I'm no lawyer, and someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that unchallenged court rulings become precedents on which further decisions can be based. Looking beyond the (in)correct behavior of either party here, the question is whether the police have a right to demand identification in a situation like this. Since a lower court has ruled that they can, this becomes a precedent for future decisions, so this isolated incident in the desert affects all citizens of the US. Please focus on the issue in question, not on what you think about the personalities involved.
And, anyway, what on earth was this cop going to do with an ID, had he been presented one? What difference could it have made?
Like, I said: "Yes, one can point out many counterexamples". But it seems to me, taking racial discrimination as an example, that we can't compare the overall climate in the US today with what it was in the 60s or 50s or in any prior decade. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans are now more likely to get hung up on the little cultural quirks that "whites" and "blacks" have carved out as their identities, than to actually question whether the other is a human being of the same order, which certainly seems to have been an open question in the past.
I suppose there will always be those aberrations of humanity that will do horrible things for stupid reasons, but I just think the overall climate has improved.
And I've been living in Europe for the past five years, and I'm sure that the "racial question", the entire focus on "race" (which is "racism", literally) as a defining characteristic, is much different here. Maybe it's a different / longer historical perspective. Maybe it's some echo of the fact that these cultures were in touch with the cultures of the Middle East and Africa when the latter were more dominant, and something of that recognition of the other as valid remains. I'm not sure what it is, but it just doesn't seem to be the issue here that it is in the US. I'm sure some Europeans will disagree and point to the problems with immigrants and so, and the populist politicians who exagerate the situation. But I think other Americans who have lived abroad will probably agree with me that, at least, it's different
As for poverty, this has probably gotten worse in some areas due to increasing population, but in many others, I'm not sure that it's fair to equate poverty by today's standards with poverty of, say, the Middle Ages. Leaving out the really fucked up, I suppose that a great number of those considerd to be living in "poverty" actually have much better conditions than those in poverty in past centuries. Am I wrong?
I think Buckminster Fuller said some interesting things / had some interesting ideas about this last point.
I think you underestimate human nature. Look at the progress that's been made in the past few hundred years in terms of recognizing human rights and liberties, of overlooking the trivial differences between us, and the general increase in the standard of living. Now give us the benefit of the doubt and extrapolate. Greed and selfishness are not innate characteristics of anything, as far as I'm aware, but are simply responses to environment. And that can change, slowly but surely.
Yes, one can point out many counterexamples, but I don't think you can reasonably look at human life of planet Earth, considering overall percentages and large-scale trends, and not notice that thinking has shifted in a beneficial direction.
I have posted before saying that civilization is headed downhill because of greed and so, and I am afraid that is true. It doesn't mean we won't recover and rebuild.
The part of Germany where there are (or have ever been) US Army bases is the western part, formerly known as the Federal Republic of Germany, which has never been Communist -- even in name. So, it must not have been a problem with the political system, but a problem with lagging standards. Until recently, Europeans couldn't bring their mobile phones to the US and expect them to work anywhere. Are the Americans backwards barbarians? Is their capitalist system at fault?
As for the "German telephone system", it had dual-channel 128k ISDN service rolled out widely for more than a decade while we in the US were languishing with 28.8k analog. A joke among telecom people in the US, when asked what ISDN was an acronym for, would reply: "I Still Don't Know."
Finally, Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile service has 9.9 million mobile subscribers in the US. Not too shabby.
I think you may be confusing "regulation" with "communism". Ask anybody in the UK how they feel about their deregulated, market-driven rail system and then talk to some Germans about the Deutsche Bahn. I've spent time on both, and I'm here to tell you that competition does not always lead to better service.
I think it should be clear to anyone who actually considers the reality of the situation that both Communism and Capitalism, as laboratory-sterile concepts, are both doomed to failure. We have seen neither pure communism or pure capitalism in practice. As a previous poster interestingly pointed out, unchecked capitalism might well lead to a situation where a few powerful corporations control every aspect of national life and are indistinguishable from government. In the long run, capitalism and communism may well turn out to be the same thing. There has to be a balance, then, something that is neither of the two.
As for Microsoft's "supposed Monopoly", there are a lot of definitions for monopoly, too. Some of them fit well enough not to merit the "supposed" label, others don't.
