giving the cheaters and advantage). Benefit: no disaster, or smaller disaster. Cost if they are wrong: same. Benefit: cleaner air.
Its a value call. A trade off. I would gladly sacrifice a little bit of economic mobility for some cleaner air...
Actually, if you look even harder with the gimp or photoshop, you will find that the square in the shadow that appears lighter is in fact darker, so the fact that this image is "bogus" has no affect on the point here. I also suspect that this was caused by the jpeg compression, which is well known for murdering color.
I was playing with a coworkers 1d this morning. It is AMAZING. Incredible. My mind == blown. The clipping issue is almost...not quite...but almost...solved. The hot highlights still showed a little bit of detail. It still clips though, and overexposure still looks ugly. But for 98% of photography that is a non-issue. And the resolution smacks the pants of 35mm film...no more grain. That said, you can have my Velvia 50 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I (subjectivly) feel that film, at least medium and large format, has a better dynamic range. (I shoot 4x5 these days...so grain doesn't enter into it)
They're not. Its faster than IE...and its pretty nice, but I think I'm going to stick with chimera for the time being...tabs and a little better speed.
Well, I would say that based on the animal kingdom now...anything is possible.
Owhhh, C'mon! What possible advantage is there in it? They can get all the food they need, without the hassle of vertebrae, in the ocean.
I am trying to craft a response to this, but its difficult. I think you may just fundementaly misunderstand how evolution works. As for the flying fish...there have been flying reptiles. Pteradons. In all likelyhood they were cold blooded as well
I also disliked the concept that most animals will get bigger. That seems contrary to what we've observed in the last million years.
Firstly, this is just wrong. There is no "trend" towards smaller creatures. The largest animal ever is actually modern: the blue whale. Secondly, their is no program. Evolution has no goal, it just happens. Any RANDOM mutation which leads to a (even tiny) increase in viable offspring will be selected for. Whether or not there are any "radical changes" proposed for the "program".
I have nothing to add here. But I am a subaru fanboy. I admit it. I might as well come clean right now. I test drove one to see if it lived up to the hype and I got out of the car thinking "what part of my life do I need to change to get one of these?" Now I have a WRX and I love it love it love it. It is really fast. The turbo lag is a drag (as a poster mentioned). If you lose boost on the turbo (below about 3000rpm) you feel like you're driving a taurus. But over that it just rocks. It won't win a drag race with a camero. But get on a road with turn and it is as advertised. For a car that normal people can afford, you really can't have more fun. (and if you live in Colorado you have AWD, ABS and the thrill of making SUV drives question their purchase choices)
This is the real deal from someone who has seen this situation play itself out... If you think it takes a rock band to get four guys laid, then you haven't filmed a movie before. No matter how silly of a movie you have made... if it is screened in public and people know about it, you will have a line of people (male and female) begging to be in your next movie.
People don't need to know about it, and it doesn't need to be screened publicly. When I was making student films (that sucked and were never seen) I routinely got over 150 headshots in response to casting calls. People are desperate and frightening. Auditions end up being a harrowing experience because you quickly realize that a significant percentage of the actors will do ANYTHING to get the part. In a silent student film. It is one of the (many) things that freaked me out about the film industry enough to scare me into another state.
Go work in a foreign country. Come back. See how you feel about this issue. Language skills are a catch 22, you need to be living and working in the new language to reach true fluency, and its difficult to get a job without it. BUT, having both been the foreign worker and worked with them, it takes about three months for anyone with fairly good "school learned" language skills to become fluent enough to be effectivly the same as a native speaker (not in writing, but in speaking, you don't need to worry about them understanding you or being understood anymore than a native).
Language is easily aquired. It will come for anyone. It is not a good reason to pass someone over. If they have real job the skills, the language will come easily in a few months. I think the language issue is really more of a race issue...but I'll let other people fight that one out.
I did read the article. And it is true that people succeed without Going to fancy schools. In fact, success often comes (at least in America) from hard work. That's the american dream. And I agree with the intent of the article. Just because Harvard or (in slashdot land ) Cal tech rejected you and you had to go to Cal State Northridge, does not mean you will be a failure (far from it).
