Well, why not actually be a tester for some small business firm or bank, and make 50k/year and have it not be legal for you to do overtime?
I learned after quite a few years of being naive, that $10/hr is $10/hr... It doesn't matter if you make work 168 hours a week, it's still ten bucks an hour.
10 buck an hour jobs are all over the place. I'd rather be a surface technician (janitor) at that price. At least I'll keep my mental sanity.
The illusion these days is that there aren't any jobs out there. It's rahter that there aren't any good jobs. A game tester in my books isn't a good job.
It's the story of do I keep a 100 dollar bill, and risk losing it all, or do I keep 100 single dollar bills?
It's the same choice of do I have a micro-kernel, where the disk devices failing doesn't kill the kernel (but renders the system basically unusable), or do I have a macro-kernel that halts the whole system.
I personally prefer the registry. Because it's a single file that you backup once you have a stable, configured system. One file. Also, you should know that the registry, so long as the underlying medium is not corrupted, is transactional... Any writes on the registry are actually performed in a log file first, and then a new data entry is added, and if there is failure, the log file can completely rebuild the previous state. The operation fails if the log file entry fails... so in effect, even if you pull out the power cord just during a registry write, it will be ok. Now, I've had system failures where I guess my harddrive got randomly interspersed with noise data... and then, yes, I lost the whole registry. But like I said, I restore one file, and I *know* that everything in it is safe. Not the same thing when you have hundreds of 2 liner text files with cryptic data in them.
But then again, I admit that it's a personal preference thing, and so I don't really mind the myriads of text config files under/etc/... I still don't go whining about it though.
Digital has its applications, but really, in the end, digital is infintely less precise then analog (mathematically speaking). It's just so much less vulnerable to interferance that it makes it a good choice for things where accuracy is required (like computing).
Now, I'm not saying that you could hear the difference, but I'm genuinely wondering what you would gain from such a thing? Is it just the cool-geek factor?
Will there be digital flash lights in the new millenium, that shine ever so precisely onto your wall, to create an almost perfect circular pattern?
One slow day in the news world...
on
Blizzard Births BBS
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Man, this article reminds me of the simpson's episode where bart picks up a magazine of "Find Waldo", and all you see in the picture is this big empty room with waldo in the middle, to which bart says "man he's just not trying anymore"...
The article is a dupe, and it's not even a karma whore, it's a single line, with a single link.
I'm not really complaining though, so don't think I'm a troll or something. It's just good to have a sense of humour about ourselves every once in a while.
First off, I'd tell myself to appreciate how worry free life can be when you have no bills to pay. I would tell myself to take advantage of that.
Then I would say the people who were popular at high school weren't actually investing in a skill... And that it didn't matter if I sucked at something when I was 12, the fact that I would start that early would make me phenomenal by the time I was 18 (I distincly remember thinking I couldn't start playing guitar at 15 because I thought I was too old -- WHATEVER).
Apart from that, any advice I'd have to give would be useless (regarding work and girls) because I really think I needed to go through all of that shit for myself - in any case, my father already told me what I would say now.
Larry Page: "Keynote would be really outstanding if you had a fast machine to edit your presentations on." Smart-Ass: "A machine faster than those at the disposal of the founders of Google?" Larry Page: "You know what I mean: a machine faster than this laptop here."
This somehow reminds me of Kevin Spacey's character in the big Kahuna.
I wonder if you will wander back to this thread to read my reply to you. But here it is: if you consider posts on/. to contain hard facts or be complete arguments, you don't know how to argument. Maybe this experience of debate you talk of is based on discussion forms, or maybe it's actually based on physical debating in an auditorium.
The simple fact of the matter is that my answering every single point of this so called debate would lead to pages and pages of text. A debate has a chair, and an orientation. This on the other hand, is a frenzy of arguments being shot at each other.
There is no proof to talk of here... neither I, nor my oponents can really talk of proof on this thread and claim voice of authority. On the other hand, with the 'facts' given, there are still arguments to be made. My apparent emotionality is based on these facts... If you think you've won, or they, so be it. I personally think I've proved my point quite well several times over:
by Myself: It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
by Myself: it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact
by tealover: And if nations want to surprise attack them while engaged in diplomatic talks, then those nations will have to bear the consequences of their actions.
by Tealover: If one American life would have been lost during an invasion of Japan, that would have been one life too many [...] American blood is too precious to waste. If 80% of the world has a problem with it, maybe they can put together a U.N. resolution to reprimand us.