Words. Something cannot be something else ("Microsoft is a monopoly"), otherwise they wouldn't be two things. It would be better if we wrote in e-prime.
You have to be kidding. Where'd you get those definitions?
Do you believe that you have a right to free speech? A right to your own life? What did you do to earn those? Given that the answer is, in the end, "nothing", you must agree that you are a Communist if -- by your own definition -- you think you are owed (aka have a right to) these things, and others like them.
And as for man's greed being its own balance, you're right: And all the weight is on one side. We're falling fast, and if you don't see that, you're living in denial.
Re:Thats not what I meant.
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
And who is going to back your MIT+ certification? MIT? I don't think so -- they already have a certification program, called "degrees".
And who's going to write the exams? You're not seriously suggesting that your MIT+ certifications will just use the exams posted on MIT's site, are you? You can't have the exam questions publicly posted and expect people to not look up the answers beforehand.
So, who's going to write the exams? If it's not MIT, then it's not exactly an MIT certification, is it?
Writing the software or music is not building anything material - it's a discovery of what has been existing in the nature alway, forever. Publishing CD is a different story.
Why is the CD a different story? It's even more obvious than you assertion that the patterns of software and music are pre-existent in nature that the atoms that make up the CD and the CD writer and the energy used to burn it have been existing in nature forever. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed", etc.
I'm not sure I disagree with your idea, but you need to be much clearer about it to convince me, at least.
As for American dependence on Chinese exports, this has arisen from the trend toward free markets. It's just that capital nad jobs have shifted to areas where the work can be performed more efficiently. The Americans are perfectly able -- perhaps more than the people of any other country in the world -- of supplying most, maybe all, of their needs internally. Don't think that a lot of people wouldn't love to see a return to this kind of isolationism! We're all going through the painful process of merging into one people on a global scale.
I agree with you on this. And let's not forget the multiplier effect. Even if you're note a shareholder, lost revenue for any company (and especially huge conglomerates) translates into cascading losses of revenue for everyone they do business with, and everyone THEY do business with, and so on.
However, one must send economic signals up the chain if one wants change. I won't pirate from the RIAA, but I am boycotting them until they come to their senses and distribute via convenient channels at fair prices.
Any IT support person with a shred of dignity and professionalism will take the time to patiently demonstrate and clearly document the use of the software. After that, there are no problems. I know this from experience: I introduced exactly this PDF-creation method at my company.
Unfortunately, a lot of IT people are lazy cowards who do a lousy job the first time and so then are too scared to check back with the user to make sure that everything's fine... because they know it isn't. Sad, but true.
I disagree with your evaluation of office workers' ability. I have a number of people in my company using the Adobe PostScript driver + GhostView convert-to-PDF method with no problems at all. I had to show it a couple times and document it clearly, but now they have no problems. Practice makes perfect.
No matter what your agenda, you can find some way to categorize groups of people to fit the bill. In my opinion, it's a lot more useful to find common factors that make us part of the same group than to find the differences that divide us. Enough of this "us and them" nonsense.
I'm convinced now. One mistake I was making was failing to realize that Monty's choice of doors is already restricted by my first choice. I think that if he could also choose my door, I'd have only a 50/50 chance. Of course, that's still better than the 1 in 3 chance I start with, so I should still take the odds.
The way I thought of it was this: I have a 1 in 3 chance my first pick, then Monty shows me an empty door. If I stick with my first choice, nothing changes -- Monty's showing me one door is meaningless if I don't act on it, and it might as well not have happened. So my odds are still 1 in 3.
The interesting question is: What are Monty's choices? Only in the 1 in 3 chance that I've already chosen the prize door is Monty able to choose between two empty doors to show me. In the other 2 of 3 scenarios, he has no choice but to indicate the prize door by showing me the only remaining empty door.
It doesn't matter what happened on the show. This is a math problem, so the conditions stated are formal ones: The situation exists exactly as described, and there are no unstated variables or outside influences.
The problem states that the host opens one of the doors you didn't pick, and that there's no prize there. This ALWAYS happens, because this is a math problem, not a game show based in reality. Since it ALWAYS happens, the host-picked door (which is always empty) actually doesn't have any bearing on the problem. You can safely eliminate it from consideration. It's there, as a previous poster correctly stated, to confuse you. It seems to have been a big success.
