Honestly, a lot of them - including a lot of young people - genuinely like Americans. They admire their living conditions, they admire their culture (ignore the fact that Jay-Z, Eminem, and Britney Spears are all they know), and they admire the freedoms that Americans have. I know that sounds like bullshit, but I swear to god it's true.
...now, of course the taxi cab drivers love Americans, too, for the latter reason.;-)
I've been reading this form and I'm seeing something over and over that just drives me crazy. It makes it so painfully obvious that most Slashdotters know next to nothing about Europe.
The truth of the matter is that with the exception of really wealthy European nations (Scandinavian, German, France, Switzerland, Benelux), most Europeans LOVE Americans. Non-EU countries especially. The poorer the country, the higher view of Americans they have. I mean, it's amazing how much Romanians love America. Disturbing, but amazing.
With the exception of wealthy European nations, Europeans LOVE Americans. Poor Italians, anyone from the Balkans, anyone from a non-EU European country? They fucking love Americans.
For one, non-Western Europeans LOVE Americans. Hungarians in particular. And not only do they love Americans, but they love having someone on which to practice their English (and most are quite good).
For two, I don't know in what cracked out fantasy you're living, but I'm thinkin' that living conditions in the US > living conditions in Eastern Europe.
But I don't think kids need protecting. If you've taught them basic safety skills (don't talk to strangers, be weary of people in general, demand some sort of identification, etc.) and basic social skills, then they'll be just fine on the Internet - most of these things are universal.
As for goatse.cx and tubgirl, nobody needs "protecting" from that - they see it once and it's nasty and then they don't look at it again. They're not going to be irreparably harmed from seeing someone split open their ass. Kids see drugs and then see sex, and if they're not living in the US, they see much more disturbing things (dead and mutilated animals - not to mention the occasional person - are commonplace in most Eastern European countries). There is nothing intrinsically more dangerous about the Internet. In fact, it's safer.
Teaching your kids about safe sex, the dangers of drunk driving, the importance of wearing a seat belt, and what a normal, healthy, symbiotic relationship is will go a lot further when it comes to keeping them safe.
Leave 'em alone. It seems that you're mostly concerned about the time that they spend online rather than what they're doing, which is good - they're not idiots, and the worst they can do is maybe look at porn (and in actuality, is that such a horrible thing?).
If they're 13-15, chances are they will grow out of it. They're at the age where they're beginning to take social (and romantic) relationships seriously, but are a little new to it and find conversing online a lot easier. As they grow older and more independent, they'll find more real way to communicate (first phone, then in person) and will get off of the computer. It's a hard time for a kid, and easing into serious social and romantic relationships is perfectly normal, and the Internet is just perfect for that.
Now, if they're older, then you have a problem. It could be that they're just developing later, or it could be that...I dunno. They're becoming obsessed?
But it seems like they're younger (I can't imagine a 17-year-old's age group "just discovering" the Internet), so I think it's perfectly normal. Talk to them about safety and not giving out personal information, but beyond that, don't worry about it. Even porn is hardly detrimental - it's a fine introduction to sexuality and, quite frankly, they'll probably grow out of that, too.
As much as you might not like it, authoritarian governments basically without budgets to balance can (not that they always do) do a few things very well, and infrastructure is one of them. I live in Romania, the former charge of one of the most insane leaders in history, and although things mostly went to hell, there are a few truly excellent byproducts. For one, there is a wonderfully-functioning cheap subway (not as extensive as one would like, but in the '70s when it was built, it was top-notch) with armed guards in every few cars. Totally automated at around $0.10/ride. An increasing number of traffic lights have the countdown technology, many of which were installed under Ceausescu. Schools function wonderfully (nice buildings) with built-in incentives (each child gets 210 000 lei per month as motivation to attend), universities are plentiful and cheap for Romanians.
So yes, things did go to hell. But Communism also brought some good. Not all innovation is due to the fact that people had to start at zero - some is actually due to those whom we credit with completely ruining things.
God, that pisses the shit out of me when people post links to things like that. And it also gets really confusing when someone writes something like, "CNN reports that x and y are fucking around with z" and there's a link under "CNN" that just takes you to CNN, not the article, with the actual link to the article under "x and y are fucking with z."
Thanks...but I think I'm quite capable of typing "cnn.com" into my web browser.
