...For example, Americans believe the typical American is very assertive, and Canadians believe the typical Canadian is submissive, but in fact Americans and Canadians have almost identical scores on measures of assertiveness, a little above the world average....
I think Canadians may have higher levels of passive aggression, which on the outside *may* look like they are more shy about things. But I am not so sure that it is always so passive.:-)
...I've never understood is why there are not anti-torpedo torpedoes. Torpedoes are noisy, relatively slow (60kt), have travel times often measured in minutes, and tend to steer directly for the target.
There are already some torpedoes that can be used as anti-torpedo torpedos, plus they are working on new ones... just google for anti-torpedo torpedo. In any case, something like that may have less relevance with the advent of new
supercavitating torpedoes. They currently exist and have speeds in excess of 200 miles/hour (about 300 kph). Right now, they are only good for straight line running, but the U.S. (and others I'll warrant) are researching how to get them to turn at high speed.
Once one of these is fired at you from 5 miles away, you probably wouldn't have time to launch an anti-torpedo torpedo and have it intercept. That's probably why they want something like this.
A mark is someone targeted for a drive by shooting or some such violence.
Maybe this is a new slang meaning people are putting to 'mark'. But for far longer, and in much wider usage, it is a person who is being targetted to be separated from their money by a grifter or hustler etc. See definition 13.
I'm not sure what your point is. The OP brought up that America was wrong to drop the atom bomb on Japan. The OP was using this to claim that America and the Europeans have no moral autority to deny Iran the use of nuclear power... even though currently Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, and 65 or so years ago, Japan was even worse. So in direct response to a point brought up by the OP, I pointed out that in the context of what the Japanese were capable of during WWII, dropping the atom bomb was no worse. (Unlike your response that seems to be something from out in left field... that took place 500 to 900 years prior and has no bearing on current politics.) In fact, dropping the atom bombs was probably a lot more merciful than what the Japanese did to their enemies (considering they tortured and murdered more than 20 million more civilians, POW's, and slave laborers than were killed by the atom bombs). It also probably ended the war a lot more quickly, and ulitmately prevented far more bloodshed.
I don't understand why many people now-a-days seem to side with the criminals and not the victims. Why else would the OP seems to try to raise sympathy for Iran (sponsors of Hezbollah) by trying (boo hoo) to show how one of the most brutal war-like societies in modern history (Japan of the 30's and 40's) was sooooo hard done by. I suppose you think that Japan was just misunderstood? Maybe they were all abused as children and it wasn't their fault they raped, tortured, murdered millions of Koreans and Chinese and Filipinos and... Or maybe Iran is just having some fun supplying explosives to brainwashed college kids to strap on and blow up Israelis with? But maybe we can't see that because we're from another culture and are just too narrow minded to understand? Come on, enough with political correctness already. All you need to understand is that until Iran moves their human rights to the 21rst century, they have no business having nuclear programs. Political correctness is ridiculous in these circumstances. If I have a choice of generalizing, not letting them have nuclear power, and for sure not being nuked by a terrorist; or giving a state with a known track record of terrorism the capability of building a nuclear bomb, I will generalize night and day... and support those who want to keep nuclear capability out of their Iran's hands.
RE: (Or, has the the Nagasaki & Hiroshima bombings escaped your memory??)
I suppose you would like to go the memorial services each year Nagasaki & Hiroshima? Do you ever think about the Nanking massacre? How about Japanese war crimes? A quote from the article:
These events are often compared to similar suffering imposed by Nazi Germany during 1933-45. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers -- and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 per cent chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 per cent.[1]
Other sources claim the Japanese military was responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million non-combatants during 1937-45, although all such figures are controversial.
I don't care how or why Hussein was removed from power... I am just glad he was. Same will go for Iran's reactors if they build them... and Iran itself... if they build a bomb.
OK... I'll stop feeding the troll now... I... just... couldn't... help... it.
Does that take away your inalienable right to keep & bear arms as a United States citizen (assuming you are that is)???... No!
Wrong. In most states, ex-convicts are not allowed to own guns as they have proven they are not trustworthy individuals.
Iran, as a state sponsorer of terrorism, has proven itself to be an un-trustworthy state. If they build a reactor, we should turn it into a parking lot before it is even close to operational.
