I don't think it's an issue with their OS. I think it's more that when they released their store they put so many restrictions that it wasn't worthwhile contributing apps. All I can really say is "sucked in" to Palm Management. They deserve what they get.
When you write that "blaming the Africans for anything is not allowed if there is a convenient rich white scapegoat available" I believe you are making out I said something I didn't. Certainly those who commit genocide and murder are to blame as well. That's not really the point I was making. Look, it's quite easy to bandy about insults, but saying that I am a politically correct lefty is no more fair than if I called you a right-wing war monger.
As for your baseball bat analogy, there are a few problems with this. Firstly, the primary purpose of a baseball bat is not to kill another human being, it is to hit a ball in the game of baseball. Now if we change your analogy to a rocket launcher, and you knew that I would be using it to shoot down a plain because I said I was part of Al Qaeda yet you still sold it to me and I then went out and did this, then yes you would be complicit in the murder of those who died in the plane crash. And a court of law would, in fact, find you guilty if it was proven that you did this as you would then have been aiding and abetting a terrorist organization to commit an act of terror.
Now the following isn't what I said either: "How so? Who is to blame then? No, don't tell me: the people in the West, of course!". While I certainly blame those who provide arms to those who commit genocide, of course I deplore those governments who do nothing to stop genocide. Again, you are somewhat missing the point I am making.
Now I'm a bit suprised by your reaction when you write that "[having a] metric assload of children which makes the problem even worse. And our help makes them reliant on handouts, as opposed to them providing for themselves." The western world has only recently started having smaller families. Having a large family is really not a good reason for not providing aid to the starving. Surely you aren't telling me that Africans need to be sterilized or forced into abortions if they have more than one or two children, as routinely happens in China? And how do you equate large families with reliance on handouts? When a famine occurs while civil war is occuring, all people regardless of whether they have many children or only a few children need to eat, and that may well come from food handouts.
Well, fact is that pumping billions in aid to Africa has done very little to help the problem. If anything, it has prolonged it. Maybe we should try something different for a change?
What do you suggest?
Thankfully, there are also many, many who disagree with this viewpoint and who continue providing to the sick and starving.
And then those sick and starving multiply beyond control, and you end up with even more sick and starving.... Good job everybody!
Firstly, the sick and starving don't tend to procreate, because they are sick and starving. Secondly, the fact that people want to have children should not be seen as such a bad thing that if they and their children are dying of disease and hunger that they deserve to die.
You sir, live in a cruel and selfish world. I'm glad that most of the world doesn't think as you do!
Let's see, $500 billion divided by a decade (I assume this includes military aid) makes $50 billion dollars a year. So therefore, $3.5 billion is 7% of total aid. Sure, it could be better, but that's actually not that bad for long term aid support.
Perhaps if the U.S. and Britain had stopped providing arms for the past 200 years, thus helping forment war and thus starvation, the U.S. and Britain would not have to provide food aid?
No, they changed the data type but the index that handles the primary key didn't update.
Many database engines won't let you do that without dropping the index first... I think you can hardly blame MySQL for this stuff up though. And the slashdot post acknowledges this.
Hardly offtopic. I'm asking for some evidence to back up the user's assertions. Should be easy, so long as they haven't pulled the data out of thin air!
That makes little difference to the people if a famine is occurring because crops have failed or because war has prevented those crops from being planted. What do you suppose the populace does in this case?
Besides this, providing food and medical supplies to countries that do not have their own supplies of agricultural food is not the only form of aid provided by Western nations. The Obama administration, for instance, has committed to providing 3.5 billion dollars in agricultural aid - in other words, aid that allows nations to stand on their own two feet. Obviously this sort of thing takes time, so other more short term aid is also provided.
Actually, that's not true. Those who sell arms to foreign countries bare some responsibility for enabling the actions of those who use the weapons. While the Rwanda example is quite on point, there are many other instances where providing arms to certain groups have caused untold problems for innocent people. For example, the U.S. helped fund and train the Mujahideen in the 80's, and later Osama bin Laden used that training to destroy the World Trade Centre. In this case, innocent people who had no direct involvement in this conflict were the indirect victims.
The amount of military aid provided to dictators and other tyrants (not just in Africa, incidentally) by western nations is, quite frankly, appalling.
This is all a moot point, however, because the argument here is that most poor, starving and dispossessed people are somehow the cause of their own misfortune. This is patently false, and regardless of who caused the wars to be caused in the first place (civil wars unaided by outside influences or aided by western nations) there are those out there who, through no fault of their own, are simply unable to provide for themselves. That there are people in richer, first world nations think that letting them perish through starvation and disease is an excellent way of resolving conflict, poverty and famine is a sad indictment on the corrupted thinking that has permeated our western culture. Thankfully, there are also many, many who disagree with this viewpoint and who continue providing to the sick and starving.
Actually, they are. Both are logical fallacies colloquially referred to as "loaded questions", it's just that its more clear that the one I wrote is such a fallacy.
The Aussie "sickie" is really a myth, especially that you can now take the day off to look after your child or dependent (one of the very few decent changes made by the Howard government). Sick days are now called "carers days".
He is. It's the same sort of argument I'm seeing come from America where they say that having a national health provider will cause people to be lazy and not look after themselves. Of course, they don't look at countries like Australia that does have a national health scheme but people are by and large not lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
lol! Absolutely agree with the gp's sentiments. Suck it, indeed!
I don't think it's an issue with their OS. I think it's more that when they released their store they put so many restrictions that it wasn't worthwhile contributing apps. All I can really say is "sucked in" to Palm Management. They deserve what they get.