I can confirm that the site is blocked in Romania, which is ironic, because Romanians have the second-highest opinion of America (and I'm willing to venture to say Bush, too) in Europe, second to the Albanians.
Is the site blocked in S. America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia, too?
Hey, I never said it was safe. But if you're going to compare the effects of alcohol on driving ability (really the only way that someone can instantaneously die and kill people from alcohol) with the effects of marijuana on driving ability, marijuana is much safer.
Safer...not safe.
Oh, but there is! Did you even read what he wrote? The idea was that by using an electoral college system, you kill the extreme minorities' votes - namely blacks, immigrants, and slaves. This is a cause-effect thing, where x is the cause and the electoral college is the effect - not the other way around.
There are a lot of things that were actually racist at the time, but are not inherently racist. The 1914 Harrison anti-drug act was one of them, as was the disenfranchisement that occurred in Florida, as was - although not necessarily is - the electoral college.
Now, saying that something was racist isn't the same as saying that something is racist, but it sure does hint at a huge flaw in its inception. The Harrison act might do a lot of good in keeping heroin and crack-cocaine illegal, but what reason do we still have for keeping marijuana illegal but that at one point in time a lot of blacks and Mexicans used it? How is marijuana any different than alcohol? I can tell you that the most obvious cause of death resulting from alcohol is car-related fatalities, and I can also tell you that driving while stoned is a hell of a lot safer than driving while drink. And the lung cancer thing doesn't apply, considering cigarette smokes ingest a lot more smoke for the amount that they smoke and cigarettes are actually physically - and psychologically - addictive, as opposed to marijuana which is only mildly psychologically addictive.
Anyway, the whole marijuana thing was just a really round-about way of showing you that even if the causes might not be apparent, there are a lot of things that were originally racist, even if we cannot conceive of them today. Sure, a lot of people through around the word "racist" when it's not even remotely relevant, but in this case, it is.
I have never in my life heard the word "minutiae" used where it didn't sound contrived. And I haven't ever heard the word "minutae" in my life, period ("minutia" is the singular and "minutiae" is the plural; "minutae" is not a word).
God I love the Metro. However it's sad that about 3/4 of all papers picked up are just thrown away -- seems like it would be an excellent opportunity to recycle.
And for the record, it's not SEPTA's paper, it's a free paper that is published all over the world, including two other cities in the U.S.: New York and Boston.
At $150 for a three-seat license (albeit not-so-legal), I'd say that Microsoft Office S&T is definitely worth it. For the amount of work that will be done on it, I'd say that $50 is definitely a fair price for Microsoft Office.
Then again, if we're talking about S&T, we're not really talking about being fair, now are we...
You can buy it at any Staples or anywhere that they sell it without anybody asking for any proof that you are in any way part of an academic institution, and if you have a problem with blurting out, "I ADMIT IT I'M NOT REALLY A TEACHER!" at random times when speaking to salespeople, you can buy it at any Internet website without so much as a checkbox asking whether or not you qualify.
And even if you want to be legit about it, the license allows for use by anybody in any household that has at least one member who qualifies -- that includes you if you have a child (or any household family member) who attends any kind of building where people learn things.
For the most part, this is the general rule when it comes to most academic discounts. On the Apple website, you can access the education department and get education discounts just by entering in your zip code and choosing any random high school in the area -- nowhere does it every ask for proof that you are actually a student or faculty member. The discount can be as much as a few hundred dollars (10% off of everything is the general rule, I think).
So what if I'm a recent [legal] immigrant making $20,000/year and I accidentally hit a $100,000 Mercedes SUV, destroying my $3,000 '88 Ford Focus and inflicting $60,000 worth of damage onto your car? So because I crashed into a car, I am bound for the rest of my life to give up $3,000/year, thereby completely eradicating any sort of chance I had to become a productive member of society and raise children and send them to college who would then go on to be two more members of a productive and non-impoverished society? That's absolutely ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, a lot of them - including a lot of young people - genuinely like Americans. They admire their living conditions, they admire their culture (ignore the fact that Jay-Z, Eminem, and Britney Spears are all they know), and they admire the freedoms that Americans have. I know that sounds like bullshit, but I swear to god it's true.
;-)
...now, of course the taxi cab drivers love Americans, too, for the latter reason.