Also, if you go too deep with compressed air, you can get nitrogen narcosis. Anyway, I too wonder if bringing a deep water species to the surface is not that simple.
When I try the 'software updates' in the options/advanced menu, Firefox says it cannot find any available updates. I am running 1.06. I find this feature only works sporadically. That is, when I know there is an update on the web site and try the update feature, sometimes it works, and sometimes is doesn't. Anyway, until it works reliably, I think this feature can give a user a false sense of security. Anyone else have this issue?
It doesn't cost an individual very much to file a lawsuit. So what if thousands of individual citizens got together and decide to file thousands of individual lawsuits against the RIAA seeking damages for harassment. Each individual might have to pay a couple of hundred dollars to file the lawsuit, and might end up losing it, but the RIAA would end up spending millions on lawyers fees. Keep it up and they might back down. Use the system against them.
I think the questions that are being asked are, "how do you know they are looking in on you only when you ask them to?" and, "what other ways can something like this be abused?" Maybe more importantly, what can be done to ensure systems like this are not abused? Especially as technology like this is becoming more common.
For example, if you have to go in for surgery, you are asking the surgeon to cut you. Normally a cut as deep as your internal organs, which surgeons routinely make, is a bad thing. A very bad thing. However, the doctors oath says "do no harm", so you trust that he/she is always doing what is in your best interests (OK, I am assuming they are legally bound by that oath). But what limits companies (and others) who have access to what you are doing in what you previously thought was privacy to "do no harm"?
Voice recognition software exists today... maybe not as sophisticated as in Star Trek yet, but it still exists. Once they realize there might be money in it, will On-Star (or others) eventually start listening in and start target marketing to you based on what they hear you talking about? Granted this might sound foil hat paranoid, but what stops the government from randomly listening in to On-Star users? Especially now that the 9/11 laws allow the government to force companies to allow them to look in on you without a warrant. Or maybe someone at On-Star has agreed to look/listen in on someone for a friend to see if they are having an affair. Or maybe they are stocking someone.
At one time you would be a kook to think that anyone was listing in on your private conversations. But with technology like this, it really is possible. So I think the original poster's questions are legitimate. If care to think about it for a while, you can come up with a bunch of ways someone might abuse a system like On-Star. So what is preventing possible abuse of this technology (including significant legal consequences if caught)? And not just for On-Star, but for any service like it.
Jesus said turn the other cheek. While I am not overly religious, I would say you should get things like this right. Anyway, for what it's worth,here is the whole passage (from Mathew and from Luke):
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)
OR... "27But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. 30Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don't try to get them back. 31Do for others as you would like them to do for you.
32"Do you think you deserve credit merely for loving those who love you? Even the sinners do that! 33And if you do good only to those who do good to you, is that so wonderful? Even sinners do that much! 34And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, what good is that? Even sinners will lend to their own kind for a full return.
35"Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked. 36You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate."
-- Luke 6:27-36
Thinking about over-priced endoscopes and military waste (pun intended) reminded me about the US Army spending $640.00 for a toilet seat (the article I linked to is moot, it is just to prove I remembered the price correctly).
... and now back to your previously scheduled programming...
There is an article on the New Scientist(Feb 2005) web site that says that hydroelectric damns can release more greenhouse gases per energy unit produced than from fossil fuel burning generators. As well, it is known that mercury levels in the resevoirs upstream from hydro damns often have greatly elevated levels of mercury.
<sigh>Just when you think you figured you had the right answer... </sigh>
Mind you, if the power from the hydro damn is still being produced long after all the vegitation it kills is gone (into methane, CO2, etc.), maybe this would balance out. But I wonder if that would that would take longer than the time it would take for the damn silt up (or stop producing power just due to old age, etc.).
It depends on what you are paying for. If you are paying for a license to use the software that has caveats/rules attached, and you agree to them, then you live by them (unless you are as unethical as some of the big software companies seem to be sometimes). If the license say that you can only use the OS software on a machine exclusively manufactured by Mac, and you agree to the license, then too bad, so sad, that is what you agree too. And if the result of you not accepting the agreement is that you can't use the software (the OS), you can use a different OS. There are serveral out there now.
This is business. Mac spent the time and money to develop a pretty decent OS (by all accounts) to run specifically on a given platform. They probably don't want it getting a bad name by not running correctly when people try to run it on other platforms it wasn't optimized for.
