That's right, it's from NZ. It's something like £17-20 a bottle here, and quite rare. Most merchants will only sell something like 2 bottles per customer.
I'm sure there are other good ones, but I don't get much chance to drink excellent sauvignons. Normally, I find them a little too sharp, but Cloudy Bay has enough fruit to make it delicious.
Maybe some people really like Nouveau, but it sounds more like clueless wine snobbery to me to travel there for it. Better to fly to Bordeaux and head into the Medoc.
Actually, it's very different. People buy diamonds in part because of tradition, and in part because of perceived rarity. From what I recall, rubies and emeralds are rarer, but cost less.
Wines like Chateau Latour, Penfolds Grange or Chateau d'Yqeem retain their prices because of quality and rarity. If a winemaker stops making quality wine under those names, they will soon start slipping. Some people will buy what is expensive, but in part that is driven by reviewers and non-snobby consumers. Wines will only retain their price for a short while if the quality slips.
I've drank some high price wines, and while a few have been disappointing, some have been breathtaking - full of complex fruit and depth. No cheap wine I've tried has matched them. I only wish I could say that it was not true. I don't have much money to buy £20+ bottles of wine, but occassionally I treat myself. I'd rather be able to have 3*£7 bottles than 1*20 bottle, but I'd rather have 1 excellent bottle than 3 quite good ones. If I could find £7 bottles to match the £20 one, I'd switch, but I can't.
Part of the cachet of drinking fine wines is that it is expensive and exclusive. Once you start allowing the hoi polloi to have access, it no longer becomes so special.
Bullshit. It's still the same product. Just because everyone else can enjoy something doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.
We have some great ales here in the UK, and people here are fanatical about them (The Campaign for Real Ale is about the most successful consumer organisation in the UK). People wax lyrical about them, festivals are held for them, drinkers will discuss the "hoppiness" of a beer and a few people I know get quite serious about seeking out pubs with unusual ales. However, none of this is about price (even the most expensive Belgian Trappist beers are only double the price of regular ale).
you're going to have cheap wine regardless of how it tastes
And what else really matters?
I've been to Bordeaux and seen how they make great claret, and certain traditions they use. But I also believe that many of those traditions are about maintaining quality. They often stick with traditions because it's always worked for them, and spending extra on a more traditional way of doing something is acceptable. But, if they can improve the wine by employing technology, they will.
Good wine is what you like. Whether it's an '82 Margaux or a £4 ($6) bottle of Romanian Pinot Noir.
Personally, though, the best bottles I've ever had have been expensive bottles. That doesn't mean every expensive bottle has been earth-shattering, because some have been disappointing.
One thing with decanting is that the process of moving the wine from one receptacle to another introduces air into the wine. I've read that people opening a bottle and leaving it to breathe that way is mostly pointless as only a small amount of the wine will get the air.
Also, I once had an experience of drinking a Chateau Labegorce (a decent Cru Bourgois) followed by a Chateau Latour (1er cru) the following day. The Latour was from a poor year, and the Labegorce from 1990. The Labegorce was a considerably better wine, but I am sure that the Latour cost more.
I do generally agree about paying for wine, though. I'm more a red drinker, myself, but if you can find some, check out Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc. Utterly brilliant, and in the UK, about £15-20 ($25-30) a bottle.
That's the problem with words like conservative or liberal. They have different meanings.
By today's standards, JS Mill would not be a "liberal". He was a classic liberal, people who believed in laissez-faire capitalism, that I doubt very much that most "liberals" of today would support.
Most kids don't even know that it's CG. Particularly as Pixar don't go shouting around that the movie is CG.
When I've seen documentaries or listened to Pixar commentaries, you realise just how much passion they have for telling stories, and how they seem to spend a phenomenal amount of time on the story before even getting down to the animation.
I wish that more movie studios did this, instead of getting a concept, adding a star name, and botching together a script that runs out of steam.
If I was Google, I'd be doing the same thing. There is no legal justification for such a thing in the UK, and AFAIK, nor is there in the USA.
Why should my company disclose information that is private to the government? If the UK government wants a scrap of information from me, it should be in supporting the work of the police investigating a crime. If the UK government contacted me for stats on most popular pages on my site, I'd consider giving it to them for one reason - because they pay me for it. And when I say "consider", I'd have every right to tell them that they can't have them.
That's one of the reasons that I work for myself and do some on- and some off-site work.
I'm not at that age, but I've seen almost no age discrimination for contract work. Employers know that they aren't paying sickness, training, pensions and can get rid of someone at short notice.
