No you are incorrect! The decision whether to go with a labour-intensive or capital-intensive operations largely depends on local conditions. Nevertheless, labour intensive manufacturing processes tend to be cheaper (especially in rather mature industries such steel manufacturing). To prove my point, just look at the rust belt. Manufacturing is never coming back to the US! When you have 2 billion people living on next to nothing, there is no justification for hiring overpriced American labor. They kind of shit you need to do in a steel mill is not hard.
I am not just taking this out of my ass you know. I live in the Mid-West, I am Ukrainian national (which means I go there pretty often) and my dad works in commodity import/export business (in Ukraine/Russia). His career depends on understanding this kind of stuff...
Your smart location theory is interesting, but it's again incorrect. If you read up on IMF (or worldbank, I forget) reports on this issue, they are suggesting that in the worst case scenario the world might revert to a slightly more regionalist mode of operation. So even with increasing transportation costs (and in the long term transportation costs are approaching zero), manufacturing will simply be located in Mexico. However, I am even skeptical of the regionalist model, there are simply way too many benefits from globalization for people to just bail on it. Oil prices are increasing, so what? This only creates more incentive for us to find alternative sources of energy for transportation.
You don't have much understanding of economics or globalization, do you? I also like the tree hugger angle, really American of you... Utter ignorance mixed with smug self confidence. You talk bullshit and you're proud of it.
Okay, now this might be kind of hard to understand, but just imagine for a minute that the communist/liberal/homosexual/tree hugger conspiracy doesn't exist. Instead, try and think how people live in other parts of the world, specifically what most people call the 'developing world'. Have you considered how wages and living standards might differ in the 'developing world'? You do realize that the vast majority of labour intensive industrial operations (such as steel) tend to requires very little skill? So why the hell would anyone want to setup a still mill in the US when you can do it for a lot cheaper in some other part of the world.
Let me give you a more concrete example. In Ukraine (its a country in Europe, it has a pretty highly educated workforce and a pretty large industrial base), a salary of $20K is considered pretty damn good, especially if you live outside the capital Kiev. And I am not talking about some shitty job in a steel mill, even a management position with a $20K salary is considered pretty good. Now what do you think an average American still mill worker gets paid per year? is $35K a fair estimate? So why shouldn't business simply setup shop in Ukraine, spend a little bit more on transportation and save the bunchload of cash.
I know that it's easy to make up excuses about the tree huggers ruining everything, but unfortunately sometimes you have to use your brain and think straight. Industrial production is never coming back to the USA! Not unless Americans are going to accept Bangladesh style wages/living standards.
And what power are you talking about? The power to make you sound retarded? You live in America, you have one pro-business party that has a fascists/right wing and another socially liberal/centrist wing.
Right wing armchair economists are such a laugh. Though I guess I shouldn't be laughing, crying would probably be more appropriate.
If you want to look for the real reason behind Nintendo's decision, I suggest you read up on interest rates. You might learn some interesting things that you never knew about, like how the fed essentially bails investors whenever they fuckup which leads to retarded behavior (among other things that contributed to current economic instability).
Yet historically accurate. The English civil war, the American revolution, the Easter rising leading to the Irish War if Independence, the Eureka stockade, the Battle of Athens. People using guns against their governments being fairly successful at acheiving their aims.
How is any of this stuff relevant to todays world? How does take in account increased economic interdependence which severely limits the incentives to get to a situation where you have an open revolt in the world largest economy? People at some point used guns to overthrow governments? So what? People at some point believed the world is flat. How are your examples relevant to todays world? Seriously, Battle of Athens? Cmon that just undermines your argument.
Like the NICS system you mean? Introduced by the Democrats, remember? Trying to turn the threat of tyrannical government into a "Republican vs Democrat" issue is to completely miss the point.
I don't really care about Democrats vs Republicans. For all practical purposes they are simply two wings of the same party. My reference to rightist factions was misleading. I didn't mean to polarize this issue into Dems vs Republicans.
Really? In your previous post [slashdot.org] you said: "I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff". You say that resistance to government couldn't be successful, but you are in favor of banning the very weapons that would enable it to be successful. You admit that a tyrannical government would confiscate guns before it became too late, and announce your approval of bans on military weapons now. You seem to have clearly stated that your goals regarding guns and the goals of a tyrannical government regarding guns are pretty much identical.
Okay since you seem to believe that banning M16s and requiring tests is the same thing as banning all firearms. I also said that I favor compromise, therefore I think it's okay for you to have to have a pistol for self defence and/or a rifle for hunting as long as you pass the relevant tests. I am telling you that owning guns has nothing to do with protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, so far you have failed to give any evidence to the contrary. Picking random confrontations from the history books is not the same thing as finding a relevant example. Are you seriously suggesting that events in the English Civil war have anything to with a possible modern 'government vs the people' confrontation.
It is obvious that you have abandonded reasoned debate at this point. I see no further benefit in discussing this with you unless you confine yourself to presenting reasonable arguements.
Not really, I was simply making fun of your democracy without violence statement. You were trying to portray yourself as knowing something about the 'real world' by underlines your macho knowledge about the how violence is a fundamental aspect of society. If you didn't engage in this kind of stupid BS, I wouldn't make fun of you. I never said anything about the lack violence in society, I only implied that violence needs to be reduced to achieve more optimum outcomes.
What real world are you talking about? How many times you been outside North America? Have you ever lived for a relatively long time (more than month) in another country? Do you even understand that our experience in USA is not the 'real world'? You and the rest of America lives in its own bubble and hey don't understand shit about how the world functions. "Mehrh, founding fathers, right to bear arms, bla bla bla..." You need to realize how culturally ingrained certain 'facts' about American society are, maybe then you can get a taste of the real world. If guns were such a crucial aspect of protecting democracy, why are American in particular anal about this kind of stuff? Have you considered the possibility that your love affair with guns is simply a product of American cultural predispositions.
If you had not mentioned Rocky and Santa Claus, perhaps you could have retained some credibility
Well, I was implicitly suggesting that examples should be relevant. I mean the whole point of an example is to prove your point, no? How does this 'Battle' of Athens of demonstrate how a population can successfully initiate an armed revolt against a relatively powerful, well organized government?
What about Switzerland during WW2? How does Switzerland's status during WW2 have anything to do what we are talking about? Remember I said relevant examples!
I don't buy the 'too late' excuse. Again what evidence do you have that bearing arms as an institution is a viable solution from stopping the government getting to the point where you are at the lost resort? What stops them from developing sophisticated data mining techniques to identify potential rebellion leaders beforehand? What makes you think that the current structure of our society doesn't allow us eliminate the firearms factor? If anything, stability factors point against an open rebellion (why would anyone in the USA even want get to the point where you have an open rebellion when you can make money and rebellions and stuff tend to be looked down upon in Wall Street?).