I worked for a largish software company that locked people in by threatening headhunting ("consulting") companies with not using/hiring their services/consultants if they ever hired someone away from the company I worked at to work somewhere else. Considering that many people in North America get hired or placed through these companies, it made it tough to move to another job. Not a 'non-competition' clause, but in some ways, just as effective... while being even more slimey.
Just curious... would a new online business be able to avoid patent hell by having their business hosted on European servers (since the EU just rejected software patents)?
OS/2 was out at least a year before Windows 95, and IBM couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag with it back then. They went with an "it's a sophisticated OS" approach using foreign language (with subtitles) commercials. They were aiming at the educated IT professionals who were probably too busy playing Wolfenstein and eating Doritoes to bother reading the subtitles... I know I was... mind you, we were using OS/2 at work anyway. What IBM should have done is what Microsoft (a marketing machine) did: use rock and roll, Rolling Stones, etc... market it to the masses. If the pointy haired boss has it at home, he'll use it at work (meaning he'll sign the cheque to have the IT department install it at work) because he knows how to use it already. When IBM screwed up that marketing campaign, it was over since M$ had a lock on OEM installs and nobody and no business had already committed to IBM's 32 bit OS/2.
Slashdot Mirror
All your base are belong to us...
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
Not according to a recent study that busts the myths of many national stereotypes: National Character Does Not Reflect Mean Personality Trait Levels in 49 Cultures.
I think Canadians may have higher levels of passive aggression, which on the outside *may* look like they are more shy about things. But I am not so sure that it is always so passive. :-)
There are already some torpedoes that can be used as anti-torpedo torpedos, plus they are working on new ones... just google for anti-torpedo torpedo. In any case, something like that may have less relevance with the advent of new supercavitating torpedoes. They currently exist and have speeds in excess of 200 miles/hour (about 300 kph). Right now, they are only good for straight line running, but the U.S. (and others I'll warrant) are researching how to get them to turn at high speed.
Once one of these is fired at you from 5 miles away, you probably wouldn't have time to launch an anti-torpedo torpedo and have it intercept. That's probably why they want something like this.
Depends which country you are contracting in (assuming the U.S., I agree with you).
Maybe this is a new slang meaning people are putting to 'mark'. But for far longer, and in much wider usage, it is a person who is being targetted to be separated from their money by a grifter or hustler etc. See definition 13.
I don't understand why many people now-a-days seem to side with the criminals and not the victims. Why else would the OP seems to try to raise sympathy for Iran (sponsors of Hezbollah) by trying (boo hoo) to show how one of the most brutal war-like societies in modern history (Japan of the 30's and 40's) was sooooo hard done by. I suppose you think that Japan was just misunderstood? Maybe they were all abused as children and it wasn't their fault they raped, tortured, murdered millions of Koreans and Chinese and Filipinos and ... Or maybe Iran is just having some fun supplying explosives to brainwashed college kids to strap on and blow up Israelis with? But maybe we can't see that because we're from another culture and are just too narrow minded to understand? Come on, enough with political correctness already. All you need to understand is that until Iran moves their human rights to the 21rst century, they have no business having nuclear programs. Political correctness is ridiculous in these circumstances. If I have a choice of generalizing, not letting them have nuclear power, and for sure not being nuked by a terrorist; or giving a state with a known track record of terrorism the capability of building a nuclear bomb, I will generalize night and day... and support those who want to keep nuclear capability out of their Iran's hands.
RE: (Or, has the the Nagasaki & Hiroshima bombings escaped your memory??)
I suppose you would like to go the memorial services each year Nagasaki & Hiroshima? Do you ever think about the Nanking massacre? How about Japanese war crimes? A quote from the article:
I don't care how or why Hussein was removed from power... I am just glad he was. Same will go for Iran's reactors if they build them... and Iran itself... if they build a bomb.OK... I'll stop feeding the troll now... I... just... couldn't... help... it.
Wrong. In most states, ex-convicts are not allowed to own guns as they have proven they are not trustworthy individuals.
Iran, as a state sponsorer of terrorism, has proven itself to be an un-trustworthy state. If they build a reactor, we should turn it into a parking lot before it is even close to operational.