.
by Guppy: San Francisco? No. But the Japanese still held on to the Asian mainland and was massacring Chinese civillians (like they'd been doing since 1932) essentially right on up until Hirohito set foot aboard the USS Missouiri.
But people who are stuck with a Eurocentric viewpoint on history tend not to know that.
by Myself: I being a Eurocentric person tend to forget that the US is asia's saviour, over and over during the past half century...
Some other arguments that have been thrown out in the air are that the Soviets were gimps (more or less), and that had the sleeping giant (US) not intervened the world would have been lost.
Let me give you my take on that: the soviets were the biggest force against the germans, and until they started clashing, the Nazis weren't really getting any casualties. They were practically freely expanding their vital space. The sleeping giant waited just long enough so that the bulk of the German army had been razed in one fight or another... especially on the eastern front where they were massively undermatched with the Soviets for fighting in the cold.
The US pulled a typical US move, and arrived at the crucial time when the war was drawing to an end (whether it be victory or defeat). That is sly, and I'm not saying that's bad tactics, but what it is not is that the US did all the work, and that the rest of the world was helpless -- the US only finished a job that was mostly done already.
And it did not do that to protect the Good in the universe, it did it because had the Nazi's taken over the other half of the world, the US would eventually have been in a predicament.
The arguments that Japan was readying for Ketsu-Go are further 'proof' of what my original point was, that Japan wasn't in an expansion mode, but rather in retreat at the time of the nukes... Germany had surrendered, and Japan was left all alone in the world... Sure, there would have been many lives lost if the states sent 180 lightly armored drop ships (which one post was talking about), but then again, I could have flown in hundreds of civilian airplanes into a warfield and achieved more casualties. Japan has very little natural resources, and without allies, and with most of its fleat defeated at the point, it wouldn't withstand en embargo for long.
Russia is accused by some on this thread for having non-aggression pacts with both Germany and Japan at certain points throughout the war... I clearly don't see how these argument/facts proove anything apart from the fact that Russia was playing its cards well by not having war on all of its fronts simultaneously... As I said before, it's easy for the US to be at war with both Japan and Germany at the same time, they don't share any borders... Russia neighbours both countries...
My whole point, which really, has been proven over and over, is that the US has a history of power tripping that started with WWII. The povs of both Tealover and Guppy are quite exceptionally well descriptive of the US' general world policy right now. I could state so many conflicts where the US used excessive force outside of their vital space just to control the state of world affairs. So many foreign governments installed by the US around the world to uphold 'democracy'.
Another post said that Bin Laden this and that, and that he's not cool. I'll tell you this, and think about it for a bit, both Bin Laden and Saddam were funded by the US at some point to fight against the other evils of the earth at that time.
Like I said in my final statements (until you came and irriated me to write up a new one), I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
What you or I say here has no impact on what will happen in the world. So I feel no pride, nor shame in either 'winning' or 'losing' this debate. It's very typical that some of you do feel like you're the better men for supposedly having crushed me... all I have to look at is the ever increasing amount of people who are starting to litterally hate the US because it's long slimey tentacles are trying to take control of their own lands... You really think Bin Laden is the devil's left hand? You really think the people who are burning US flags are just satan's peons?
Maybe it's time to stop the crusade in your minds for just a minute, and try to examine from an external perspective what the US looks like. And that involves re-examining the meaning of historical events as well.
If one American life would have been lost during an invasion of Japan, that would have been one life too many.
From tealover.
I rest my case.
Just to be more explicit Guppy, what you are talking about is open for argumenting, and there are many answers that can come of it. Don't call me hypocrit so quickly, because I have arguments too... and yes, I know of Nankin as well. And I've read books, not "little factoids" off of Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. And I do not condemn you for having your opinion.
But the above statement goes a loooong way in my favor I'd say...
Oh sorry, I being a Eurocentric person tend to forget that the US is asia's saviour, over and over during the past half century...
Really, all I can do now, is quote some big lebowsky because I'm too irrate at your mother theresa point of view. "Smokey, this is not Nam, there are rules".
For your information, I *am* european, but I like many others find both the french and the british to both be whimps, and ultimately the cause of WWII.
My only difference from you sir, is that I don't try to justify their actions.
See my last post for my final words. I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
Yeah, along with maybe 80% of the rest of the world population.
And believe it or not, I'm not a political kind of person... But like I said from post one, it's one thing to have beliefs in current arguments, it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact... Are you and that other wise crack telling me with straight faces that the world would have been a burning ball of fire, and that millions of lives would have been lost if those two bombs weren't dropped? - I call YOU hypocrites for saying that.