All you need is some stupid Terrorism/Protect the children legislation.
You should release a book called "How boolean logic and guns will save America."
Let's bring in C into the equation (yeah I know it doesn't fit into your model, but that's not the point)
C = You're society is developed to the point where 18/19 century logic about how to protects one from the government doesn't work anymore. You know, cause the world became a little bit more interconnected since then and the American government particular expanded it scope by a tiny amount. You know, nothing drastic, just a little expansion here and there.
We make a new rule saying that "If C" then getting to A is not dependent upon B or Not B. End of story.
I like your approach to solving problems, do you know what kind of fallacy it would be qualified as? I guess appeal to authority would qualify. Though I really think the in-depth nature of your analysis and your exceptional attitude towards avoiding simplifications warrants a new entry to our list of logical fallacies. The irony...
I think I am going to write a book called "Seeing through bullshit."
The answer is that the world has changed and the whole idea of guns as solution to government oppression is based on 18/19 century ideals that have become outdated in todays world. The whole notion of an open revolt is unrealistic and stupid. In today's world, Darwin award nominees get involved in open revolts. If you wan to target a government and/or a society, you get engaged in asymmetric warfare. It requires a lot less resources, it can cause much more damage and it's impossible to defeat in a military manner.
Are you American? How many times have you been outside North America? You sound pretty ignorant, I am pretty sure you don't really know what totalitarianism means.
And it's people like you that make the possibility of an armed revolution remote. How can you even think of fighting against a modern military in an infantry battle without having the same or better weapons that they do?
LOL, armed revolution. Have you been reading Tom Clancy lately?
You're pathetic. You're so convinced about the legitimacy of your ideals that your willing to engage in mindless fantasies that are on the same level as teenage sex fantasies. Actually no, teenage sexual fantasies make more sense since they revolve around sex while you're just masturbating to guns.
Let's start with a clean plate. Are you actually suggesting that people should invest into tanks/jets in order to protect themselves? Do you know how much those things cost? Do you know how much it costs to maintain military equipment? You do realize that flying a jetplane isn't like driving a car and that you need at least semi regular training to maintain combat flying skills? Who the fuck is stupid enough to waste their money on this kind of bullshit? People have better things to do then pitch in a million each to collectively own a fighter plane. Have you heard of the concept of ROI? Well let me tell you the ROI on owning a tank 'just in case' is not very good.
Why am I even wasting my time on you. Keep watching your American Idol, maybe one of the contestant might turn into a tank or something.
LOL, the whole idea that your guns will help you against the government is ridiculous. Most Americans don't even care about things like warrantless wiretrapping programs and you trying to tell me that if the government is in a situation where it is afraid of an open revolt you will still have your guns?
I think you'll be the one who'll wake up in prison crying "Mommy, where is my shotgun? I wana be Rambo and fight the guberment!" because you deluded yourself into thinking that having a gun somehow magically protects democracy/freedoms. Just think of Bush's wiretrapping programs, you think if the government is worried about an open revolt they are not going to make a list of people of with guns (even though chances are such people are much more likely to blindly follow the government)?
And yet even a well functioning democracy enforces its laws using, among other measures, police and gaols. Your idyllic violence free democracy does not exist. Let's talk about the real world now.
I never said it's possible to have a society without violence. I do believe that violence tends to have a lot of negative side effects like undermining people's freedoms and distorting market outcomes, so I support institutions that attempt to limit violent outcomes through compromise. I never said anything about not having violence in society? What's your point? Your Arnold Schwarzenegger style one line (real world blah) sounds kind of cool I guess, but it does make you sound pretty stupid/ignorant.
Again I am not here to take your guns away. Marry your gun, take it out to dinner for Valentines Day, hell try copulating with it, I don't care. What I do care about is discrediting people who think they can protect our fundamental freedoms by joining Rocky and Santa Claus in the local paramilitary organization.
Well remember now that we're a nation of 50 states. There's plenty of issues that split the states. If there were one that was so heinous and so large that it resulted in actual armed rebellion, it's not hard to imagine that a revolutionary group could attain the support at the highest levels of a single state, and then gain sympathies from states with a similar political demographic. It happened once before in American "Civil War" (somewhat jokingly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" by some of us southerners), it could happen again with the right (admittedly huge) spark.
And aliens can come to earth and modify our DNA so we have a biological collective consciousness which would allow us to feel empathy at the highest level which would solve our problems (and make guns redundant). How is is that for a bed time story? Your still clinging to old notions of warfare and revolutions and revolts and stuff, on a global scale this kind of shit is in the past.
Your theory makes no sense as there are no incentives for people to get things to a situation where you have an open revolt. Can you imagine the impact of something like that on the global economy? Do you even understand how many influential people are going to everything they can to avoid this kind of shit.
The whole notion of bearing arms=protection from a nasty government is outdated because we are at a stage in our development where it simply does not make sense for the government to engage in activities that would result in an open revolt. When it comes to protecting liberties, guns are only relevant in the sense that they underline how the government should tell us what to do. They are not a useful method to keep the government honest in the modern world. On the contrary, it is dangerous to delude yourself in stupid fantasies such as "Aarh, my shotgun is gonna protect me from the guberment!".
Don't get me wrong. We are on the same side here. I don't mind you having pistols for self defense as long you pass the relevant tests. I am not here to tell you what you can and cannot do. I am here to tell you that the notion that guns = protection from the government is a foolish, delusional idea. You are only harming yourself by propagating this myth.
?? Daily? And even more often when the "leftist faction" is in power of one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the Democrats controlling the Congress. And the exact inverse is true with the "rightist faction" is in control over one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the executive branch...I could go on.
I was referring to the American population at large, in particular the tendency of right-leaning, gun-bearing Americans to subscribe to the notion that "America can do no wrong." Although this argument is largely irrelevant in face of structural issues that make your theoretical revolt against the government a delusional fantasy.
I don't really care what they had to say. They lived in a different era when things were different. The very fact that they put so much emphasis on open resistance shows how disconnected their views (at least with regards to the issue at hand) are from reality. Of course, they are going to say all this shit, it allowed them to beat the British after all. What, did you expect them to say something along the lines of:
"umm, well we recognize that bearing arms is useful in the near to medium term future, but considering the exponential nature of cultural/technological development we have insufficient information to judge the usefulness of the 'arms bearing institution' with regards to protecting liberties/opposing tyrannical governments.
You don't organize an open resistance to defeat a modern government, that's not going to work. You use asymmetric warefare.
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
So what? Since when did the the people behind the creation of the US become sort unobjectionable guardians of liberty? The were only human, they achieved a lot, but they were still constrained by their cultural backgrounds. Times change, this is a different world (I wonder if you want to bring back some other stuff that the 'founding fathers' implemented such as slavery or the inability to create modern style corporations?).
