Of course, the more modern terms now in use are "Developed, Developing and Less-Developed"...either way they're all stupid, because most statistics include Hong Kong and Singapore under 'developing' though frankly I think both city-states are developed, or at least Singapore is if you consider Hong Kong as just another part of China...
You've picked a few African countries, and you're most likely correct about them. But I've used the blanket term Third-World - in response to the post above mine), which includes India and China (that's a minimum of 2 Billion people. AIDS prevalence in this entire group is much, much less than 1%). But starvation/malnutrition, and the other diseases I've mentioned are at least 10%. I think the priorties there are clear. Most western agencies, when talking about India and China always mention figures, but they neve talk about percentages. In India, according to official figures there are meant to 0.5 million people suffering from AIDs, and think it's double that in China, of course, these official figures are usually crap... however, let's assume they're double that number, that still is nothing compared to the number of people dying from other diseases/afflictions.
You need to correct that even further. A greater NUMBER of people will die in the third-world, but even there, AIDS deaths are a very small PROPORTION of total deaths. People in the third-world are still dying from the "basics" - Hunger, Poverty, Diaorrhea, Cholera, TB, Malaria, e.t.c. Civilisation will end when we acknowledge George Bush as our Anointed God-On-Earth and (Shudder, Shiver) start pasting "What would W do?" on our car bumpers.
Re:Still can't open message in a new window
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
I'm using Win 2K at work, they probably made it default behaviour on XP...or not, heh.
Re:Still can't open message in a new window
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
At least on a (Shudder) Windows system with the intellimouse software, you can configure clicking the scroll wheel as a shortcut, u know like those buttons on 'internet' keyboards. By default, however, clicking the scroll wheel will lock your mouse into scrolling, i.e. instead of moving the mouse pointer around, if you move your mouse up/down it will scroll the current window in the direction you move your mouse. (no, it's not a bug, it's their idea of a neat feature). Clicking on the scroll button again will give you your normal mouse behaviour. That being said, I'm sure it's pretty obvious he's talking about those three button mice you find in University Comp labs which need mirrors underneath them to work properly....
Whoa there buddy. Would u like to submit some proof as to where and when Al-Qaeda started looking into bio-weapons. Seems like a lot of FUD to me. Of course, I'm no fucking expert, their MO so far has been far from high-tech. In India and Russia, they basically use guerrilla tactics, and regular home-made bombs. In USA, they use 'social engineering' combined with box-cutters. What makes you think these people need bio-weapons. They've done a shitload more damage, with a shitload less tech. I would think developing bio-weapons would be a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Harder than learning to fly a plane. Of course, let me re-qulaify that I'm no fucking expert and simply judging them on empirical evidence. Let's not forget that the Anthrax attacks were never proved to be associated with Al-Qaeda.
This raises an interesting point, and should actually show the morons the way. The Indian government found that Text-Messaging and Mobile phone usage was abnormally high in the state of Kashmir (for such a low, and war-torn population). As it turns out, Bin Laden's good friends were using the mobile phone network to co-ordinate their "freedom" attacks against the Indians, so the government put a temporary freeze on the Kashmiri Mobile phone network, until they could Big-Brotherize it. Instead of worry about fixed line outages, I think the US government should be more concerned about Mobile Phone use...of course if they banned text-messaging, a whole generation of teenagers may rise up in revolt.....
Whoops, you are correct. Somehow China and Pakistan were sticking more in my mind than the others (which figures, because I'm Indian....). Ah well, I still got the Karma.:-)
Well, I haven't been to Iran, dunno if you were trying to correct me or support me. If you were trying to correct me, then there was no need, because as I said have either regime OR a General Populace. Each country I mentioned has lot of other unique aspects to it as well. My point was that there just simply wasn't any justification which singled out Iraq as being particularly "evil" compared to lots of other countries. Personally, I have nothing against Iran, but I would like to see its fundamentalist bastards castrated, but that goes fundamentalists of all hues, not just Iranian ones.
What information were they privvy to that we weren't? Why were they 'right' when nobody really knew, or were they just on the correct side?
I'll tell you what information they were privy to. How about the fact that Iraq is a small piece of shit country that couldn't fight of USA the first time. How about the fact that India, Russia and China, have been facing terrorist threats from Afghanistan/Pakistan for YEARS, and gave their intel to America, showing that the real targets should be Pakistan/Afghanistan. If America really was serious about the war on terrorism, they would and SHOULD try and impose democracy on Pakistan, a KNOWN holder of WMDs, not Iraq.