It depends on what you privatise, and the controls.
The ultimate control is market control. We currently have socialized medicine in the UK and you could privatise it, because you can give individuals the power to choose their doctor/hospital.
The problem is mostly when you leave government in charge, but then outsourcing services to the private sector, because there's still no competition to drive things forward, and opportunities for corruption and incompetence. There's a whole bunch of UK government computer projects I can think of that cost billions.
It very much could be a snowball. For each application added to Linux or Mac that raises the market share, so it makes it more viable for other applications producers to commit. Replace "application" with "hardware device" and do the same.
Then there's the issue that applications are becoming more and more web based. There are web-based project management solutions now, webmail, web-based CRM, web services for data etc etc.
I also think that Microsoft are going to find it harder and harder to sell OS. PCs are now fast enough for most users, so making a new sale is going to get harder. Vista adds very little as far as end-user functionality. Plenty of corporates are running Windows 2000. I think a lot of businesses will seriously consider their Linux options when looking at a Vista upgrade.
Thanks for that. I'm considering my Mac option (currently on Windows). Pages looks decent in terms of UI.
To me, it doesn't matter if it's "not Word". It matters that it can help me efficiently produce documents (like letters, technical documentation). My requirements are probably around the formatting that Office 6 could give me.
Do you know how they do compatibility? Is it by reverse-engineering?
If you've not seen it, Crimson Tide should not be avoided, even though he produced it. He did have Tony Scott, Denzel Washington, Gene Hackman and some good writing (including a little Tarantino).
Because while I'm moving towards more development in Python, I've still got a.net site that I support and will need to for a few years.
It's not a clincher, and there are horrible ways around it (like having a windows server and VNCing to it), but I'd rather not. On the other hand if a decent, fast emulation can be done, then I'll be getting a Mac for my next machine.
I think this post is a little premature. 4-5 weeks from now, geeks will be trying to get this to work.
I don't have a problem with railway stations. They operate under government license, and essentially have monopoly rights.
The biggest problem I have is when pubs/restaurants etc. are declared as "public spaces". A restaurant is a private business, and should be able to reasonably choose what they do. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant that tolerated smoking at tables, and would take my choice accordingly (note, the market has basically created non-smoking areas in pubs without government interference).
With regards to pubs changing purpose, my point was more that there are consequences that people may not desire, but have not considered. Some pubcos, particularly in villages, will see it as more profitable when takings go down to convert their pubs to housing. If smokers stay away, what happens to the bar? Maybe pubs will move still further towards food, instead of drinkers.
I've noticed this with my own software. Bugs that 15 years ago (when I worked on a mainframe) would have resulted in a lot of grief from users are barely an issue now. People just don't seem to expect robust code in the way they did.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are other good ones, but I don't get much chance to drink excellent sauvignons. Normally, I find them a little too sharp, but Cloudy Bay has enough fruit to make it delicious.
Barman: Can I get you anything, Sir? Del: I'll have a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau. Barman: Yes, Sir. Del: A '79.
We used to in the UK (I used to do it for the event - the wine is OK, though). The novelty of it has worn off, though.
Maybe some people really like Nouveau, but it sounds more like clueless wine snobbery to me to travel there for it. Better to fly to Bordeaux and head into the Medoc.
Wines like Chateau Latour, Penfolds Grange or Chateau d'Yqeem retain their prices because of quality and rarity. If a winemaker stops making quality wine under those names, they will soon start slipping. Some people will buy what is expensive, but in part that is driven by reviewers and non-snobby consumers. Wines will only retain their price for a short while if the quality slips.
I've drank some high price wines, and while a few have been disappointing, some have been breathtaking - full of complex fruit and depth. No cheap wine I've tried has matched them. I only wish I could say that it was not true. I don't have much money to buy £20+ bottles of wine, but occassionally I treat myself. I'd rather be able to have 3*£7 bottles than 1*20 bottle, but I'd rather have 1 excellent bottle than 3 quite good ones. If I could find £7 bottles to match the £20 one, I'd switch, but I can't.
Bullshit. It's still the same product. Just because everyone else can enjoy something doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.
We have some great ales here in the UK, and people here are fanatical about them (The Campaign for Real Ale is about the most successful consumer organisation in the UK). People wax lyrical about them, festivals are held for them, drinkers will discuss the "hoppiness" of a beer and a few people I know get quite serious about seeking out pubs with unusual ales. However, none of this is about price (even the most expensive Belgian Trappist beers are only double the price of regular ale).