And I'll bet that Robert Mugabe has FUCKING AMAZING living conditions.
I've been reading this form and I'm seeing something over and over that just drives me crazy. It makes it so painfully obvious that most Slashdotters know next to nothing about Europe.
The truth of the matter is that with the exception of really wealthy European nations (Scandinavian, German, France, Switzerland, Benelux), most Europeans LOVE Americans. Non-EU countries especially. The poorer the country, the higher view of Americans they have. I mean, it's amazing how much Romanians love America. Disturbing, but amazing.
Haha. You've obviously never lived in Europe.
With the exception of wealthy European nations, Europeans LOVE Americans. Poor Italians, anyone from the Balkans, anyone from a non-EU European country? They fucking love Americans.
You're full of shit.
For one, non-Western Europeans LOVE Americans. Hungarians in particular. And not only do they love Americans, but they love having someone on which to practice their English (and most are quite good).
For two, I don't know in what cracked out fantasy you're living, but I'm thinkin' that living conditions in the US > living conditions in Eastern Europe.
Ugh. That totally sucks.
But I don't think kids need protecting. If you've taught them basic safety skills (don't talk to strangers, be weary of people in general, demand some sort of identification, etc.) and basic social skills, then they'll be just fine on the Internet - most of these things are universal.
As for goatse.cx and tubgirl, nobody needs "protecting" from that - they see it once and it's nasty and then they don't look at it again. They're not going to be irreparably harmed from seeing someone split open their ass. Kids see drugs and then see sex, and if they're not living in the US, they see much more disturbing things (dead and mutilated animals - not to mention the occasional person - are commonplace in most Eastern European countries). There is nothing intrinsically more dangerous about the Internet. In fact, it's safer.
Teaching your kids about safe sex, the dangers of drunk driving, the importance of wearing a seat belt, and what a normal, healthy, symbiotic relationship is will go a lot further when it comes to keeping them safe.
Leave 'em alone. It seems that you're mostly concerned about the time that they spend online rather than what they're doing, which is good - they're not idiots, and the worst they can do is maybe look at porn (and in actuality, is that such a horrible thing?). If they're 13-15, chances are they will grow out of it. They're at the age where they're beginning to take social (and romantic) relationships seriously, but are a little new to it and find conversing online a lot easier. As they grow older and more independent, they'll find more real way to communicate (first phone, then in person) and will get off of the computer. It's a hard time for a kid, and easing into serious social and romantic relationships is perfectly normal, and the Internet is just perfect for that. Now, if they're older, then you have a problem. It could be that they're just developing later, or it could be that...I dunno. They're becoming obsessed? But it seems like they're younger (I can't imagine a 17-year-old's age group "just discovering" the Internet), so I think it's perfectly normal. Talk to them about safety and not giving out personal information, but beyond that, don't worry about it. Even porn is hardly detrimental - it's a fine introduction to sexuality and, quite frankly, they'll probably grow out of that, too.
That picture of Bill Gates and Queen Latifah is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
That's not entirely it, sir.
As much as you might not like it, authoritarian governments basically without budgets to balance can (not that they always do) do a few things very well, and infrastructure is one of them. I live in Romania, the former charge of one of the most insane leaders in history, and although things mostly went to hell, there are a few truly excellent byproducts. For one, there is a wonderfully-functioning cheap subway (not as extensive as one would like, but in the '70s when it was built, it was top-notch) with armed guards in every few cars. Totally automated at around $0.10/ride. An increasing number of traffic lights have the countdown technology, many of which were installed under Ceausescu. Schools function wonderfully (nice buildings) with built-in incentives (each child gets 210 000 lei per month as motivation to attend), universities are plentiful and cheap for Romanians.
So yes, things did go to hell. But Communism also brought some good. Not all innovation is due to the fact that people had to start at zero - some is actually due to those whom we credit with completely ruining things.
I'm sure Bush will provide it in his speech tonight at 3 p.m. EST.
God, that pisses the shit out of me when people post links to things like that. And it also gets really confusing when someone writes something like, "CNN reports that x and y are fucking around with z" and there's a link under "CNN" that just takes you to CNN, not the article, with the actual link to the article under "x and y are fucking with z."
Thanks...but I think I'm quite capable of typing "cnn.com" into my web browser.