You go ahead and justify it all you want, and call me hypocrite at the same time, if you can sleep with a comfortable conscience, more power to you.
I'll just remind you people have been tried for war crimes and genocide for killing just a few hundred people.
So you are acting a-la US acts when Russian hacker gets tried in US soil for un-crime commited in Russia?
You must be really naive if you think Diplomatic talks degenerate because of bad manners at the tea table.
The cards are always down, it's all about how much one is willing to bend over and grab their ankles.
And the US lately, has become the master pimp of the world... expecting anyone and everyone in their sight to bend over and grab em.
Well fuck you! It's about time you realized it doesn't work that way... You have a current world crisis going on just because of said behaviour. Just sit and watch how the US will go in like the First of the Ninth Air Cav even after the UN says "no". The world isn't your playground...
Like I said before, it's one thing to think you're right in an argument, and something else completely to try and justify glaring events of 50 years past.
Exactly my point in my other post. The second bomb was an act of vigilantism.
And on a side note, America didn't get even, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and basically razed two cities. Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency.
And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost, if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so...
Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less. It was definitely much less cruel then what the US has been doing in the middle east, and far east too for the past half century.
That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)...
Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels...
Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?
Japan had practically ceased existing at that point. Your comparison is analogous to blowing a bomb in a busy intersection, waiting 10 minutes, and then opening fire on the terrorists/civilians in the area that are still looking for severed pieces of their bodies around the place.
Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties.
No, it wasn't. Like I originally said, at the time of the incident, the war was pretty much over, and the world was in a state of stupor... no major battles were being fought.
The second bomb can best be described as an act of vingilantism on the part of the US. You should also read the recent article that was posted on slashdot about the captain of the Enola Gay, and how the order came to drop the second bomb.
It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
If you've ever read any of the historical happenings of the day, Japan wasn't really as big a menace as the US made them out to be. As soon as the germans capitulated, Russia was on Japan's ass, and they were scared of it.
What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary.
So the US dropping that bomb was 100% a power trip. And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war. The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc. Yadi yada. Read up on some history...
Loans introduce money that doesn't exist onto the market. Then people go and make money off of it, and pay back the loans. Now there's new money on the market.
It sounds like the perpetual motion machine, but really, it's not. You just need to read about economics. The essential thing to keep in mind is that money represents something... most often gold, crude oil, but human services too for example. And we just keep harvesting that out of the earth, or out of nowhere...
Think of the joke in austin powers, when doctor evil says I want 1 billion dollars, and his board of directors say there isn't that much money on earth.
It depends on your institution and the type of currency involved. For example, the Royal Bank of Canada allows you to instanteanously wire cash to other client of RBC (via a web page even).
Then again stuff like Credit card and what not, go through this humoungous worldwide database... which I can only imagine is one massive flat text file. But I'm surely wrong =).
And finally, when you wire stuff between two banks, you have to basically have a period where *if* the source bank bails out of the transaction, and the destination bank has already used the cash, there is no floating cash debt - in the end, you have to remember cash is not electronic, there still is the money involved.
Re:Who gets to own money in the future?
on
The Future of Money
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Money is very much 'owned'. The government 'owns' a lot of money for instance, and it has tricks up its sleeves like releasing cash into the market to readjust inflation rates and what not.
Money is not just money. There's a whole fucking market behind it.
Has/. finally reached the event horizon of some unknown tiny little blackhole on the surface of the earth, and posts are basically taking forever to get back from it?
Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
All they need to do, is be able to write onto a CD at an acceptable average speed, say 20x. That gives you a three minute burn. Now you paralelize the task, and make a van full of 30 writers, and presto: spectator comes and asks for CD, 10 seconds later (nominally) he gets a CD.
It's basically what fast food chains do.
I really doubt they're going to skip bit rows in order to speed up the process and give you shoddy material. They will give you shoddy material because they want to give you shoddy material.
On another note though, the recording will not be mastered, which can make a hell of a difference.
I've been to one of these protests (to take pictures). Sure, some protesters are all about "smoken the weed, n' freeing our souls", but many of these people are very rational and very intelligent people.
The violence often happens the other way around, tear gas, or high pressure water being shot at crowds.
You only see what your segment of the media wants you to. So if you're watching CNN, of course they are going to be portrayed as anarchy loving punk hooligans with no motive.
To quote Rage Against The Machine (once again here on slashdot): Know your enemy.