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
Rapid resistance! You've been watching too many action movies. You wouldn't stand a chance against your own government because most people are biologically wired to conform. Biologically it does not make sense to die for an idea. The government isn't afraid of you for shit, they know most people would just follow the "America is Great! (no matter what)" mantra. If they can get away with starting a 800 to 3000 billion illegitimate war, they'll have no troubles convincing most people that "America is Great!"
I find it funny how easy it is to manipulate the American public. You know how people blindly follow the welfare is evil mantra yet they don't really have much against pointless wars that end up costing trillions.
BTW, you last comment is full of shit, I am assuming you're exaggerating to make a point.
Meh, I'd rather not get the point where I have to call a bunch of guns 'true friends'. I don't really like violence and shooting stuff, so I am planning take active measures to stop my government from becoming totalitarian in the first place.
I don't see how my original post has anything to do with liberty. Like I said, if having a gun turns you on, be my guest. The point is you need to get a license and take test to determine whether you can handle something like a firearm. Do like it? Tough! As far as I am concerned, I want the cost of the externalities involved in personal firearm use to be as small as possible and I don't care if that means that some 'gun fan' needs to deal with more red tape because of that.
And don't give me any of this liberty bullshit, this whole issue has nothing to do with liberty. When Americans talk about liberty they usually mean liberty to engage in certain actions that tend to be culturally/nationally ingrained into the collective American consciousness.
Let me give you an example:
When it's about having rocket launchers for 'self protection', it's all about liberty. But when it's about homosexual people getting married, liberty kind of takes a step back because you know we have to make 'exceptions' to liberty. After all, there is this collection of fairy tales compiled by some morons (objectively speaking, by modern standards, they are retarded) that suggests that exceptions to liberty are okay. Never mind that not everyone 'believes' in this fairy tales compilation.
I can go on and on with such examples if you want...
Wow, what I did just waste my time clicking on that link? Seriously, are you really stupid enough to base your argument on something like this? Time to wake up captain 'I haven't crossed the state borders since the summer of 1932.' The world does not exist in a bubble.
What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"? Since when did the 'rightist faction' of Americans start admitting that America does make mistakes? I didn't see any large scale protests (involving people from across the political spectrum) against the 'Patriot' act or the Bush's totalitarian policies such as the use of unlawful wiretrapping/torture/war mongering?
All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.
The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
What's your point? If you think it's all terrorist support pirates and cantankerous consumers who like to cause problems for poor corporations, then it doesn't affect you, does it? At any rate, it's not like you have any better choices if you live in the US. All American telecommunication companies are completely fucked up and there are no viable alternatives. It goes from bad to worse. For instance, it starts with AT&T stating that they have 'open' network just because they don't explicitly block unlocked GSM phones to Verizon and it's BREW turds and mega lock-in.
Seriously, if you live in the US you're going to fucked when it comes to products/services from a relatively mature industry. What's more, you'll be convinced that being fucked over is in your interests. All Verizon/Comcast/AT&T have to do is say same some random bullshit that has the words "opposing government regulation" and they'll have 80% of the consumer on their side regardless of what the actual issue is. This is because American consumers are brainwashed to believe that the free market is a one size fits all solution and they are too lazy/stupid to actually read up on any particular issue and understand all nuances involved.
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the free market. On the contrary I think free market (and not "free but with certain exceptions designed to benefit a small group") solutions should be implemented whenever possible. But when shitheads at comcast compare TCP resets to a busy phoneline in order to give an impression that it's okay engage in arbitrary blocking of traffic you know that comcast needs to taught a harsh lesson (confiscation of all profits and/or 10% of revenue for year could be a good start). I mean if you don't want P2P users that fuck with your bottom line, then stop selling unlimited traffic plans. This solves the problem of your 'hobo-pirates' and it allows normal users to pay what they use as opposed to subsidizing comcast.
I really don't understand why Americans are willing to sabotage what will effectively be the next economic frontier of society (just imagine the possibilities when all media switches to IP) just for the sake of a few execs and shareholders.
Well you should start with that. You believe these things to be negative, destructive lifestyle choices as an easy way to make yourself happy. You're original post implied a sort of distinction between religion and these 'negative' values that you see in society. I am just pointing out that these are simply your views. There is no conclusive evidence that such lifestyle choices are harmful to the individual or society at large. So all you're doing is essentially trying to promote your religiously inspired world view. You're not trying to be moral, you're just pimping Christianity.
So stop pretending that your views give you some sort of authority on what can be called civilized or not.
What's wrong with drug use? Why can't person smoke a plant if he wants? Hell why shouldn't a person do LSD if he wants to? How does this impact you? What's wrong with promiscuity? Some people like having sex, as long as they are using condoms, I don't see how you or your views come into the equation? What's wrong with homosexuality? Two dudes like nailing each other, are you involved? Are you jealous or something?
The whole thing about infanticide is the way you view things. Other people don't see it that way.
The very fact that you seem enjoy forcing your views on other people suggests that you shouldn't be talking about being civilized.
I am not talking about people like you and me (hence the term we). I am talking about the 90% of the market that doesn't even know what facebook is. Most consumers views their phones as audio communication devices, not as multimedia devices with communication facilities. Just ask your dad how would it be if he could access Facebook on his cell phone an you'll see what I mean.
Wow, Apple fanboys are out in the wild. Why did I get modded as troll????
Oh man, I hate when people *cough* Americans * act like nothing exists outside of their local surroundings...
While the iPhone was not a dud, it's commercial success isn't what Jobs & Apple fanboy club pimp it out to be. Long term prospects for the iPhone in particular are quite questionable...
I appreciate you linking to the Ars Technica article, but I wouldn't too excited about it. The 4 million figure has been approached with caution by many analysts. And what forecast are you talking about? I am not too big on following Apple's business dealings, but I don't remember any of the mainstream (Business Week, Economist) making any forecasts that would portray the iPhone's commercial success as phenomenal. Don't get me wrong, but what else did you expect from Apple? They are usually pretty good at making their product appeal to consumers and they have a lot of goodwill among it's primary demographic...
Your 20% figure is a load of BS. It's 20% of the US smartphone market, that's not that big of a deal, specially considering that Apple is extremely US focused. In developing markets, no one gives a fuck about Apple (although this is slowly changing), smartphones in general aren't all that hot. People who have just entered the middle class have better things to do than paying $200 premiums to have the pleasure of having a logo on your phone. The 20% figure is representative of sales of smartphones in one particular year, it doesn't guarantee that sales will be 20% next year. Again, I am not saying that no one will buy iPhones in 2008, I am just saying that there is more to this whole issue than the 20% figure.