In fact, you have and have always had a 50/50 chance, and it doesn't matter which door you choose.
It might not be as interesting, but it can definitely be useful.
As discussed in Simon Singh's excellend Fermat's Enigma, the research done by many other people may be built upon the assumption that a particular mathematical statement is either true or false. Until a proof is presented -- either by brute force or more elegant means -- it us unknown whether the "ediface" built on the assumption will stand or fall.
Since pure mathematics underlies a great deal of applied research, having mathematical statements proven true or false can tell us whether or not it's worth our time and resources to follow a particular line of reasoning.
As for the importance of pure research, I think you'll find that a huge number of people in this world are counting on some pretty miraculous discoveries being just around the corner, because based on what we know and know how to do today, we've got some serious problems on the way. Only pure research might enable us to luckily stumble across the right leads. After all, if we knew where to look, we'd already have arrived at the answers.
Sounds very Machiavellian. If that's your thing, fine. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people abide by some principles; fairness, for example.
Why should the little guy have to operate in a legal grey area, under constant uncertainty and threat of litigation, when he's doing nothing any "reasonable person" would consider wrong? Allowing sellers to dictate (or, more dangerously, enforce in the courts) restrictive practices like these raises unfair barriers to entry for new market participants. That hurts all of us in the long run.
The fact that some behavior only hurts a few doesn't mean that it's ok.
Not to mention the hidden economic costs of dumping useful manufactured goods in a hole in the ground, plus the energy used either to manufacture new replacement goods or salvage raw materials from old. Fossil-fuel energy is a non-replaceable resource, and if we continue wasting it at current rates, the day will come when we don't have enough left to jump-start any alternative technology at a scale that will prevent global breakdown.
That's the big picture. So mind the second directive in the mantrum, whose terms are listed in order of descending usefulness: reduce, REUSE, recycle.
Although several statements in your post illustrate your ignorance, this one is especially telling.
Just for starters, numerous small electronics companies exist primarily to server the needs of the amateur radio community, as do divisions of larger ones, like Kenwood. Several monthly magazines are printed for and sold to hams. Have a look at CQ mazazine's list of advertisers.
And, although their tie to amateur radio is no longer evident, Radio Shack started partly to supply ham radio operators. According to Standard & Poor's, Radio Shack currently employes over 41,400 people.
In my opinion, the amateur radio framework, which allows private individuals to communicate freely (relatively -- no profanity, encryption, etc. allowed) with eachother, across national / political borders without permission from or payment to any corporation is anything but trivial.
Considering this, along with the benefits mentioned by others in terms of emergency services and the encouragement of learning, experimenting and the do-it-yourself tradition, I have to wonder what you would consider important about the alternative.
I was recently traveling in Norway, and learned that in (at least) Norway and Sweden, the right of individuals to travel across and even camp on almost any piece of ground in the country is enshrined in law as a basic right. Can you imagine this in the US ("Get the hell off my property!") where in many places it is very nearly impossible to travel from one place to another by walking, cycling, etc., where law, "proerty rights" and poor planning have made people dependent on paid services that they might do just as well without?
Anyone who advocates personal freedoms should look at amateur radio and decide if is not, in some ways, the last stand of non-mediated communications. Remember, *Congress* may not make any law abridging the freedom of speech. But your ISP can shut you off whenever they like.
Come on, now: "admin" can mean a lot of different things, most of them not related to IT. If you mean "network administrator" you'll have to use, let's see, 21 characters. Don't be silly.
The Dutch also have no qualms about borrowing words and phrases from other languages (especially American English) and inserting them wherever they fit. This is very common with (popular) technical terminology, but also with slang phrases -- probably because of the Dutch habit of subtitling foreign-language film and TV instead of overdubbing it like the French and Germans.
Slashdot Mirror
But this suit is nuts.
I'm no lawyer, and someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that unchallenged court rulings become precedents on which further decisions can be based. Looking beyond the (in)correct behavior of either party here, the question is whether the police have a right to demand identification in a situation like this. Since a lower court has ruled that they can, this becomes a precedent for future decisions, so this isolated incident in the desert affects all citizens of the US. Please focus on the issue in question, not on what you think about the personalities involved.