You should know why globablisation is bad for you... in it's simplest form: globalization is the difference between mass profit of a Wegman's or a Kosko going to the corporate mother ship, and that profit going to local shop owners who end up actually spending that money in the area. Kosko won't and doesn't spend any money on local economy. It spends money on creating trucking networks to get the underpaid labor from mexico to get quicker to upstate NY. You might be right that in the end, globalisation is the way to go, but not the way it's being advocated right now. Right now all you are doing is encouraging hegemonia of huge companies... and then you go and whine about Microsoft being too big. Shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, why not actually be a tester for some small business firm or bank, and make 50k/year and have it not be legal for you to do overtime?
I learned after quite a few years of being naive, that $10/hr is $10/hr... It doesn't matter if you make work 168 hours a week, it's still ten bucks an hour.
10 buck an hour jobs are all over the place. I'd rather be a surface technician (janitor) at that price. At least I'll keep my mental sanity.
The illusion these days is that there aren't any jobs out there. It's rahter that there aren't any good jobs. A game tester in my books isn't a good job.
If not, how would the kernel read the config files etc?
If the system *can* boot up, which I'm pretty sure it can, it means it *can* store files locally.
Filter Schmilter... Don't try to adapt reality to your personal ideas of how evil Moft is.
It's not. Don't worry, this guy seems to be a jackass...
I shuddered when he said that the new file system will be impleneted via a database will be incompatible with current "DOS/Windows" filesystems.
"Jesus Christ, who are these people?"
-- Bill Gates
And
"They want me to be a whore!"
-- Linus Torvalds.
It's the same choice of do I have a micro-kernel, where the disk devices failing doesn't kill the kernel (but renders the system basically unusable), or do I have a macro-kernel that halts the whole system.
I personally prefer the registry. Because it's a single file that you backup once you have a stable, configured system. One file. Also, you should know that the registry, so long as the underlying medium is not corrupted, is transactional... Any writes on the registry are actually performed in a log file first, and then a new data entry is added, and if there is failure, the log file can completely rebuild the previous state. The operation fails if the log file entry fails... so in effect, even if you pull out the power cord just during a registry write, it will be ok. Now, I've had system failures where I guess my harddrive got randomly interspersed with noise data... and then, yes, I lost the whole registry. But like I said, I restore one file, and I *know* that everything in it is safe. Not the same thing when you have hundreds of 2 liner text files with cryptic data in them.
But then again, I admit that it's a personal preference thing, and so I don't really mind the myriads of text config files under /etc/ ... I still don't go whining about it though.
Now, I'm not saying that you could hear the difference, but I'm genuinely wondering what you would gain from such a thing? Is it just the cool-geek factor?
Will there be digital flash lights in the new millenium, that shine ever so precisely onto your wall, to create an almost perfect circular pattern?
The article is a dupe, and it's not even a karma whore, it's a single line, with a single link.
I'm not really complaining though, so don't think I'm a troll or something. It's just good to have a sense of humour about ourselves every once in a while.
hey! Please, Dead horses only beat YOU in SOVIET russia.
Then I would say the people who were popular at high school weren't actually investing in a skill... And that it didn't matter if I sucked at something when I was 12, the fact that I would start that early would make me phenomenal by the time I was 18 (I distincly remember thinking I couldn't start playing guitar at 15 because I thought I was too old -- WHATEVER).
Apart from that, any advice I'd have to give would be useless (regarding work and girls) because I really think I needed to go through all of that shit for myself - in any case, my father already told me what I would say now.
Larry Page: "Keynote would be really outstanding if you had a fast machine to edit your presentations on." Smart-Ass: "A machine faster than those at the disposal of the founders of Google?" Larry Page: "You know what I mean: a machine faster than this laptop here."
This somehow reminds me of Kevin Spacey's character in the big Kahuna.
I wonder if you will wander back to this thread to read my reply to you. But here it is: if you consider posts on /. to contain hard facts or be complete arguments, you don't know how to argument. Maybe this experience of debate you talk of is based on discussion forms, or maybe it's actually based on physical debating in an auditorium.
The simple fact of the matter is that my answering every single point of this so called debate would lead to pages and pages of text. A debate has a chair, and an orientation. This on the other hand, is a frenzy of arguments being shot at each other.