Then there is the issue of market demographics, there is a strong possibility that Apple has saturated it's core market. I live and in university environment and I see iPhones all over the place. This doesn't mean as much as you think. While the Facebook generation is in love with the iPhone, this isn't the case for everyone else. When everyone in the Facebook generation demographic gets themselves an iPhone, who is going to buy all those 10 million iPhone that Jobs is going to excrete? We might think that browsing Facebook on your phone is cool, but that's obviously not the case for most consumers.
Finally, there is the issue of competition. Expect a lot more touchscreen based devices in 2008/2009. Any new iPhone that Apple releases is going to be competing with all those products and the original iPhone model (the Facebook generation doesn't have that much cash).
You need to stop eating into the Apple hype (on a business and a consumer level), Apple is just another company. Nothing less nothing more...
Yeah, I have to agree with you on that one. Using steam is actually better than buying a DVD. You can access your whole game library just by logging onto steam. No need to to care a HD with all the image/patch/no-CD data. Automatic updates, near instant access as soon as you pay for the game.
Though some parts of steam still need some work. The 'Favorite Servers' options in CS:S is kind of buggy and it doesn't always remember your favorites. The steam game store can also at times feel slightly slow, they need to make use of more AJAX with less reloading and new windows and stuff. They also need to improve their screenshots section. More screenshots and higher resolution.
I think the point you are missing is that these fringe 'native' religions are far better than Christianity. Rarely do such fringe religions have sufficient power to bother anyone or limit their rights. The most they can do is engage in this kind of silly stuff.
There is no point bothering with this silly stuff when we have millions of rabid Christian trying to enforce their so called 'morality' on us.
Seriously, this whole ACL system seems to be about as effective as those age checker than ask you for your age before letting you use the resource. It doesn't bother anyone, if people have some weird beliefs it's not an issue as long as they don't impact other people.
You are retarded? Western and/or American society is full of cultural superstitions that most people follow without knowing. I just love how slashdot's reader get all agitated about some harmless BS like this.. Get over it, every culture has it's stupid shit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone (and this ACL system is 100% voluntary), there is no issue.
Some harmful aspects of American and/or Western culture:
Christianity's crusade against sexuality: -A photo of a nude person is considered pornography and harmful to minors (even if it isn't explicitly suggestive) -Walking naked in warm weather can get you labeled as a sex offender -Prosecution of minors who decided that they want to have sex -Enforcing moral regulation on private infrastructure (I still don't understand how the Christians get away with enforcing what can be shown on cable, isn't it a private infrastructure and don't you have to specifically opt-in for cable?) -Limiting sexual minorities from establishing civil unions, let alone engaging in marriage. Did you know something like 30+ state constitutions have an explicit ban on civil unions? -Sex before marriage is wrong, WTF?
Christianity's crusade against drugs -LSD/Mushrooms/Weed are considered more harmful than coke/amphetamine (most psychedelics tend be very non-addictive both in terms of physical and mental dependency) -Alcohol is okay even though it directly kill thousands of people every year. Guess how many people die from weed every year?
Christianity's crusade against progress -Even though science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts that are in no way related, Christians are shallow enough to view evolution as a threat to their existence. -What's the deal with stem cells? I know most hardcore Christians are pretty uneducated, but why is a small retarded minority allowed to get involved into scientific research? They should just sign a pledge that they will not be able to use any direct/indirect benefits that arise from stem cell research
Christianity's crusade against life -A person's life is his own, if he sees no point in existence, it is his right to commit suicide. It is not important what Christianity says. -Opposition to euthanasia, WTF? -The "40 million killed babies" myth. Anyone who talks about abortion and the lost generation and BS like that doesn't give a flying fuck about the children. If they would, they would be helping kids who need help NOW, not sucking Christian cock for power/influence/support.
And don't get me started on all the 'free market' bias.
P.S. I have nothing against the free market, I think it should be used whenever possible. That does not mean you should be able to pollute all you want. Pay for any consequences that arise from your pollution, this should include long term consequences.
Man, you are fucking retarded! Anything i say, you just say close your eyes and say that it doesnt exist. Do you even know what the word dogma means? But hey you are christian...
I'll respond to your comment. I think its pretty interesting that you didn't really address the main points of my arguments. You targeted the stuff that was easy to target. Of course I don't mean that all Christians are like this, there are plenty of pretty intelligent Christians that don't engage in stupidity and approach Christianity with a much more flexible outlook.
Christianity does not recognize people as religious, generally speaking, and certainly not just for going into a building to listen to people talk. And as to someone's interpretation, shrug, Protestantism in particular encourages everyone coming up with their own interpretation. And Christianity, in fact, is not about dogma, but the absence of it. And whether it related to the modern world is a mere opinion, and, I submit, an uninformed one.
Are you saying that significant portion of Christianity does not simply treat being religious as going to church and doing some other random BS? Come on, we both know that is untrue. Wow Protestantism encourages people to have their own interpretations, is that why megachurches are so successful?:) So how Christianity not about dogma? Is going to church not a dogmatic action? Is baptism not dogmatic?
Is this obsession with marriage being holy not dogmatic? Who the fuck allowed you to start defining what marriage is? What right to do you have to tell people whether they can marry or not? If I make a religion that focuses on taking dumps in churches (in front of everyone) while the sermon is on, would you be respectful of that? I mean it is my religion and I believe that religion is the act of shitting in a church while it is full...
How can god not love sin, if sin is a moving target? Morality is not static, what we might consider evil now, would have been just fine 300 years ago. Sin is not something that is set in stone? Why can't Christians learn to accept that times change?
Anyways, if you are going to reply to my post, can you answer the three following questions:
How does Christianity address various cosmological questions? Don't forget that just because you can get excited over the dull BS in the bible, doesn't mean that the Bible address fundamental issues of existence in any meaningful ways.
How can you say that Christianity is not dogmatic? Why do so many Christians dislike sex and nudity? There is no objective reason for disliking sex and nudity, they are both very natural things. Are you saying that Christianity's initial opposition to casual sex was not based on techniques to improve survival?
Do you realize that many Christians might have such a liberal stance as you do? Many Christians are stupid enough to support idiots who say things like Muslims are the spawn of the devil? You do realize that there pretty mainstream Christian schools that encourage using th word fag, but forbid using words like shit? You do realize that megachurches with their utter stupidity are a very real reality? This is not a communist master plan to discredit Christianity! It is reality!
Your whole post is full of ignorant claims, but this one shows quite clearly that you are not even attacking Christianity at all.
Then what am I attacking? You think I am making this up? Do you really believe that most Christians have a critical approach to their religion? You think they take time to analyze scripture? Have you ever been to America? Do you have any idea what many American Christians are like? You're pretty delusional I have to say or you have no idea what Christianity is like in the USA...