You weren't the only one who knew. The whole frikkin' world knew. That's why Bush refused to take this to the UN. Calling the rest of the world cowardly whiny bastards who always beg the US for help then put it down was a lovely little smokescreen, designed to get right-leaning people salivating even more. These days, it's especially dangerous to have an independent mind. "Bush is bad? You must be a terrorist. America made a mistake in Iraq? Well why don't you go back to your own country, you 4th generation immigrant!" It was obvious to the world that Iraq was NO THREAT whatsoever to anybody (except the poor Iraqis who got tortured). If you notice, nobody was gainst the war in afghanistan - why is that? It's basically it was again obvious to the universe that Afghanistan was full of savage bastards who treated women like dogs, destroyed a 1500 year old monument, and exported terror, not just to America, but India, Russia and China too. That's why everybody supported the war against Afghnaistan. Because Afghanistan was directly related to worldwide terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a bastard no argument. But how do u make a case to attack him, and not China? Or North Korea? Or Zimbabwe? Or Sudan? Or Pakistan? Or Iran? Or Suadi Arabia? All these countries have regimes or a general populace which hates Americans. They abuse Human Rights like crazy. They have no clue what democracy is all about. Two of them already HAVE WMDS, you don't have to go hunting for them, for fuck's sake. Of course, you may like to point out that I'm being naive, and many of these countries are important to American interests. And that's fine with me, I'm simply attacking the justification for invading Iraq. Let's call a spade a spade. Iraq really was a diversion, and maybe just a family vendetta even. Bush knew he couldn't catch Bin Laden, so let's just give the public another evil asshole instead - one which it would be easy to get rid of. Everbody knew Iraq had no army, no money nothing to defend itself. Bush went after Iraq because he was a coward. If he had real balls he would have tackled other countries, If "democracy" and "the saftey of the world" and "human rights" are his cause.
I see, and how often does China write Bush's speech? Yea, people have speeches written for them, but not by other countries (outsourcing to the extreme???). If Allawi either leaned on The White ouse or vice versa, it simply re-affirms the fact that Bush is what Orwell was worried about.
I have a feeling half the reason (or the only?) reason Sony is doing this, is because they happen to be involved in the electronics business that requires you to have non-copy-protected CDs as raw material. Basically I think the decision may have that since there's shitloads of profit to be made off the hardware, it may offset greater piracy in their music biz. And somebody doing the math may have realized that this is financially viable. Thus Sony has no issues with this. Maybe the RIAA should stop prosecuting file-sharers, and instead get into some kind of revenue-sharing agreement with the Sonys and Apples of world. (ok, ok, stop scoffing at the words revenue-sharing, it could happen!)
Sure, but only until somebody recodes the MyDoom virus to send out the Windows XP Starter edition as an attachment to every e-mail in lookOut. Now THAT would be an interesting project....*rubs hands with glee in anticipation*
Ok, usually, I don't feed the trolls..but I can't resist. I have to hear this one. And how is Iraq not considered a 3rd-world country? Ok I'm sure you'd agree that it falls in "developing-country" category?
Sure, their video files are DRM-ed and only usable by Windows Media Player. Thus the Microsoft-ONLY tech requirement. That way they can enforce whatever the hell they want -
"Your movie will self-destruct - instance of Kazaa found on your machine. Suffer the consequences, PIRATE!"
Here here! The least the fsckwads can do is extend the viewing period. If you happen to be in a timezone ahead of the USA (Asia), you can NEVER watch a movie, becuase the movie is timestamped with yesterday@!#!@$!$@. Adn this is going to stop piracy (a lot fo which originates here in Asia) HOW?
Oh for God's sake. let go of that pride somewhat, and instead of viewing India as a competitor, why not think of it as a gift to have a country that is halfway across the world from you, with 1 billion people, who doesn't hate your fucking guts and isn't trying to blow up your citizens with its nukes, and happens to be a democracy - a system which is comprehensible to Americans? Why not push for some sort of partnership, technological, business or other which ay fuel more jobs for all of us. India is in desperate need of infrastructure, and political will. Try and find ways to help India get that, and make some money in the process. I remember somebody beforehand who said that India's market is closed to American goods. That's bullshit. American companies don't consider India a market lucrative enough for their products. I used to be a former employee of Amazon.com, and I got the opportunity to ask Jeff Bezos (circa 2000) when he was gonna start up Amazon India, and his response was to look at me quizzically like India was about as close to America as the distant star Vega and say "It's not on our top 10 list of things to do at this point". Then sometime early this year, eBay (whom Amazon considers a competitor) went and bought Baazee, and has thus stolen a lead on Amazon.