Now, the article did not argue that university is useless, or that the best schools are bad. But there are those in this thread who seem to think because famous person x did not graduate from college, therefore a college degree is useless. This is just absurd.
I have a degree in film production from the school that rejected spielberg. I am also a worthless film director. My student films are incoherent crap. I heard, over and over again from the people that didn't get in the story of Spielberg's rejection. It is always cited as proof that school is a waste of time, the USC production program is stupid, etc. I asked my advisor about the Spielberg effect. He told me that that's what USC film uses to describe people who insist on measuring their success against the wunderkind like Spielberg. The fact was that Spielberg was rejected because USC cinema had nothing to offer him. He was already a talented film maker. He didn't want to learn the craft, he wanted to direct films. Film school would have done nothing for him.
I am obviously biased. But I am very glad I went to school and got an expensive degree. It was worth every penny, not because it put me in a position to be a super successful and famous film director. You can't teach that. But you can teach the sort of universal skills that I use every day in my work. School was useful for me. I specialized in cinematography and also did a lot of computer graphics learning on the side. I had a chance to learn from some amazing teachers(and some bad ones too of course). I got my hands on equipment you can't just play with on your own. And I got to learn the way things are done and why, instead of having to go out and screw up on my own. I was very prepared for my career. (I work as a 3d artist) A one semester cinematography course from Woody Omens was worth the price of admission.
Universities are not designed to create the super succesful. Those people are not created, they are born. Universities are intended to teach people a broad range of information, to create well rounded individuals capable of success in any aspect of their future careers. In school I learned to speak french, the history of japan and how to draw. I also learned the basics of editing, cinematography, animation, sound, direction and acting. I am terrible film director. I don't feel bad about that. I am not going to be Steven Spielberg. Nor am I going to be Hemingway or Nabokov. University is not for the geniuses. Its for the rest of us. So put it to rest. Just because people who don't go to university are succesful does not mean that universities are useless. If people that didn't go to high school learned algebra on their own, would you claim that Universities offer nothing? No, a degree is not necessarily an indicator of future performance. But it will often be useful to YOU in your career.
I think you are right that a lot of people think this, but they need to stop reading daily mail. Britain cannot stand alone. I think a lot of intelligent people know this. Integration with europe is the only way to stay competitive. Everyone in europe is slightly upset and worried about the EU, change is unpleasant. But they also know that to compete economically with the US and Asia a unified europe has to be the future. Say what you will about the name of the currency, but the paper bills look so cool. The have bright colors! Everyone likes bright colors. Although I'll miss Darwin on the five pound note.
I think that's a bad call. My parents lived there for a while. The swiss do not like foreigners (in general). My parents lived their for 6 years and never felt welcome. All of their friends were other foreigners. Switzerland is also quite conservative by european standards. I'm thinking New Zealand. Four weeks of vacation and good social programs, mountains, friendly people...sounds great.
Good point. If I was unafraid of my enemy I would totally resort to desperate tactics like terrorism. And if they didn't fight back I would keep doing it, but if they DID fight back I would just think, oh hum, they fought back I quit. Like the terrorists in Palestine. Good thing the Isrealis fought back. Look how retaliating stopped the cycle of violence.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it is though:
A "low end" BMW (325i) is going to cost me $28,000 , and that's for a 185hp rear wheel drive car.
Instead I could throw down $18,000 for Hyundai Tiburon thats still going to be kind of fun to drive. Or if I really do want a fast car I could instead buy myself a Subaru WRX that's going to cost me $4,000 less and for that I'm getting all wheel drive, 40 more horse power and better acceleration. But if you get into a WRX, and then into a BMW...its not going to be the same experience. You get in WRX, its fast, its cool...but it is not a BMW. A BMW feels like a great car. Its the kind of car you can really fall in love with. Everything looks cool, the controls are all in the right place. The door makes the sweet thud of German engineering.
Its been said before, and I agree that Apple is really trying to be the BMW of computers (and consumer electronics with the ipod). A mac looks cool. You whip out your tibook and it STILL is going to turn heads. The keyboard feels good. The OS is rock solid. Its the same feeling as a BMW. If you just want a fast computer, sure, get a PC, its going to do the job. But if you want a computer that gives you that apple feeling, and you've got the dough to spend, well you will not be dissapointed.