P.S. I've read most of the 'interesting' parts of the bible and I've taken several courses on religion and Christianity specifically. This probably won't mean anything to you, but I am not just taking all this stuff out of my ass. You don't know how shocked I was when I realized that the canonical gospels are literally forced upon Christians, when there are so many alternative gospels that could be just as valid. BTW, a
Slashdot Mirror
No you are incorrect! The decision whether to go with a labour-intensive or capital-intensive operations largely depends on local conditions. Nevertheless, labour intensive manufacturing processes tend to be cheaper (especially in rather mature industries such steel manufacturing). To prove my point, just look at the rust belt. Manufacturing is never coming back to the US! When you have 2 billion people living on next to nothing, there is no justification for hiring overpriced American labor. They kind of shit you need to do in a steel mill is not hard.
I am not just taking this out of my ass you know. I live in the Mid-West, I am Ukrainian national (which means I go there pretty often) and my dad works in commodity import/export business (in Ukraine/Russia). His career depends on understanding this kind of stuff...
Your smart location theory is interesting, but it's again incorrect. If you read up on IMF (or worldbank, I forget) reports on this issue, they are suggesting that in the worst case scenario the world might revert to a slightly more regionalist mode of operation. So even with increasing transportation costs (and in the long term transportation costs are approaching zero), manufacturing will simply be located in Mexico. However, I am even skeptical of the regionalist model, there are simply way too many benefits from globalization for people to just bail on it. Oil prices are increasing, so what? This only creates more incentive for us to find alternative sources of energy for transportation.
You don't have much understanding of economics or globalization, do you? I also like the tree hugger angle, really American of you... Utter ignorance mixed with smug self confidence. You talk bullshit and you're proud of it.
Okay, now this might be kind of hard to understand, but just imagine for a minute that the communist/liberal/homosexual/tree hugger conspiracy doesn't exist. Instead, try and think how people live in other parts of the world, specifically what most people call the 'developing world'. Have you considered how wages and living standards might differ in the 'developing world'? You do realize that the vast majority of labour intensive industrial operations (such as steel) tend to requires very little skill? So why the hell would anyone want to setup a still mill in the US when you can do it for a lot cheaper in some other part of the world.
Let me give you a more concrete example. In Ukraine (its a country in Europe, it has a pretty highly educated workforce and a pretty large industrial base), a salary of $20K is considered pretty damn good, especially if you live outside the capital Kiev. And I am not talking about some shitty job in a steel mill, even a management position with a $20K salary is considered pretty good. Now what do you think an average American still mill worker gets paid per year? is $35K a fair estimate? So why shouldn't business simply setup shop in Ukraine, spend a little bit more on transportation and save the bunchload of cash.
I know that it's easy to make up excuses about the tree huggers ruining everything, but unfortunately sometimes you have to use your brain and think straight. Industrial production is never coming back to the USA! Not unless Americans are going to accept Bangladesh style wages/living standards.
And what power are you talking about? The power to make you sound retarded? You live in America, you have one pro-business party that has a fascists/right wing and another socially liberal/centrist wing.
Right wing armchair economists are such a laugh. Though I guess I shouldn't be laughing, crying would probably be more appropriate.
If you want to look for the real reason behind Nintendo's decision, I suggest you read up on interest rates. You might learn some interesting things that you never knew about, like how the fed essentially bails investors whenever they fuckup which leads to retarded behavior (among other things that contributed to current economic instability).
Yet historically accurate. The English civil war, the American revolution, the Easter rising leading to the Irish War if Independence, the Eureka stockade, the Battle of Athens. People using guns against their governments being fairly successful at acheiving their aims.
How is any of this stuff relevant to todays world? How does take in account increased economic interdependence which severely limits the incentives to get to a situation where you have an open revolt in the world largest economy? People at some point used guns to overthrow governments? So what? People at some point believed the world is flat. How are your examples relevant to todays world? Seriously, Battle of Athens? Cmon that just undermines your argument.
Like the NICS system you mean? Introduced by the Democrats, remember? Trying to turn the threat of tyrannical government into a "Republican vs Democrat" issue is to completely miss the point.
I don't really care about Democrats vs Republicans. For all practical purposes they are simply two wings of the same party. My reference to rightist factions was misleading. I didn't mean to polarize this issue into Dems vs Republicans.
Really? In your previous post [slashdot.org] you said: "I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff". You say that resistance to government couldn't be successful, but you are in favor of banning the very weapons that would enable it to be successful. You admit that a tyrannical government would confiscate guns before it became too late, and announce your approval of bans on military weapons now. You seem to have clearly stated that your goals regarding guns and the goals of a tyrannical government regarding guns are pretty much identical.
Okay since you seem to believe that banning M16s and requiring tests is the same thing as banning all firearms. I also said that I favor compromise, therefore I think it's okay for you to have to have a pistol for self defence and/or a rifle for hunting as long as you pass the relevant tests. I am telling you that owning guns has nothing to do with protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, so far you have failed to give any evidence to the contrary. Picking random confrontations from the history books is not the same thing as finding a relevant example. Are you seriously suggesting that events in the English Civil war have anything to with a possible modern 'government vs the people' confrontation.
It is obvious that you have abandonded reasoned debate at this point. I see no further benefit in discussing this with you unless you confine yourself to presenting reasonable arguements.
Not really, I was simply making fun of your democracy without violence statement. You were trying to portray yourself as knowing something about the 'real world' by underlines your macho knowledge about the how violence is a fundamental aspect of society. If you didn't engage in this kind of stupid BS, I wouldn't make fun of you. I never said anything about the lack violence in society, I only implied that violence needs to be reduced to achieve more optimum outcomes.
What real world are you talking about? How many times you been outside North America? Have you ever lived for a relatively long time (more than month) in another country? Do you even understand that our experience in USA is not the 'real world'? You and the rest of America lives in its own bubble and hey don't understand shit about how the world functions. "Mehrh, founding fathers, right to bear arms, bla bla bla..." You need to realize how culturally ingrained certain 'facts' about American society are, maybe then you can get a taste of the real world. If guns were such a crucial aspect of protecting democracy, why are American in particular anal about this kind of stuff? Have you considered the possibility that your love affair with guns is simply a product of American cultural predispositions.
If you had not mentioned Rocky and Santa Claus, perhaps you could have retained some credibility
Well, I was implicitly suggesting that examples should be relevant. I mean the whole point of an example is to prove your point, no? How does this 'Battle' of Athens of demonstrate how a population can successfully initiate an armed revolt against a relatively powerful, well organized government?
What about Switzerland during WW2? How does Switzerland's status during WW2 have anything to do what we are talking about? Remember I said relevant examples!
I don't buy the 'too late' excuse. Again what evidence do you have that bearing arms as an institution is a viable solution from stopping the government getting to the point where you are at the lost resort? What stops them from developing sophisticated data mining techniques to identify potential rebellion leaders beforehand? What makes you think that the current structure of our society doesn't allow us eliminate the firearms factor? If anything, stability factors point against an open rebellion (why would anyone in the USA even want get to the point where you have an open rebellion when you can make money and rebellions and stuff tend to be looked down upon in Wall Street?).