Instead of saying trade is one way between India and America to India's ultimate benefit, why not try and develop the Indian market so that you can sell your products there? India WAS a closed market, but that was way back in 1991. If American companies aren't going to India now, it's because they don't want to go and do the hard work. They'd rather find a new way to sell chewing-gum flavoured toothpaste to a bunch of Europeans. Unilever, a dutch company involved in the sale of Household goods (like P & G) wanted to sell Shampoo in India. But of course being a low income country, they couldn't figure out how to do it. Then one of their marketing suits realized that instead of selling the shampoo in large bottles, it should be repackaged into small single-use plastic satchets. The reason was that most of the Indians never had large amounts of money on them but they could afford the small and cheap satchets. End result, they ended up selling a shitload more shampoo than they ever imagined. Find a way to sell something to a 1 billion people, and you won't be bothered about losing a few thousand jobs to them. Heck all of you have degrees, you can read and write. How hard can it be?
Unfortunately that's not the case, but it used to be. The older generation of satelites had a much broader footprint, and if you're living in Asia (like me), you'll remember that there only used to be one beam of STAR TV available for the entire Asian region (meaning that millions of Chinese cried out in pain at their first exposure to Bollywood:-), and a lot of Indians tried to figure out the deeper meanings behind Canto-Pop). But eventually technology progressed, and there are now no less than 5 different beams, which means that the STAR TV we get in India is drastically different from the that available in China, Japan, The Middle East e.t.c.
Basically, what they're trying to say is that 2 very popular forms of wireless transmission can now work together instead of compete. Wi-Fi is big in America, where mobile phone use via GSM is lousy (compared to Europe, Asia). GSM is teh Rox for most of Asia barring South Korea/Japan and basically the de facto European standard. People love GSM because it's digital, reliable, and OPEN. People love Wi-Fi for the very same reasons. The fact these 2 techs are attempting to be bridged means there will less compatibility issues in the future...ummm..er.. at least as far as my imagination goes...
Oh please, six-degrees of separation. You borrowed it from a friend, who borrowed it from a friend, who borrowed it from Kevin Bacon. It was large-scale borrowing then, it's large-scale borrowing now. Besides, I'm willing to wager (with no research whatsoever to back that up), the 90% of P2P is from pr0n and for obscure songs that vacated the Top 15,000 5 years ago, and are no longer available at your local HMV. I mean seriously, put your hands up, how many of us are downloading Christina Aguilera?
In other news, economists have found that countries with extremely high-rates of taxation (barring Scandinavia) tend have extremely large underground economies i.e. black markets....could be it be that people don't like to declare their assets (i.e. cheat on their taxes) when they know that they'll lose 50% to a beaureaucratic-all-consuming Behemoth?
Believe it or not, there are such things as extortion and unfari market practises. Somehow Microsoft is a teh Devil sux0r, but the music companies are all honest-hearted hard-workin' regular joes?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the more modern terms now in use are "Developed, Developing and Less-Developed"...either way they're all stupid, because most statistics include Hong Kong and Singapore under 'developing' though frankly I think both city-states are developed, or at least Singapore is if you consider Hong Kong as just another part of China...
You've picked a few African countries, and you're most likely correct about them. But I've used the blanket term Third-World - in response to the post above mine), which includes India and China (that's a minimum of 2 Billion people. AIDS prevalence in this entire group is much, much less than 1%). But starvation/malnutrition, and the other diseases I've mentioned are at least 10%. I think the priorties there are clear. Most western agencies, when talking about India and China always mention figures, but they neve talk about percentages. In India, according to official figures there are meant to 0.5 million people suffering from AIDs, and think it's double that in China, of course, these official figures are usually crap... however, let's assume they're double that number, that still is nothing compared to the number of people dying from other diseases/afflictions.
You need to correct that even further. A greater NUMBER of people will die in the third-world, but even there, AIDS deaths are a very small PROPORTION of total deaths. People in the third-world are still dying from the "basics" - Hunger, Poverty, Diaorrhea, Cholera, TB, Malaria, e.t.c. Civilisation will end when we acknowledge George Bush as our Anointed God-On-Earth and (Shudder, Shiver) start pasting "What would W do?" on our car bumpers.