And, anyway, what on earth was this cop going to do with an ID, had he been presented one? What difference could it have made?
How can this be offtopic when the idiotic post I was responding to is 2 Insightful? You ought to mod down the parent instead.
Like, I said: "Yes, one can point out many counterexamples". But it seems to me, taking racial discrimination as an example, that we can't compare the overall climate in the US today with what it was in the 60s or 50s or in any prior decade. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans are now more likely to get hung up on the little cultural quirks that "whites" and "blacks" have carved out as their identities, than to actually question whether the other is a human being of the same order, which certainly seems to have been an open question in the past.
I suppose there will always be those aberrations of humanity that will do horrible things for stupid reasons, but I just think the overall climate has improved.
And I've been living in Europe for the past five years, and I'm sure that the "racial question", the entire focus on "race" (which is "racism", literally) as a defining characteristic, is much different here. Maybe it's a different / longer historical perspective. Maybe it's some echo of the fact that these cultures were in touch with the cultures of the Middle East and Africa when the latter were more dominant, and something of that recognition of the other as valid remains. I'm not sure what it is, but it just doesn't seem to be the issue here that it is in the US. I'm sure some Europeans will disagree and point to the problems with immigrants and so, and the populist politicians who exagerate the situation. But I think other Americans who have lived abroad will probably agree with me that, at least, it's different
As for poverty, this has probably gotten worse in some areas due to increasing population, but in many others, I'm not sure that it's fair to equate poverty by today's standards with poverty of, say, the Middle Ages. Leaving out the really fucked up, I suppose that a great number of those considerd to be living in "poverty" actually have much better conditions than those in poverty in past centuries. Am I wrong?
I think Buckminster Fuller said some interesting things / had some interesting ideas about this last point.
I think you underestimate human nature. Look at the progress that's been made in the past few hundred years in terms of recognizing human rights and liberties, of overlooking the trivial differences between us, and the general increase in the standard of living. Now give us the benefit of the doubt and extrapolate. Greed and selfishness are not innate characteristics of anything, as far as I'm aware, but are simply responses to environment. And that can change, slowly but surely.
Yes, one can point out many counterexamples, but I don't think you can reasonably look at human life of planet Earth, considering overall percentages and large-scale trends, and not notice that thinking has shifted in a beneficial direction.
I have posted before saying that civilization is headed downhill because of greed and so, and I am afraid that is true. It doesn't mean we won't recover and rebuild.
The part of Germany where there are (or have ever been) US Army bases is the western part, formerly known as the Federal Republic of Germany, which has never been Communist -- even in name. So, it must not have been a problem with the political system, but a problem with lagging standards. Until recently, Europeans couldn't bring their mobile phones to the US and expect them to work anywhere. Are the Americans backwards barbarians? Is their capitalist system at fault?
As for the "German telephone system", it had dual-channel 128k ISDN service rolled out widely for more than a decade while we in the US were languishing with 28.8k analog. A joke among telecom people in the US, when asked what ISDN was an acronym for, would reply: "I Still Don't Know."
Finally, Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile service has 9.9 million mobile subscribers in the US. Not too shabby.
I think you may be confusing "regulation" with "communism". Ask anybody in the UK how they feel about their deregulated, market-driven rail system and then talk to some Germans about the Deutsche Bahn. I've spent time on both, and I'm here to tell you that competition does not always lead to better service.
I think it should be clear to anyone who actually considers the reality of the situation that both Communism and Capitalism, as laboratory-sterile concepts, are both doomed to failure. We have seen neither pure communism or pure capitalism in practice. As a previous poster interestingly pointed out, unchecked capitalism might well lead to a situation where a few powerful corporations control every aspect of national life and are indistinguishable from government. In the long run, capitalism and communism may well turn out to be the same thing. There has to be a balance, then, something that is neither of the two.
As for Microsoft's "supposed Monopoly", there are a lot of definitions for monopoly, too. Some of them fit well enough not to merit the "supposed" label, others don't.
Words. Something cannot be something else ("Microsoft is a monopoly"), otherwise they wouldn't be two things. It would be better if we wrote in e-prime.
You have to be kidding. Where'd you get those definitions?
Do you believe that you have a right to free speech? A right to your own life? What did you do to earn those? Given that the answer is, in the end, "nothing", you must agree that you are a Communist if -- by your own definition -- you think you are owed (aka have a right to) these things, and others like them.