All you need is some stupid Terrorism/Protect the children legislation.
You should release a book called "How boolean logic and guns will save America."
Let's bring in C into the equation (yeah I know it doesn't fit into your model, but that's not the point)
C = You're society is developed to the point where 18/19 century logic about how to protects one from the government doesn't work anymore. You know, cause the world became a little bit more interconnected since then and the American government particular expanded it scope by a tiny amount. You know, nothing drastic, just a little expansion here and there.
We make a new rule saying that "If C" then getting to A is not dependent upon B or Not B. End of story.
I like your approach to solving problems, do you know what kind of fallacy it would be qualified as? I guess appeal to authority would qualify. Though I really think the in-depth nature of your analysis and your exceptional attitude towards avoiding simplifications warrants a new entry to our list of logical fallacies. The irony...
I think I am going to write a book called "Seeing through bullshit."
The answer is that the world has changed and the whole idea of guns as solution to government oppression is based on 18/19 century ideals that have become outdated in todays world. The whole notion of an open revolt is unrealistic and stupid. In today's world, Darwin award nominees get involved in open revolts. If you wan to target a government and/or a society, you get engaged in asymmetric warfare. It requires a lot less resources, it can cause much more damage and it's impossible to defeat in a military manner.
Are you American? How many times have you been outside North America? You sound pretty ignorant, I am pretty sure you don't really know what totalitarianism means.
And it's people like you that make the possibility of an armed revolution remote. How can you even think of fighting against a modern military in an infantry battle without having the same or better weapons that they do?
LOL, armed revolution. Have you been reading Tom Clancy lately?
You're pathetic. You're so convinced about the legitimacy of your ideals that your willing to engage in mindless fantasies that are on the same level as teenage sex fantasies. Actually no, teenage sexual fantasies make more sense since they revolve around sex while you're just masturbating to guns.
Let's start with a clean plate. Are you actually suggesting that people should invest into tanks/jets in order to protect themselves? Do you know how much those things cost? Do you know how much it costs to maintain military equipment? You do realize that flying a jetplane isn't like driving a car and that you need at least semi regular training to maintain combat flying skills? Who the fuck is stupid enough to waste their money on this kind of bullshit? People have better things to do then pitch in a million each to collectively own a fighter plane. Have you heard of the concept of ROI? Well let me tell you the ROI on owning a tank 'just in case' is not very good.
Why am I even wasting my time on you. Keep watching your American Idol, maybe one of the contestant might turn into a tank or something.
LOL, the whole idea that your guns will help you against the government is ridiculous. Most Americans don't even care about things like warrantless wiretrapping programs and you trying to tell me that if the government is in a situation where it is afraid of an open revolt you will still have your guns?
I think you'll be the one who'll wake up in prison crying "Mommy, where is my shotgun? I wana be Rambo and fight the guberment!" because you deluded yourself into thinking that having a gun somehow magically protects democracy/freedoms. Just think of Bush's wiretrapping programs, you think if the government is worried about an open revolt they are not going to make a list of people of with guns (even though chances are such people are much more likely to blindly follow the government)?
And yet even a well functioning democracy enforces its laws using, among other measures, police and gaols. Your idyllic violence free democracy does not exist. Let's talk about the real world now.
I never said it's possible to have a society without violence. I do believe that violence tends to have a lot of negative side effects like undermining people's freedoms and distorting market outcomes, so I support institutions that attempt to limit violent outcomes through compromise. I never said anything about not having violence in society? What's your point? Your Arnold Schwarzenegger style one line (real world blah) sounds kind of cool I guess, but it does make you sound pretty stupid/ignorant.
Again I am not here to take your guns away. Marry your gun, take it out to dinner for Valentines Day, hell try copulating with it, I don't care. What I do care about is discrediting people who think they can protect our fundamental freedoms by joining Rocky and Santa Claus in the local paramilitary organization.
Well remember now that we're a nation of 50 states. There's plenty of issues that split the states. If there were one that was so heinous and so large that it resulted in actual armed rebellion, it's not hard to imagine that a revolutionary group could attain the support at the highest levels of a single state, and then gain sympathies from states with a similar political demographic. It happened once before in American "Civil War" (somewhat jokingly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" by some of us southerners), it could happen again with the right (admittedly huge) spark.
And aliens can come to earth and modify our DNA so we have a biological collective consciousness which would allow us to feel empathy at the highest level which would solve our problems (and make guns redundant). How is is that for a bed time story? Your still clinging to old notions of warfare and revolutions and revolts and stuff, on a global scale this kind of shit is in the past.
Your theory makes no sense as there are no incentives for people to get things to a situation where you have an open revolt. Can you imagine the impact of something like that on the global economy? Do you even understand how many influential people are going to everything they can to avoid this kind of shit.
The whole notion of bearing arms=protection from a nasty government is outdated because we are at a stage in our development where it simply does not make sense for the government to engage in activities that would result in an open revolt. When it comes to protecting liberties, guns are only relevant in the sense that they underline how the government should tell us what to do. They are not a useful method to keep the government honest in the modern world. On the contrary, it is dangerous to delude yourself in stupid fantasies such as "Aarh, my shotgun is gonna protect me from the guberment!".
Don't get me wrong. We are on the same side here. I don't mind you having pistols for self defense as long you pass the relevant tests. I am not here to tell you what you can and cannot do. I am here to tell you that the notion that guns = protection from the government is a foolish, delusional idea. You are only harming yourself by propagating this myth.
?? Daily? And even more often when the "leftist faction" is in power of one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the Democrats controlling the Congress. And the exact inverse is true with the "rightist faction" is in control over one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the executive branch...I could go on.
I was referring to the American population at large, in particular the tendency of right-leaning, gun-bearing Americans to subscribe to the notion that "America can do no wrong." Although this argument is largely irrelevant in face of structural issues that make your theoretical revolt against the government a delusional fantasy.
I am not impressed.
I don't really care what they had to say. They lived in a different era when things were different. The very fact that they put so much emphasis on open resistance shows how disconnected their views (at least with regards to the issue at hand) are from reality. Of course, they are going to say all this shit, it allowed them to beat the British after all. What, did you expect them to say something along the lines of:
"umm, well we recognize that bearing arms is useful in the near to medium term future, but considering the exponential nature of cultural/technological development we have insufficient information to judge the usefulness of the 'arms bearing institution' with regards to protecting liberties/opposing tyrannical governments.
You don't organize an open resistance to defeat a modern government, that's not going to work. You use asymmetric warefare.
Another one of those American myths...
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
So what? Since when did the the people behind the creation of the US become sort unobjectionable guardians of liberty? The were only human, they achieved a lot, but they were still constrained by their cultural backgrounds. Times change, this is a different world (I wonder if you want to bring back some other stuff that the 'founding fathers' implemented such as slavery or the inability to create modern style corporations?).