There is no proof to talk of here... neither I, nor my oponents can really talk of proof on this thread and claim voice of authority. On the other hand, with the 'facts' given, there are still arguments to be made. My apparent emotionality is based on these facts... If you think you've won, or they, so be it. I personally think I've proved my point quite well several times over:
by Myself: It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
by Myself: it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact
by tealover: And if nations want to surprise attack them while engaged in diplomatic talks, then those nations will have to bear the consequences of their actions.
by Tealover: If one American life would have been lost during an invasion of Japan, that would have been one life too many [...] American blood is too precious to waste. If 80% of the world has a problem with it, maybe they can put together a U.N. resolution to reprimand us. .
by Guppy: San Francisco? No. But the Japanese still held on to the Asian mainland and was massacring Chinese civillians (like they'd been doing since 1932) essentially right on up until Hirohito set foot aboard the USS Missouiri.
But people who are stuck with a Eurocentric viewpoint on history tend not to know that.
by Myself: I being a Eurocentric person tend to forget that the US is asia's saviour, over and over during the past half century...
Some other arguments that have been thrown out in the air are that the Soviets were gimps (more or less), and that had the sleeping giant (US) not intervened the world would have been lost.
Let me give you my take on that: the soviets were the biggest force against the germans, and until they started clashing, the Nazis weren't really getting any casualties. They were practically freely expanding their vital space. The sleeping giant waited just long enough so that the bulk of the German army had been razed in one fight or another... especially on the eastern front where they were massively undermatched with the Soviets for fighting in the cold.
The US pulled a typical US move, and arrived at the crucial time when the war was drawing to an end (whether it be victory or defeat). That is sly, and I'm not saying that's bad tactics, but what it is not is that the US did all the work, and that the rest of the world was helpless -- the US only finished a job that was mostly done already.
And it did not do that to protect the Good in the universe, it did it because had the Nazi's taken over the other half of the world, the US would eventually have been in a predicament.
The arguments that Japan was readying for Ketsu-Go are further 'proof' of what my original point was, that Japan wasn't in an expansion mode, but rather in retreat at the time of the nukes... Germany had surrendered, and Japan was left all alone in the world... Sure, there would have been many lives lost if the states sent 180 lightly armored drop ships (which one post was talking about), but then again, I could have flown in hundreds of civilian airplanes into a warfield and achieved more casualties. Japan has very little natural resources, and without allies, and with most of its fleat defeated at the point, it wouldn't withstand en embargo for long.
Russia is accused by some on this thread for having non-aggression pacts with both Germany and Japan at certain points throughout the war... I clearly don't see how these argument/facts proove anything apart from the fact that Russia was playing its cards well by not having war on all of its fronts simultaneously... As I said before, it's easy for the US to be at war with both Japan and Germany at the same time, they don't share any borders... Russia neighbours both countries...
My whole point, which really, has been proven over and over, is that the US has a history of power tripping that started with WWII. The povs of both Tealover and Guppy are quite exceptionally well descriptive of the US' general world policy right now. I could state so many conflicts where the US used excessive force outside of their vital space just to control the state of world affairs. So many foreign governments installed by the US around the world to uphold 'democracy'.
Another post said that Bin Laden this and that, and that he's not cool. I'll tell you this, and think about it for a bit, both Bin Laden and Saddam were funded by the US at some point to fight against the other evils of the earth at that time.
Like I said in my final statements (until you came and irriated me to write up a new one), I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
What you or I say here has no impact on what will happen in the world. So I feel no pride, nor shame in either 'winning' or 'losing' this debate. It's very typical that some of you do feel like you're the better men for supposedly having crushed me... all I have to look at is the ever increasing amount of people who are starting to litterally hate the US because it's long slimey tentacles are trying to take control of their own lands... You really think Bin Laden is the devil's left hand? You really think the people who are burning US flags are just satan's peons?
Maybe it's time to stop the crusade in your minds for just a minute, and try to examine from an external perspective what the US looks like. And that involves re-examining the meaning of historical events as well.
From tealover.
I rest my case.
Just to be more explicit Guppy, what you are talking about is open for argumenting, and there are many answers that can come of it. Don't call me hypocrit so quickly, because I have arguments too... and yes, I know of Nankin as well. And I've read books, not "little factoids" off of Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. And I do not condemn you for having your opinion.
But the above statement goes a loooong way in my favor I'd say...
Really, all I can do now, is quote some big lebowsky because I'm too irrate at your mother theresa point of view. "Smokey, this is not Nam, there are rules".
For your information, I *am* european, but I like many others find both the french and the british to both be whimps, and ultimately the cause of WWII.
My only difference from you sir, is that I don't try to justify their actions.