Also, if you go too deep with compressed air, you can get nitrogen narcosis. Anyway, I too wonder if bringing a deep water species to the surface is not that simple.
When I try the 'software updates' in the options/advanced menu, Firefox says it cannot find any available updates. I am running 1.06. I find this feature only works sporadically. That is, when I know there is an update on the web site and try the update feature, sometimes it works, and sometimes is doesn't. Anyway, until it works reliably, I think this feature can give a user a false sense of security. Anyone else have this issue?
No, I'm talking about 'death by a thousand cuts'. A class action is more like getting together so you can hit them with a bigger hammer. Not the same.
Just a thought.
For example, if you have to go in for surgery, you are asking the surgeon to cut you. Normally a cut as deep as your internal organs, which surgeons routinely make, is a bad thing. A very bad thing. However, the doctors oath says "do no harm", so you trust that he/she is always doing what is in your best interests (OK, I am assuming they are legally bound by that oath). But what limits companies (and others) who have access to what you are doing in what you previously thought was privacy to "do no harm"?
Voice recognition software exists today... maybe not as sophisticated as in Star Trek yet, but it still exists. Once they realize there might be money in it, will On-Star (or others) eventually start listening in and start target marketing to you based on what they hear you talking about? Granted this might sound foil hat paranoid, but what stops the government from randomly listening in to On-Star users? Especially now that the 9/11 laws allow the government to force companies to allow them to look in on you without a warrant. Or maybe someone at On-Star has agreed to look/listen in on someone for a friend to see if they are having an affair. Or maybe they are stocking someone.
At one time you would be a kook to think that anyone was listing in on your private conversations. But with technology like this, it really is possible. So I think the original poster's questions are legitimate. If care to think about it for a while, you can come up with a bunch of ways someone might abuse a system like On-Star. So what is preventing possible abuse of this technology (including significant legal consequences if caught)? And not just for On-Star, but for any service like it.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)
OR... "27But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. 30Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don't try to get them back. 31Do for others as you would like them to do for you. 32"Do you think you deserve credit merely for loving those who love you? Even the sinners do that! 33And if you do good only to those who do good to you, is that so wonderful? Even sinners do that much! 34And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, what good is that? Even sinners will lend to their own kind for a full return. 35"Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked. 36You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate." -- Luke 6:27-36
... and now back to your previously scheduled programming...
Argh!! I meant "dam" not "damn". Grrrr... Dam!!! I mean Damn!!!! rrrrrrrrrrrr
Mind you, if the power from the hydro damn is still being produced long after all the vegitation it kills is gone (into methane, CO2, etc.), maybe this would balance out. But I wonder if that would that would take longer than the time it would take for the damn silt up (or stop producing power just due to old age, etc.).
This is business. Mac spent the time and money to develop a pretty decent OS (by all accounts) to run specifically on a given platform. They probably don't want it getting a bad name by not running correctly when people try to run it on other platforms it wasn't optimized for.
I worked for a largish software company that locked people in by threatening headhunting ("consulting") companies with not using/hiring their services/consultants if they ever hired someone away from the company I worked at to work somewhere else. Considering that many people in North America get hired or placed through these companies, it made it tough to move to another job. Not a 'non-competition' clause, but in some ways, just as effective... while being even more slimey.
Just curious... would a new online business be able to avoid patent hell by having their business hosted on European servers (since the EU just rejected software patents)?
More like: "Who do you want to be gang raped by, today?"
Invade Niger. :-P
OS/2 was out at least a year before Windows 95, and IBM couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag with it back then. They went with an "it's a sophisticated OS" approach using foreign language (with subtitles) commercials. They were aiming at the educated IT professionals who were probably too busy playing Wolfenstein and eating Doritoes to bother reading the subtitles... I know I was... mind you, we were using OS/2 at work anyway. What IBM should have done is what Microsoft (a marketing machine) did: use rock and roll, Rolling Stones, etc... market it to the masses. If the pointy haired boss has it at home, he'll use it at work (meaning he'll sign the cheque to have the IT department install it at work) because he knows how to use it already. When IBM screwed up that marketing campaign, it was over since M$ had a lock on OEM installs and nobody and no business had already committed to IBM's 32 bit OS/2.
Sorry, I was looking at the use of it in your quote of the parent post. Oops. :-(