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
Rapid resistance! You've been watching too many action movies. You wouldn't stand a chance against your own government because most people are biologically wired to conform. Biologically it does not make sense to die for an idea. The government isn't afraid of you for shit, they know most people would just follow the "America is Great! (no matter what)" mantra. If they can get away with starting a 800 to 3000 billion illegitimate war, they'll have no troubles convincing most people that "America is Great!"
I find it funny how easy it is to manipulate the American public. You know how people blindly follow the welfare is evil mantra yet they don't really have much against pointless wars that end up costing trillions.
BTW, you last comment is full of shit, I am assuming you're exaggerating to make a point.
Meh, I'd rather not get the point where I have to call a bunch of guns 'true friends'. I don't really like violence and shooting stuff, so I am planning take active measures to stop my government from becoming totalitarian in the first place.
I don't see how my original post has anything to do with liberty. Like I said, if having a gun turns you on, be my guest. The point is you need to get a license and take test to determine whether you can handle something like a firearm. Do like it? Tough! As far as I am concerned, I want the cost of the externalities involved in personal firearm use to be as small as possible and I don't care if that means that some 'gun fan' needs to deal with more red tape because of that.
And don't give me any of this liberty bullshit, this whole issue has nothing to do with liberty. When Americans talk about liberty they usually mean liberty to engage in certain actions that tend to be culturally/nationally ingrained into the collective American consciousness.
Let me give you an example:
When it's about having rocket launchers for 'self protection', it's all about liberty. But when it's about homosexual people getting married, liberty kind of takes a step back because you know we have to make 'exceptions' to liberty. After all, there is this collection of fairy tales compiled by some morons (objectively speaking, by modern standards, they are retarded) that suggests that exceptions to liberty are okay. Never mind that not everyone 'believes' in this fairy tales compilation.
I can go on and on with such examples if you want...
Wow, what I did just waste my time clicking on that link? Seriously, are you really stupid enough to base your argument on something like this? Time to wake up captain 'I haven't crossed the state borders since the summer of 1932.' The world does not exist in a bubble.
What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"? Since when did the 'rightist faction' of Americans start admitting that America does make mistakes? I didn't see any large scale protests (involving people from across the political spectrum) against the 'Patriot' act or the Bush's totalitarian policies such as the use of unlawful wiretrapping/torture/war mongering?
All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.
The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
What's your point? If you think it's all terrorist support pirates and cantankerous consumers who like to cause problems for poor corporations, then it doesn't affect you, does it? At any rate, it's not like you have any better choices if you live in the US. All American telecommunication companies are completely fucked up and there are no viable alternatives. It goes from bad to worse. For instance, it starts with AT&T stating that they have 'open' network just because they don't explicitly block unlocked GSM phones to Verizon and it's BREW turds and mega lock-in.
Seriously, if you live in the US you're going to fucked when it comes to products/services from a relatively mature industry. What's more, you'll be convinced that being fucked over is in your interests. All Verizon/Comcast/AT&T have to do is say same some random bullshit that has the words "opposing government regulation" and they'll have 80% of the consumer on their side regardless of what the actual issue is. This is because American consumers are brainwashed to believe that the free market is a one size fits all solution and they are too lazy/stupid to actually read up on any particular issue and understand all nuances involved.
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the free market. On the contrary I think free market (and not "free but with certain exceptions designed to benefit a small group") solutions should be implemented whenever possible. But when shitheads at comcast compare TCP resets to a busy phoneline in order to give an impression that it's okay engage in arbitrary blocking of traffic you know that comcast needs to taught a harsh lesson (confiscation of all profits and/or 10% of revenue for year could be a good start). I mean if you don't want P2P users that fuck with your bottom line, then stop selling unlimited traffic plans. This solves the problem of your 'hobo-pirates' and it allows normal users to pay what they use as opposed to subsidizing comcast.
I really don't understand why Americans are willing to sabotage what will effectively be the next economic frontier of society (just imagine the possibilities when all media switches to IP) just for the sake of a few execs and shareholders.
Well you should start with that. You believe these things to be negative, destructive lifestyle choices as an easy way to make yourself happy. You're original post implied a sort of distinction between religion and these 'negative' values that you see in society. I am just pointing out that these are simply your views. There is no conclusive evidence that such lifestyle choices are harmful to the individual or society at large. So all you're doing is essentially trying to promote your religiously inspired world view. You're not trying to be moral, you're just pimping Christianity.
So stop pretending that your views give you some sort of authority on what can be called civilized or not.
What's wrong with drug use? Why can't person smoke a plant if he wants? Hell why shouldn't a person do LSD if he wants to? How does this impact you? What's wrong with promiscuity? Some people like having sex, as long as they are using condoms, I don't see how you or your views come into the equation? What's wrong with homosexuality? Two dudes like nailing each other, are you involved? Are you jealous or something?
The whole thing about infanticide is the way you view things. Other people don't see it that way.
The very fact that you seem enjoy forcing your views on other people suggests that you shouldn't be talking about being civilized.
I am not talking about people like you and me (hence the term we). I am talking about the 90% of the market that doesn't even know what facebook is. Most consumers views their phones as audio communication devices, not as multimedia devices with communication facilities. Just ask your dad how would it be if he could access Facebook on his cell phone an you'll see what I mean.
Wow, Apple fanboys are out in the wild. Why did I get modded as troll????
Oh man, I hate when people *cough* Americans * act like nothing exists outside of their local surroundings...
While the iPhone was not a dud, it's commercial success isn't what Jobs & Apple fanboy club pimp it out to be. Long term prospects for the iPhone in particular are quite questionable...
I appreciate you linking to the Ars Technica article, but I wouldn't too excited about it. The 4 million figure has been approached with caution by many analysts. And what forecast are you talking about? I am not too big on following Apple's business dealings, but I don't remember any of the mainstream (Business Week, Economist) making any forecasts that would portray the iPhone's commercial success as phenomenal. Don't get me wrong, but what else did you expect from Apple? They are usually pretty good at making their product appeal to consumers and they have a lot of goodwill among it's primary demographic...
Your 20% figure is a load of BS. It's 20% of the US smartphone market, that's not that big of a deal, specially considering that Apple is extremely US focused. In developing markets, no one gives a fuck about Apple (although this is slowly changing), smartphones in general aren't all that hot. People who have just entered the middle class have better things to do than paying $200 premiums to have the pleasure of having a logo on your phone. The 20% figure is representative of sales of smartphones in one particular year, it doesn't guarantee that sales will be 20% next year. Again, I am not saying that no one will buy iPhones in 2008, I am just saying that there is more to this whole issue than the 20% figure.