I can confirm that the site is blocked in Romania, which is ironic, because Romanians have the second-highest opinion of America (and I'm willing to venture to say Bush, too) in Europe, second to the Albanians. Is the site blocked in S. America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia, too?
Every ballot that was thrown out (where the voter intended to vote for one candidate, that is) was a disenfranchised voter, dumbass.
Hey, I never said it was safe. But if you're going to compare the effects of alcohol on driving ability (really the only way that someone can instantaneously die and kill people from alcohol) with the effects of marijuana on driving ability, marijuana is much safer. Safer...not safe.
Oh, but there is! Did you even read what he wrote? The idea was that by using an electoral college system, you kill the extreme minorities' votes - namely blacks, immigrants, and slaves. This is a cause-effect thing, where x is the cause and the electoral college is the effect - not the other way around.
There are a lot of things that were actually racist at the time, but are not inherently racist. The 1914 Harrison anti-drug act was one of them, as was the disenfranchisement that occurred in Florida, as was - although not necessarily is - the electoral college.
Now, saying that something was racist isn't the same as saying that something is racist, but it sure does hint at a huge flaw in its inception. The Harrison act might do a lot of good in keeping heroin and crack-cocaine illegal, but what reason do we still have for keeping marijuana illegal but that at one point in time a lot of blacks and Mexicans used it? How is marijuana any different than alcohol? I can tell you that the most obvious cause of death resulting from alcohol is car-related fatalities, and I can also tell you that driving while stoned is a hell of a lot safer than driving while drink. And the lung cancer thing doesn't apply, considering cigarette smokes ingest a lot more smoke for the amount that they smoke and cigarettes are actually physically - and psychologically - addictive, as opposed to marijuana which is only mildly psychologically addictive.
Anyway, the whole marijuana thing was just a really round-about way of showing you that even if the causes might not be apparent, there are a lot of things that were originally racist, even if we cannot conceive of them today. Sure, a lot of people through around the word "racist" when it's not even remotely relevant, but in this case, it is.
We don't really care why you're not protecting your e-mail address.
I have never in my life heard the word "minutiae" used where it didn't sound contrived. And I haven't ever heard the word "minutae" in my life, period ("minutia" is the singular and "minutiae" is the plural; "minutae" is not a word).
God I love the Metro. However it's sad that about 3/4 of all papers picked up are just thrown away -- seems like it would be an excellent opportunity to recycle.
And for the record, it's not SEPTA's paper, it's a free paper that is published all over the world, including two other cities in the U.S.: New York and Boston.
http://www.metropoint.com
At $150 for a three-seat license (albeit not-so-legal), I'd say that Microsoft Office S&T is definitely worth it. For the amount of work that will be done on it, I'd say that $50 is definitely a fair price for Microsoft Office. Then again, if we're talking about S&T, we're not really talking about being fair, now are we...
You can buy it at any Staples or anywhere that they sell it without anybody asking for any proof that you are in any way part of an academic institution, and if you have a problem with blurting out, "I ADMIT IT I'M NOT REALLY A TEACHER!" at random times when speaking to salespeople, you can buy it at any Internet website without so much as a checkbox asking whether or not you qualify. And even if you want to be legit about it, the license allows for use by anybody in any household that has at least one member who qualifies -- that includes you if you have a child (or any household family member) who attends any kind of building where people learn things. For the most part, this is the general rule when it comes to most academic discounts. On the Apple website, you can access the education department and get education discounts just by entering in your zip code and choosing any random high school in the area -- nowhere does it every ask for proof that you are actually a student or faculty member. The discount can be as much as a few hundred dollars (10% off of everything is the general rule, I think).
So what if I'm a recent [legal] immigrant making $20,000/year and I accidentally hit a $100,000 Mercedes SUV, destroying my $3,000 '88 Ford Focus and inflicting $60,000 worth of damage onto your car? So because I crashed into a car, I am bound for the rest of my life to give up $3,000/year, thereby completely eradicating any sort of chance I had to become a productive member of society and raise children and send them to college who would then go on to be two more members of a productive and non-impoverished society? That's absolutely ridiculous.
I've actually grown kind of used to the scheme and like it. It's very neutral and...just...soothing? I like it.
Well, that's the thing -- no they didn't, and no precedent has been set. They settled out of court.
I wish I had a half-liter of coke to snort.