Authors note: I drive a WRX and my desktop is a PIV 2.53ghz...but my other computer is a TiBook.
My favorite is that red pepper sauce you see in chinese resteraunts. (here's my bad mistake) I think it is call spirocha or something like that...Anyway, it has a little blurb about the product in like five languages on the side. The english one is fine, but the french one is basically gibberish. It really read like they just put it through babelfish and called it a translation. The company is based in Los Angeles as well, how hard can it have been to find a native french speaker to do the translation? Anyway, the part I remember was meant to translate "made from red peppers". In french read "made starting on spicy pepper", where they used a word that only means "beginning" as in the date, not as in what its made of. Also good was when it said "can benefit from some food that gives it a good flavor".
Man, if snow crash would only stop coming true:
"A global layer of what a pakistani brick layer would call prosperity"
And what you are saying is that because Betamax and betacam are not the same, and betacam is better, therefore betamax wasn't. Sure beta failed, we accept this. But no one, I mean no one, ought to be claiming that VHS does anything but suck. Sure its good enough for most consumers, but its acceptance had NOTHING to do with it being technically better than betamax, which it wasn't. I have used pro VHS equipment. And you know what? It stinks. Its horrid. The generational degredation is just shocking. I am not an engineer, and I really don't understand the ultimate causes of VHS sucking so badly, but I have seen it murder the best shot footage. VHS may continue to be popular in industrial applications, but I assume thats because it was cheaper than beta, and now its just pure momentum.
Nvidia has really captured the "DCC" pro graphics market, because frankly, the stratospheric prices of ATIs pro cards put them out of reach for most of us. I can buy a Quadro4 750xgl for $350 which will absolutly smoke a fire 8800. I imagine that the price point on the FX-based Quadro card will make it pretty attractive (although not as attractive as the inevitable deals on the 750xgl and the 900xgl). And on the driver note, try running Maya on a Radeon for new and ugly crashes.
As far as I know, you just described what record labels (and film studios) basically do today, with the exception of perks for talent. They are banks that loan money for production, and then make huge piles of cash distritbuting the content. Well, they used to make huge piles of case. The reason they could do this is because they controled distribution. And guess what? They don't anymore. Which is the gist of the article, the business model is ddead.
Ahhhh the sky is falling!
Settle. Don't panic. Mozilla is doing great. The browser wars are back on. Judging by my own server access logs mozilla is gaining share. Mozilla is finally as good, if not better, than IE. Opera is also excellent. We have choices again. Just because a couple side projects aren't full steam ahead doesn't mean mozilla is going to go away. It certainly won't be replaced by IE on Linux.
You are right. It is subjective. In another post I mentioned the honda CR-V, which is another fuel efficient SUV. I think the real culprits are things like the Escalade and the Navigator, or god forbid, the Hummer H2. Which drive like tanks, get truly horrible mileage and are a menace to other drivers. Its absurd to do what I did and group all suvs together. I think most people who are outraged are outraged by cars like the Navigator and Escalade, which really are little more than an embodyment of conspicuous consumption. It is possible that some people would find an SUV more fun to drive than a WRX. But I personally can't see how.
My (fair) version of my anti-suv sentiment: if you need to haul huge amounts of gear frequently or tow boats, by all means get an SUV or a truck. (preferably diesel, makes more sense for your wallet and the environment) Because you need it. But if you are just picking the kids up from soccer or commuting to work, consider a station wagon. Or if you really, really, have to have the SUV styling, consider one of the smaller more sensible SUVs, like the escape or the CR-V. Which are really not SUVs, but more like station wagons in an suv-ish shape. And if you really have to spend more than $50,000 on a car that looks off-roady or could even go off road, consider an Audi A4 allroad. Those things are cool. And if you really, honestly like driving offroad and think an offroad car is the most fun thing to have, may I direct your attention to the Jeep Wrangler...that's what its for. Its cheap too.
I challenge you to test drive a WRX before you make claims about accelerating like a madman. I didn't claim to have a super efficient engine fuel wise. But I think its decent for a car with a 227hp engine....that is super, super, super fun to drive.