I'm using Win 2K at work, they probably made it default behaviour on XP...or not, heh.
At least on a (Shudder) Windows system with the intellimouse software, you can configure clicking the scroll wheel as a shortcut, u know like those buttons on 'internet' keyboards. By default, however, clicking the scroll wheel will lock your mouse into scrolling, i.e. instead of moving the mouse pointer around, if you move your mouse up/down it will scroll the current window in the direction you move your mouse. (no, it's not a bug, it's their idea of a neat feature). Clicking on the scroll button again will give you your normal mouse behaviour. That being said, I'm sure it's pretty obvious he's talking about those three button mice you find in University Comp labs which need mirrors underneath them to work properly....
Whoa there buddy. Would u like to submit some proof as to where and when Al-Qaeda started looking into bio-weapons. Seems like a lot of FUD to me. Of course, I'm no fucking expert, their MO so far has been far from high-tech. In India and Russia, they basically use guerrilla tactics, and regular home-made bombs. In USA, they use 'social engineering' combined with box-cutters. What makes you think these people need bio-weapons. They've done a shitload more damage, with a shitload less tech. I would think developing bio-weapons would be a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Harder than learning to fly a plane. Of course, let me re-qulaify that I'm no fucking expert and simply judging them on empirical evidence. Let's not forget that the Anthrax attacks were never proved to be associated with Al-Qaeda.
This raises an interesting point, and should actually show the morons the way. The Indian government found that Text-Messaging and Mobile phone usage was abnormally high in the state of Kashmir (for such a low, and war-torn population). As it turns out, Bin Laden's good friends were using the mobile phone network to co-ordinate their "freedom" attacks against the Indians, so the government put a temporary freeze on the Kashmiri Mobile phone network, until they could Big-Brotherize it. Instead of worry about fixed line outages, I think the US government should be more concerned about Mobile Phone use...of course if they banned text-messaging, a whole generation of teenagers may rise up in revolt.....
Whoops, you are correct. Somehow China and Pakistan were sticking more in my mind than the others (which figures, because I'm Indian....). Ah well, I still got the Karma. :-)
Well, I haven't been to Iran, dunno if you were trying to correct me or support me. If you were trying to correct me, then there was no need, because as I said have either regime OR a General Populace. Each country I mentioned has lot of other unique aspects to it as well. My point was that there just simply wasn't any justification which singled out Iraq as being particularly "evil" compared to lots of other countries. Personally, I have nothing against Iran, but I would like to see its fundamentalist bastards castrated, but that goes fundamentalists of all hues, not just Iranian ones.
What information were they privvy to that we weren't? Why were they 'right' when nobody really knew, or were they just on the correct side?
I'll tell you what information they were privy to. How about the fact that Iraq is a small piece of shit country that couldn't fight of USA the first time. How about the fact that India, Russia and China, have been facing terrorist threats from Afghanistan/Pakistan for YEARS, and gave their intel to America, showing that the real targets should be Pakistan/Afghanistan. If America really was serious about the war on terrorism, they would and SHOULD try and impose democracy on Pakistan, a KNOWN holder of WMDs, not Iraq.
Remember the decision makers of the US dont do what most americans want them to do.
And you want to impose this lovely system on the rest of savages?
You weren't the only one who knew. The whole frikkin' world knew. That's why Bush refused to take this to the UN. Calling the rest of the world cowardly whiny bastards who always beg the US for help then put it down was a lovely little smokescreen, designed to get right-leaning people salivating even more. These days, it's especially dangerous to have an independent mind. "Bush is bad? You must be a terrorist. America made a mistake in Iraq? Well why don't you go back to your own country, you 4th generation immigrant!" It was obvious to the world that Iraq was NO THREAT whatsoever to anybody (except the poor Iraqis who got tortured). If you notice, nobody was gainst the war in afghanistan - why is that? It's basically it was again obvious to the universe that Afghanistan was full of savage bastards who treated women like dogs, destroyed a 1500 year old monument, and exported terror, not just to America, but India, Russia and China too. That's why everybody supported the war against Afghnaistan. Because Afghanistan was directly related to worldwide terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a bastard no argument. But how do u make a case to attack him, and not China? Or North Korea? Or Zimbabwe? Or Sudan? Or Pakistan? Or Iran? Or Suadi Arabia? All these countries have regimes or a general populace which hates Americans. They abuse Human Rights like crazy. They have no clue what democracy is all about. Two of them already HAVE WMDS, you don't have to go hunting for them, for fuck's sake. Of course, you may like to point out that I'm being naive, and many of these countries are important to American interests. And that's fine with me, I'm simply attacking the justification for invading Iraq. Let's call a spade a spade. Iraq really was a diversion, and maybe just a family vendetta even. Bush knew he couldn't catch Bin Laden, so let's just give the public another evil asshole instead - one which it would be easy to get rid of. Everbody knew Iraq had no army, no money nothing to defend itself. Bush went after Iraq because he was a coward. If he had real balls he would have tackled other countries, If "democracy" and "the saftey of the world" and "human rights" are his cause.