See my last post for my final words. I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
And believe it or not, I'm not a political kind of person... But like I said from post one, it's one thing to have beliefs in current arguments, it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact... Are you and that other wise crack telling me with straight faces that the world would have been a burning ball of fire, and that millions of lives would have been lost if those two bombs weren't dropped? - I call YOU hypocrites for saying that.
You go ahead and justify it all you want, and call me hypocrite at the same time, if you can sleep with a comfortable conscience, more power to you.
I'll just remind you people have been tried for war crimes and genocide for killing just a few hundred people.
So you are acting a-la US acts when Russian hacker gets tried in US soil for un-crime commited in Russia?
You must be really naive if you think Diplomatic talks degenerate because of bad manners at the tea table.
The cards are always down, it's all about how much one is willing to bend over and grab their ankles.
And the US lately, has become the master pimp of the world... expecting anyone and everyone in their sight to bend over and grab em.
Well fuck you! It's about time you realized it doesn't work that way... You have a current world crisis going on just because of said behaviour. Just sit and watch how the US will go in like the First of the Ninth Air Cav even after the UN says "no". The world isn't your playground...
Like I said before, it's one thing to think you're right in an argument, and something else completely to try and justify glaring events of 50 years past.
And on a side note, America didn't get even, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and basically razed two cities. Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency.
And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost, if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so...
Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less. It was definitely much less cruel then what the US has been doing in the middle east, and far east too for the past half century.
That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)...
Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels...
Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?
Japan had practically ceased existing at that point. Your comparison is analogous to blowing a bomb in a busy intersection, waiting 10 minutes, and then opening fire on the terrorists/civilians in the area that are still looking for severed pieces of their bodies around the place.
Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties.
No, it wasn't. Like I originally said, at the time of the incident, the war was pretty much over, and the world was in a state of stupor... no major battles were being fought.
The second bomb can best be described as an act of vingilantism on the part of the US. You should also read the recent article that was posted on slashdot about the captain of the Enola Gay, and how the order came to drop the second bomb.
It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary.
So the US dropping that bomb was 100% a power trip. And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war. The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc. Yadi yada. Read up on some history...
It sounds like the perpetual motion machine, but really, it's not. You just need to read about economics. The essential thing to keep in mind is that money represents something... most often gold, crude oil, but human services too for example. And we just keep harvesting that out of the earth, or out of nowhere...
Think of the joke in austin powers, when doctor evil says I want 1 billion dollars, and his board of directors say there isn't that much money on earth.
Then again stuff like Credit card and what not, go through this humoungous worldwide database... which I can only imagine is one massive flat text file. But I'm surely wrong =).
And finally, when you wire stuff between two banks, you have to basically have a period where *if* the source bank bails out of the transaction, and the destination bank has already used the cash, there is no floating cash debt - in the end, you have to remember cash is not electronic, there still is the money involved.
Money is not just money. There's a whole fucking market behind it.
Has /. finally reached the event horizon of some unknown tiny little blackhole on the surface of the earth, and posts are basically taking forever to get back from it?
All they need to do, is be able to write onto a CD at an acceptable average speed, say 20x. That gives you a three minute burn. Now you paralelize the task, and make a van full of 30 writers, and presto: spectator comes and asks for CD, 10 seconds later (nominally) he gets a CD.
It's basically what fast food chains do.
I really doubt they're going to skip bit rows in order to speed up the process and give you shoddy material. They will give you shoddy material because they want to give you shoddy material.
On another note though, the recording will not be mastered, which can make a hell of a difference.
Yes you need.
I've been to one of these protests (to take pictures). Sure, some protesters are all about "smoken the weed, n' freeing our souls", but many of these people are very rational and very intelligent people.
The violence often happens the other way around, tear gas, or high pressure water being shot at crowds.
You only see what your segment of the media wants you to. So if you're watching CNN, of course they are going to be portrayed as anarchy loving punk hooligans with no motive.
To quote Rage Against The Machine (once again here on slashdot): Know your enemy.
You should know why globablisation is bad for you... in it's simplest form: globalization is the difference between mass profit of a Wegman's or a Kosko going to the corporate mother ship, and that profit going to local shop owners who end up actually spending that money in the area. Kosko won't and doesn't spend any money on local economy. It spends money on creating trucking networks to get the underpaid labor from mexico to get quicker to upstate NY. You might be right that in the end, globalisation is the way to go, but not the way it's being advocated right now. Right now all you are doing is encouraging hegemonia of huge companies... and then you go and whine about Microsoft being too big. Shame on you.