The Oldsmobile Silhouette. The cadillac of minivans.
What you say is true. And I feel sort of guilty about running around spouting environmentalist vitriole while driving a car that gets 27mpg. BUT at the same time, I freaking love my car. (which can and does win autocrosses, but sadly, not with me in it. They do say you should upgrade the driver before the car) And 27mpg is a LOT better than an escalade, which gets 16. Its just average. Interestingly enough, the Honda CR-V suvs get about the same milage as my car, which makes me wonder why anyone would want a crappy american land yacht. Those VW turbo diesels are really nice and get awesome milage with great performance. But why, why, why can't we have the 4-motion GTI in the states?
A friend and I were discussing the sad state of the world when so many men (who usually like fast cars and enjoy driving) are stuck behind the wheel of such unpleasant beasts. Just because you aren't in an suv doesn't mean you have to drive a geo metro.
You could drive my car, for example. To be honest doesn't get 45mpg. But its gets 27, which I think is mediocre to bad, globally speaking, but its way better than an SUV. And really good for a car with this kind of power. Way more fun to drive, has all the advantages (powerful engine, 4wd, lots of cargo room). It also costs a little less than an suv. And you can smoke almost anyone on the road. And win autocross races.
(and I reply, 5 days later, I wonder if this will ever get read)
"there simply isn't enough information to determine who is right yet."
This is the argument the conservative crowd (esp. the Bush administration) has been using to put off any new environmental regulation. But this is easily refuted by a simple cost/benefit analysis: Cost of doing nothing if the greens are right: environmental disaster. Cost if they are wrong: zero. Benefit if they are right or wrong: slightly stronger economy
Cost of new international regulation to reduce green house emissions if they are right: a smallish amount of economic productivity. (provided all nations don't sign on, thus giving the cheaters and advantage). Benefit: no disaster, or smaller disaster. Cost if they are wrong: same. Benefit: cleaner air.
Its a value call. A trade off. I would gladly sacrifice a little bit of economic mobility for some cleaner air...
Actually, if you look even harder with the gimp or photoshop, you will find that the square in the shadow that appears lighter is in fact darker, so the fact that this image is "bogus" has no affect on the point here. I also suspect that this was caused by the jpeg compression, which is well known for murdering color.
I was playing with a coworkers 1d this morning. It is AMAZING. Incredible. My mind == blown. The clipping issue is almost...not quite...but almost...solved. The hot highlights still showed a little bit of detail. It still clips though, and overexposure still looks ugly. But for 98% of photography that is a non-issue. And the resolution smacks the pants of 35mm film...no more grain. That said, you can have my Velvia 50 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I (subjectivly) feel that film, at least medium and large format, has a better dynamic range. (I shoot 4x5 these days...so grain doesn't enter into it)
They're not. Its faster than IE...and its pretty nice, but I think I'm going to stick with chimera for the time being...tabs and a little better speed.
I have nothing to add here. But I am a subaru fanboy. I admit it. I might as well come clean right now. I test drove one to see if it lived up to the hype and I got out of the car thinking "what part of my life do I need to change to get one of these?" Now I have a WRX and I love it love it love it. It is really fast. The turbo lag is a drag (as a poster mentioned). If you lose boost on the turbo (below about 3000rpm) you feel like you're driving a taurus. But over that it just rocks. It won't win a drag race with a camero. But get on a road with turn and it is as advertised. For a car that normal people can afford, you really can't have more fun. (and if you live in Colorado you have AWD, ABS and the thrill of making SUV drives question their purchase choices)
People don't need to know about it, and it doesn't need to be screened publicly. When I was making student films (that sucked and were never seen) I routinely got over 150 headshots in response to casting calls. People are desperate and frightening. Auditions end up being a harrowing experience because you quickly realize that a significant percentage of the actors will do ANYTHING to get the part. In a silent student film. It is one of the (many) things that freaked me out about the film industry enough to scare me into another state.