I have a better idea. Impose a tax on undertakers because murder causes enormous harm and economic loss to society.
No. Are you trying to imply that there was mass starvation before that?
When you write that "blaming the Africans for anything is not allowed if there is a convenient rich white scapegoat available" I believe you are making out I said something I didn't. Certainly those who commit genocide and murder are to blame as well. That's not really the point I was making. Look, it's quite easy to bandy about insults, but saying that I am a politically correct lefty is no more fair than if I called you a right-wing war monger.
As for your baseball bat analogy, there are a few problems with this. Firstly, the primary purpose of a baseball bat is not to kill another human being, it is to hit a ball in the game of baseball. Now if we change your analogy to a rocket launcher, and you knew that I would be using it to shoot down a plain because I said I was part of Al Qaeda yet you still sold it to me and I then went out and did this, then yes you would be complicit in the murder of those who died in the plane crash. And a court of law would, in fact, find you guilty if it was proven that you did this as you would then have been aiding and abetting a terrorist organization to commit an act of terror.
Now the following isn't what I said either: "How so? Who is to blame then? No, don't tell me: the people in the West, of course!". While I certainly blame those who provide arms to those who commit genocide, of course I deplore those governments who do nothing to stop genocide. Again, you are somewhat missing the point I am making.
Now I'm a bit suprised by your reaction when you write that "[having a] metric assload of children which makes the problem even worse. And our help makes them reliant on handouts, as opposed to them providing for themselves." The western world has only recently started having smaller families. Having a large family is really not a good reason for not providing aid to the starving. Surely you aren't telling me that Africans need to be sterilized or forced into abortions if they have more than one or two children, as routinely happens in China? And how do you equate large families with reliance on handouts? When a famine occurs while civil war is occuring, all people regardless of whether they have many children or only a few children need to eat, and that may well come from food handouts.
What do you suggest?
Firstly, the sick and starving don't tend to procreate, because they are sick and starving. Secondly, the fact that people want to have children should not be seen as such a bad thing that if they and their children are dying of disease and hunger that they deserve to die.
You sir, live in a cruel and selfish world. I'm glad that most of the world doesn't think as you do!
Let's see, $500 billion divided by a decade (I assume this includes military aid) makes $50 billion dollars a year. So therefore, $3.5 billion is 7% of total aid. Sure, it could be better, but that's actually not that bad for long term aid support.
Perhaps if the U.S. and Britain had stopped providing arms for the past 200 years, thus helping forment war and thus starvation, the U.S. and Britain would not have to provide food aid?
How many people in the U.S. are truly starving?
Citation provided.
No, they changed the data type but the index that handles the primary key didn't update.
Many database engines won't let you do that without dropping the index first... I think you can hardly blame MySQL for this stuff up though. And the slashdot post acknowledges this.
What, that Americans are lazy even without a health care system? lol!
Hardly offtopic. I'm asking for some evidence to back up the user's assertions. Should be easy, so long as they haven't pulled the data out of thin air!
That makes little difference to the people if a famine is occurring because crops have failed or because war has prevented those crops from being planted. What do you suppose the populace does in this case?
Besides this, providing food and medical supplies to countries that do not have their own supplies of agricultural food is not the only form of aid provided by Western nations. The Obama administration, for instance, has committed to providing 3.5 billion dollars in agricultural aid - in other words, aid that allows nations to stand on their own two feet. Obviously this sort of thing takes time, so other more short term aid is also provided.
Actually, that's not true. Those who sell arms to foreign countries bare some responsibility for enabling the actions of those who use the weapons. While the Rwanda example is quite on point, there are many other instances where providing arms to certain groups have caused untold problems for innocent people. For example, the U.S. helped fund and train the Mujahideen in the 80's, and later Osama bin Laden used that training to destroy the World Trade Centre. In this case, innocent people who had no direct involvement in this conflict were the indirect victims.
The amount of military aid provided to dictators and other tyrants (not just in Africa, incidentally) by western nations is, quite frankly, appalling.
This is all a moot point, however, because the argument here is that most poor, starving and dispossessed people are somehow the cause of their own misfortune. This is patently false, and regardless of who caused the wars to be caused in the first place (civil wars unaided by outside influences or aided by western nations) there are those out there who, through no fault of their own, are simply unable to provide for themselves. That there are people in richer, first world nations think that letting them perish through starvation and disease is an excellent way of resolving conflict, poverty and famine is a sad indictment on the corrupted thinking that has permeated our western culture. Thankfully, there are also many, many who disagree with this viewpoint and who continue providing to the sick and starving.
Daniel Brandt, is that you?
Actually, they are. Both are logical fallacies colloquially referred to as "loaded questions", it's just that its more clear that the one I wrote is such a fallacy.
You'd be amazed how many people ride bikes in Sydney.
Right in time for the Dubai economy to start tanking.
Bono has never come right out and said he is a Christian. Everyone just assumes he is.
The Aussie "sickie" is really a myth, especially that you can now take the day off to look after your child or dependent (one of the very few decent changes made by the Howard government). Sick days are now called "carers days".
Well, have you ever wondered who arms the combatants?
If that's a fact, let's seem some evidence.
To quote a meme I created:
[citation needed]
He is. It's the same sort of argument I'm seeing come from America where they say that having a national health provider will cause people to be lazy and not look after themselves. Of course, they don't look at countries like Australia that does have a national health scheme but people are by and large not lazy.
I'm genuinely curious where you are getting this information from?
When did you stop beating your wife and children?