And as for man's greed being its own balance, you're right: And all the weight is on one side. We're falling fast, and if you don't see that, you're living in denial.
And who is going to back your MIT+ certification? MIT? I don't think so -- they already have a certification program, called "degrees".
And who's going to write the exams? You're not seriously suggesting that your MIT+ certifications will just use the exams posted on MIT's site, are you? You can't have the exam questions publicly posted and expect people to not look up the answers beforehand.
So, who's going to write the exams? If it's not MIT, then it's not exactly an MIT certification, is it?
You haven't thought this through much, have you?
"Ham" isn't an acronym, so why are you spelling it in all-caps? You have a callsign, you should know better.
Writing the software or music is not building anything material - it's a discovery of what has been existing in the nature alway, forever. Publishing CD is a different story.
Why is the CD a different story? It's even more obvious than you assertion that the patterns of software and music are pre-existent in nature that the atoms that make up the CD and the CD writer and the energy used to burn it have been existing in nature forever. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed", etc.
I'm not sure I disagree with your idea, but you need to be much clearer about it to convince me, at least.
As for American dependence on Chinese exports, this has arisen from the trend toward free markets. It's just that capital nad jobs have shifted to areas where the work can be performed more efficiently. The Americans are perfectly able -- perhaps more than the people of any other country in the world -- of supplying most, maybe all, of their needs internally. Don't think that a lot of people wouldn't love to see a return to this kind of isolationism! We're all going through the painful process of merging into one people on a global scale.
But let's get past this "us and them" BS, right?
I agree with you on this. And let's not forget the multiplier effect. Even if you're note a shareholder, lost revenue for any company (and especially huge conglomerates) translates into cascading losses of revenue for everyone they do business with, and everyone THEY do business with, and so on.
However, one must send economic signals up the chain if one wants change. I won't pirate from the RIAA, but I am boycotting them until they come to their senses and distribute via convenient channels at fair prices.
Any IT support person with a shred of dignity and professionalism will take the time to patiently demonstrate and clearly document the use of the software. After that, there are no problems. I know this from experience: I introduced exactly this PDF-creation method at my company.
... because they know it isn't. Sad, but true.
Unfortunately, a lot of IT people are lazy cowards who do a lousy job the first time and so then are too scared to check back with the user to make sure that everything's fine
I disagree with your evaluation of office workers' ability. I have a number of people in my company using the Adobe PostScript driver + GhostView convert-to-PDF method with no problems at all. I had to show it a couple times and document it clearly, but now they have no problems. Practice makes perfect.
No matter what your agenda, you can find some way to categorize groups of people to fit the bill. In my opinion, it's a lot more useful to find common factors that make us part of the same group than to find the differences that divide us. Enough of this "us and them" nonsense.
This logic works for 3 doors, as well, but for some reason doesn't seem as intuitive.
Maybe because 999,999 / 1,000,000 (.999999) is a lot closer to 1 than either 1 / 2 (.5) or 2 / 3 (.6666...)
But, yes, the absurdity of the million-door scenario illustrates the solution, which I now see as the correct one.
I'm convinced now. One mistake I was making was failing to realize that Monty's choice of doors is already restricted by my first choice. I think that if he could also choose my door, I'd have only a 50/50 chance. Of course, that's still better than the 1 in 3 chance I start with, so I should still take the odds.
The way I thought of it was this: I have a 1 in 3 chance my first pick, then Monty shows me an empty door. If I stick with my first choice, nothing changes -- Monty's showing me one door is meaningless if I don't act on it, and it might as well not have happened. So my odds are still 1 in 3.
The interesting question is: What are Monty's choices? Only in the 1 in 3 chance that I've already chosen the prize door is Monty able to choose between two empty doors to show me. In the other 2 of 3 scenarios, he has no choice but to indicate the prize door by showing me the only remaining empty door.
Apparently (judging my what Google turned up) I am mistaken ... but as yet unconvinced. I'll have to do something about that.
At least I'm not trying to get a job at Microsoft.
It doesn't matter what happened on the show. This is a math problem, so the conditions stated are formal ones: The situation exists exactly as described, and there are no unstated variables or outside influences.