Then there is the issue of market demographics, there is a strong possibility that Apple has saturated it's core market. I live and in university environment and I see iPhones all over the place. This doesn't mean as much as you think. While the Facebook generation is in love with the iPhone, this isn't the case for everyone else. When everyone in the Facebook generation demographic gets themselves an iPhone, who is going to buy all those 10 million iPhone that Jobs is going to excrete? We might think that browsing Facebook on your phone is cool, but that's obviously not the case for most consumers.
Finally, there is the issue of competition. Expect a lot more touchscreen based devices in 2008/2009. Any new iPhone that Apple releases is going to be competing with all those products and the original iPhone model (the Facebook generation doesn't have that much cash).
You need to stop eating into the Apple hype (on a business and a consumer level), Apple is just another company. Nothing less nothing more...
Yeah, I have to agree with you on that one. Using steam is actually better than buying a DVD. You can access your whole game library just by logging onto steam. No need to to care a HD with all the image/patch/no-CD data. Automatic updates, near instant access as soon as you pay for the game.
Though some parts of steam still need some work. The 'Favorite Servers' options in CS:S is kind of buggy and it doesn't always remember your favorites. The steam game store can also at times feel slightly slow, they need to make use of more AJAX with less reloading and new windows and stuff. They also need to improve their screenshots section. More screenshots and higher resolution.
I think the point you are missing is that these fringe 'native' religions are far better than Christianity. Rarely do such fringe religions have sufficient power to bother anyone or limit their rights. The most they can do is engage in this kind of silly stuff.
There is no point bothering with this silly stuff when we have millions of rabid Christian trying to enforce their so called 'morality' on us.
Seriously, this whole ACL system seems to be about as effective as those age checker than ask you for your age before letting you use the resource. It doesn't bother anyone, if people have some weird beliefs it's not an issue as long as they don't impact other people.
You are retarded? Western and/or American society is full of cultural superstitions that most people follow without knowing. I just love how slashdot's reader get all agitated about some harmless BS like this.. Get over it, every culture has it's stupid shit, as long as it doesn't harm anyone (and this ACL system is 100% voluntary), there is no issue.
Some harmful aspects of American and/or Western culture:
Christianity's crusade against sexuality:
-A photo of a nude person is considered pornography and harmful to minors (even if it isn't explicitly suggestive)
-Walking naked in warm weather can get you labeled as a sex offender
-Prosecution of minors who decided that they want to have sex
-Enforcing moral regulation on private infrastructure (I still don't understand how the Christians get away with enforcing what can be shown on cable, isn't it a private infrastructure and don't you have to specifically opt-in for cable?)
-Limiting sexual minorities from establishing civil unions, let alone engaging in marriage. Did you know something like 30+ state constitutions have an explicit ban on civil unions?
-Sex before marriage is wrong, WTF?
Christianity's crusade against drugs
-LSD/Mushrooms/Weed are considered more harmful than coke/amphetamine (most psychedelics tend be very non-addictive both in terms of physical and mental dependency)
-Alcohol is okay even though it directly kill thousands of people every year. Guess how many people die from weed every year?
Christianity's crusade against progress
-Even though science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts that are in no way related, Christians are shallow enough to view evolution as a threat to their existence.
-What's the deal with stem cells? I know most hardcore Christians are pretty uneducated, but why is a small retarded minority allowed to get involved into scientific research? They should just sign a pledge that they will not be able to use any direct/indirect benefits that arise from stem cell research
Christianity's crusade against life
-A person's life is his own, if he sees no point in existence, it is his right to commit suicide. It is not important what Christianity says.
-Opposition to euthanasia, WTF?
-The "40 million killed babies" myth. Anyone who talks about abortion and the lost generation and BS like that doesn't give a flying fuck about the children. If they would, they would be helping kids who need help NOW, not sucking Christian cock for power/influence/support.
And don't get me started on all the 'free market' bias.
P.S. I have nothing against the free market, I think it should be used whenever possible. That does not mean you should be able to pollute all you want. Pay for any consequences that arise from your pollution, this should include long term consequences.
Man, you are fucking retarded! Anything i say, you just say close your eyes and say that it doesnt exist. Do you even know what the word dogma means? But hey you are christian...
Christianity does not recognize people as religious, generally speaking, and certainly not just for going into a building to listen to people talk. And as to someone's interpretation, shrug, Protestantism in particular encourages everyone coming up with their own interpretation. And Christianity, in fact, is not about dogma, but the absence of it. And whether it related to the modern world is a mere opinion, and, I submit, an uninformed one.
Are you saying that significant portion of Christianity does not simply treat being religious as going to church and doing some other random BS? Come on, we both know that is untrue. Wow Protestantism encourages people to have their own interpretations, is that why megachurches are so successful? :)
So how Christianity not about dogma? Is going to church not a dogmatic action? Is baptism not dogmatic?
Is this obsession with marriage being holy not dogmatic? Who the fuck allowed you to start defining what marriage is? What right to do you have to tell people whether they can marry or not? If I make a religion that focuses on taking dumps in churches (in front of everyone) while the sermon is on, would you be respectful of that? I mean it is my religion and I believe that religion is the act of shitting in a church while it is full...
How can god not love sin, if sin is a moving target? Morality is not static, what we might consider evil now, would have been just fine 300 years ago. Sin is not something that is set in stone? Why can't Christians learn to accept that times change?
Anyways, if you are going to reply to my post, can you answer the three following questions:
How does Christianity address various cosmological questions? Don't forget that just because you can get excited over the dull BS in the bible, doesn't mean that the Bible address fundamental issues of existence in any meaningful ways.
How can you say that Christianity is not dogmatic? Why do so many Christians dislike sex and nudity? There is no objective reason for disliking sex and nudity, they are both very natural things. Are you saying that Christianity's initial opposition to casual sex was not based on techniques to improve survival?
Do you realize that many Christians might have such a liberal stance as you do? Many Christians are stupid enough to support idiots who say things like Muslims are the spawn of the devil? You do realize that there pretty mainstream Christian schools that encourage using th word fag, but forbid using words like shit? You do realize that megachurches with their utter stupidity are a very real reality? This is not a communist master plan to discredit Christianity! It is reality!
Your whole post is full of ignorant claims, but this one shows quite clearly that you are not even attacking Christianity at all.
Then what am I attacking? You think I am making this up? Do you really believe that most Christians have a critical approach to their religion? You think they take time to analyze scripture? Have you ever been to America? Do you have any idea what many American Christians are like? You're pretty delusional I have to say or you have no idea what Christianity is like in the USA...
P.S. I've read most of the 'interesting' parts of the bible and I've taken several courses on religion and Christianity specifically. This probably won't mean anything to you, but I am not just taking all this stuff out of my ass. You don't know how shocked I was when I realized that the canonical gospels are literally forced upon Christians, when there are so many alternative gospels that could be just as valid. BTW, a