And what else really matters?
I've been to Bordeaux and seen how they make great claret, and certain traditions they use. But I also believe that many of those traditions are about maintaining quality. They often stick with traditions because it's always worked for them, and spending extra on a more traditional way of doing something is acceptable. But, if they can improve the wine by employing technology, they will.
Personally, though, the best bottles I've ever had have been expensive bottles. That doesn't mean every expensive bottle has been earth-shattering, because some have been disappointing.
One thing with decanting is that the process of moving the wine from one receptacle to another introduces air into the wine. I've read that people opening a bottle and leaving it to breathe that way is mostly pointless as only a small amount of the wine will get the air.
Also, I once had an experience of drinking a Chateau Labegorce (a decent Cru Bourgois) followed by a Chateau Latour (1er cru) the following day. The Latour was from a poor year, and the Labegorce from 1990. The Labegorce was a considerably better wine, but I am sure that the Latour cost more.
I do generally agree about paying for wine, though. I'm more a red drinker, myself, but if you can find some, check out Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc. Utterly brilliant, and in the UK, about £15-20 ($25-30) a bottle.
By today's standards, JS Mill would not be a "liberal". He was a classic liberal, people who believed in laissez-faire capitalism, that I doubt very much that most "liberals" of today would support.
Most kids don't even know that it's CG. Particularly as Pixar don't go shouting around that the movie is CG.
When I've seen documentaries or listened to Pixar commentaries, you realise just how much passion they have for telling stories, and how they seem to spend a phenomenal amount of time on the story before even getting down to the animation.
I wish that more movie studios did this, instead of getting a concept, adding a star name, and botching together a script that runs out of steam.
Why should my company disclose information that is private to the government? If the UK government wants a scrap of information from me, it should be in supporting the work of the police investigating a crime. If the UK government contacted me for stats on most popular pages on my site, I'd consider giving it to them for one reason - because they pay me for it. And when I say "consider", I'd have every right to tell them that they can't have them.
I'm not at that age, but I've seen almost no age discrimination for contract work. Employers know that they aren't paying sickness, training, pensions and can get rid of someone at short notice.
Wouldn't a subpoena be based on some sort of law? Like that a crime has occurred and the case requires the information?
The ultimate control is market control. We currently have socialized medicine in the UK and you could privatise it, because you can give individuals the power to choose their doctor/hospital.
The problem is mostly when you leave government in charge, but then outsourcing services to the private sector, because there's still no competition to drive things forward, and opportunities for corruption and incompetence. There's a whole bunch of UK government computer projects I can think of that cost billions.
I don't want to have to carry 2 laptops.
Then there's the issue that applications are becoming more and more web based. There are web-based project management solutions now, webmail, web-based CRM, web services for data etc etc.
I also think that Microsoft are going to find it harder and harder to sell OS. PCs are now fast enough for most users, so making a new sale is going to get harder. Vista adds very little as far as end-user functionality. Plenty of corporates are running Windows 2000. I think a lot of businesses will seriously consider their Linux options when looking at a Vista upgrade.
A chair with the words "Made in Taiwan" is being thrown.
To me, it doesn't matter if it's "not Word". It matters that it can help me efficiently produce documents (like letters, technical documentation). My requirements are probably around the formatting that Office 6 could give me.
Do you know how they do compatibility? Is it by reverse-engineering?
Is there an open streaming format?
But yes, the rest is utter dreck.
It's not a clincher, and there are horrible ways around it (like having a windows server and VNCing to it), but I'd rather not. On the other hand if a decent, fast emulation can be done, then I'll be getting a Mac for my next machine.
I think this post is a little premature. 4-5 weeks from now, geeks will be trying to get this to work.
The biggest problem I have is when pubs/restaurants etc. are declared as "public spaces". A restaurant is a private business, and should be able to reasonably choose what they do. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant that tolerated smoking at tables, and would take my choice accordingly (note, the market has basically created non-smoking areas in pubs without government interference).
With regards to pubs changing purpose, my point was more that there are consequences that people may not desire, but have not considered. Some pubcos, particularly in villages, will see it as more profitable when takings go down to convert their pubs to housing. If smokers stay away, what happens to the bar? Maybe pubs will move still further towards food, instead of drinkers.
I've noticed this with my own software. Bugs that 15 years ago (when I worked on a mainframe) would have resulted in a lot of grief from users are barely an issue now. People just don't seem to expect robust code in the way they did.