Go work in a foreign country. Come back. See how you feel about this issue. Language skills are a catch 22, you need to be living and working in the new language to reach true fluency, and its difficult to get a job without it. BUT, having both been the foreign worker and worked with them, it takes about three months for anyone with fairly good "school learned" language skills to become fluent enough to be effectivly the same as a native speaker (not in writing, but in speaking, you don't need to worry about them understanding you or being understood anymore than a native).
Language is easily aquired. It will come for anyone. It is not a good reason to pass someone over. If they have real job the skills, the language will come easily in a few months. I think the language issue is really more of a race issue...but I'll let other people fight that one out.
Couldn't at&t try finishing their GSM upgrade first? I just switched and it has a long way to go...
I did read the article. And it is true that people succeed without Going to fancy schools. In fact, success often comes (at least in America) from hard work. That's the american dream. And I agree with the intent of the article. Just because Harvard or (in slashdot land ) Cal tech rejected you and you had to go to Cal State Northridge, does not mean you will be a failure (far from it).
Now, the article did not argue that university is useless, or that the best schools are bad. But there are those in this thread who seem to think because famous person x did not graduate from college, therefore a college degree is useless. This is just absurd.
I have a degree in film production from the school that rejected spielberg. I am also a worthless film director. My student films are incoherent crap. I heard, over and over again from the people that didn't get in the story of Spielberg's rejection. It is always cited as proof that school is a waste of time, the USC production program is stupid, etc. I asked my advisor about the Spielberg effect. He told me that that's what USC film uses to describe people who insist on measuring their success against the wunderkind like Spielberg. The fact was that Spielberg was rejected because USC cinema had nothing to offer him. He was already a talented film maker. He didn't want to learn the craft, he wanted to direct films. Film school would have done nothing for him.
I am obviously biased. But I am very glad I went to school and got an expensive degree. It was worth every penny, not because it put me in a position to be a super successful and famous film director. You can't teach that. But you can teach the sort of universal skills that I use every day in my work. School was useful for me. I specialized in cinematography and also did a lot of computer graphics learning on the side. I had a chance to learn from some amazing teachers(and some bad ones too of course). I got my hands on equipment you can't just play with on your own. And I got to learn the way things are done and why, instead of having to go out and screw up on my own. I was very prepared for my career. (I work as a 3d artist) A one semester cinematography course from Woody Omens was worth the price of admission.
Universities are not designed to create the super succesful. Those people are not created, they are born. Universities are intended to teach people a broad range of information, to create well rounded individuals capable of success in any aspect of their future careers. In school I learned to speak french, the history of japan and how to draw. I also learned the basics of editing, cinematography, animation, sound, direction and acting. I am terrible film director. I don't feel bad about that. I am not going to be Steven Spielberg. Nor am I going to be Hemingway or Nabokov. University is not for the geniuses. Its for the rest of us. So put it to rest. Just because people who don't go to university are succesful does not mean that universities are useless. If people that didn't go to high school learned algebra on their own, would you claim that Universities offer nothing? No, a degree is not necessarily an indicator of future performance. But it will often be useful to YOU in your career.
I think you are right that a lot of people think this, but they need to stop reading daily mail. Britain cannot stand alone. I think a lot of intelligent people know this. Integration with europe is the only way to stay competitive. Everyone in europe is slightly upset and worried about the EU, change is unpleasant. But they also know that to compete economically with the US and Asia a unified europe has to be the future. Say what you will about the name of the currency, but the paper bills look so cool. The have bright colors! Everyone likes bright colors. Although I'll miss Darwin on the five pound note.
I think that's a bad call. My parents lived there for a while. The swiss do not like foreigners (in general). My parents lived their for 6 years and never felt welcome. All of their friends were other foreigners. Switzerland is also quite conservative by european standards. I'm thinking New Zealand. Four weeks of vacation and good social programs, mountains, friendly people...sounds great.
Good point. If I was unafraid of my enemy I would totally resort to desperate tactics like terrorism. And if they didn't fight back I would keep doing it, but if they DID fight back I would just think, oh hum, they fought back I quit. Like the terrorists in Palestine. Good thing the Isrealis fought back. Look how retaliating stopped the cycle of violence.
I decided I was really getting good at french when babelfish stopped being useful. And when anything I wrote came out as gibberish/