The problem states that the host opens one of the doors you didn't pick, and that there's no prize there. This ALWAYS happens, because this is a math problem, not a game show based in reality. Since it ALWAYS happens, the host-picked door (which is always empty) actually doesn't have any bearing on the problem. You can safely eliminate it from consideration. It's there, as a previous poster correctly stated, to confuse you. It seems to have been a big success.
In fact, you have and have always had a 50/50 chance, and it doesn't matter which door you choose.
It might not be as interesting, but it can definitely be useful.
As discussed in Simon Singh's excellend Fermat's Enigma, the research done by many other people may be built upon the assumption that a particular mathematical statement is either true or false. Until a proof is presented -- either by brute force or more elegant means -- it us unknown whether the "ediface" built on the assumption will stand or fall.
Since pure mathematics underlies a great deal of applied research, having mathematical statements proven true or false can tell us whether or not it's worth our time and resources to follow a particular line of reasoning.
As for the importance of pure research, I think you'll find that a huge number of people in this world are counting on some pretty miraculous discoveries being just around the corner, because based on what we know and know how to do today, we've got some serious problems on the way. Only pure research might enable us to luckily stumble across the right leads. After all, if we knew where to look, we'd already have arrived at the answers.
Sounds very Machiavellian. If that's your thing, fine. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people abide by some principles; fairness, for example.
Why should the little guy have to operate in a legal grey area, under constant uncertainty and threat of litigation, when he's doing nothing any "reasonable person" would consider wrong? Allowing sellers to dictate (or, more dangerously, enforce in the courts) restrictive practices like these raises unfair barriers to entry for new market participants. That hurts all of us in the long run.
The fact that some behavior only hurts a few doesn't mean that it's ok.
Not to mention the hidden economic costs of dumping useful manufactured goods in a hole in the ground, plus the energy used either to manufacture new replacement goods or salvage raw materials from old. Fossil-fuel energy is a non-replaceable resource, and if we continue wasting it at current rates, the day will come when we don't have enough left to jump-start any alternative technology at a scale that will prevent global breakdown.
That's the big picture. So mind the second directive in the mantrum, whose terms are listed in order of descending usefulness: reduce, REUSE, recycle.
"You don't generate jobs with your hobby"
Although several statements in your post illustrate your ignorance, this one is especially telling.
Just for starters, numerous small electronics companies exist primarily to server the needs of the amateur radio community, as do divisions of larger ones, like Kenwood. Several monthly magazines are printed for and sold to hams. Have a look at CQ mazazine's list of advertisers.
And, although their tie to amateur radio is no longer evident, Radio Shack started partly to supply ham radio operators. According to Standard & Poor's, Radio Shack currently employes over 41,400 people.
Nope, no jobs created here!
Someone claimed to have been done it. Wired magazine ran a story.
Define "trivial".
In my opinion, the amateur radio framework, which allows private individuals to communicate freely (relatively -- no profanity, encryption, etc. allowed) with eachother, across national / political borders without permission from or payment to any corporation is anything but trivial.
Considering this, along with the benefits mentioned by others in terms of emergency services and the encouragement of learning, experimenting and the do-it-yourself tradition, I have to wonder what you would consider important about the alternative.
I was recently traveling in Norway, and learned that in (at least) Norway and Sweden, the right of individuals to travel across and even camp on almost any piece of ground in the country is enshrined in law as a basic right. Can you imagine this in the US ("Get the hell off my property!") where in many places it is very nearly impossible to travel from one place to another by walking, cycling, etc., where law, "proerty rights" and poor planning have made people dependent on paid services that they might do just as well without?
Anyone who advocates personal freedoms should look at amateur radio and decide if is not, in some ways, the last stand of non-mediated communications. Remember, *Congress* may not make any law abridging the freedom of speech. But your ISP can shut you off whenever they like.
Come on, now: "admin" can mean a lot of different things, most of them not related to IT. If you mean "network administrator" you'll have to use, let's see, 21 characters. Don't be silly.
The Dutch also have no qualms about borrowing words and phrases from other languages (especially American English) and inserting them wherever they fit. This is very common with (popular) technical terminology, but also with slang phrases -- probably because of the Dutch habit of subtitling foreign-language film and TV instead of overdubbing it like the French and Germans.