I see, and how often does China write Bush's speech? Yea, people have speeches written for them, but not by other countries (outsourcing to the extreme???). If Allawi either leaned on The White ouse or vice versa, it simply re-affirms the fact that Bush is what Orwell was worried about.
I have a feeling half the reason (or the only?) reason Sony is doing this, is because they happen to be involved in the electronics business that requires you to have non-copy-protected CDs as raw material. Basically I think the decision may have that since there's shitloads of profit to be made off the hardware, it may offset greater piracy in their music biz. And somebody doing the math may have realized that this is financially viable. Thus Sony has no issues with this. Maybe the RIAA should stop prosecuting file-sharers, and instead get into some kind of revenue-sharing agreement with the Sonys and Apples of world. (ok, ok, stop scoffing at the words revenue-sharing, it could happen!)
Check out my sig, that might explain a few things for ya.
Sure, but only until somebody recodes the MyDoom virus to send out the Windows XP Starter edition as an attachment to every e-mail in lookOut. Now THAT would be an interesting project....*rubs hands with glee in anticipation*
Let's try an experiment. Let's assume that the parent post is troll. If I answer his question seriously, do I get modded Redundant, or Informative?
WMP stands for Windows Media Player.
OTOH parent post maybe making a funny, which I have missed. In which case, my bad.
Ok, usually, I don't feed the trolls..but I can't resist. I have to hear this one. And how is Iraq not considered a 3rd-world country? Ok I'm sure you'd agree that it falls in "developing-country" category?
Here here! The least the fsckwads can do is extend the viewing period. If you happen to be in a timezone ahead of the USA (Asia), you can NEVER watch a movie, becuase the movie is timestamped with yesterday@!#!@$!$@. Adn this is going to stop piracy (a lot fo which originates here in Asia) HOW?
Oh for God's sake. let go of that pride somewhat, and instead of viewing India as a competitor, why not think of it as a gift to have a country that is halfway across the world from you, with 1 billion people, who doesn't hate your fucking guts and isn't trying to blow up your citizens with its nukes, and happens to be a democracy - a system which is comprehensible to Americans? Why not push for some sort of partnership, technological, business or other which ay fuel more jobs for all of us. India is in desperate need of infrastructure, and political will. Try and find ways to help India get that, and make some money in the process. I remember somebody beforehand who said that India's market is closed to American goods. That's bullshit. American companies don't consider India a market lucrative enough for their products. I used to be a former employee of Amazon.com, and I got the opportunity to ask Jeff Bezos (circa 2000) when he was gonna start up Amazon India, and his response was to look at me quizzically like India was about as close to America as the distant star Vega and say "It's not on our top 10 list of things to do at this point". Then sometime early this year, eBay (whom Amazon considers a competitor) went and bought Baazee, and has thus stolen a lead on Amazon. Instead of saying trade is one way between India and America to India's ultimate benefit, why not try and develop the Indian market so that you can sell your products there? India WAS a closed market, but that was way back in 1991. If American companies aren't going to India now, it's because they don't want to go and do the hard work. They'd rather find a new way to sell chewing-gum flavoured toothpaste to a bunch of Europeans. Unilever, a dutch company involved in the sale of Household goods (like P & G) wanted to sell Shampoo in India. But of course being a low income country, they couldn't figure out how to do it. Then one of their marketing suits realized that instead of selling the shampoo in large bottles, it should be repackaged into small single-use plastic satchets. The reason was that most of the Indians never had large amounts of money on them but they could afford the small and cheap satchets. End result, they ended up selling a shitload more shampoo than they ever imagined. Find a way to sell something to a 1 billion people, and you won't be bothered about losing a few thousand jobs to them. Heck all of you have degrees, you can read and write. How hard can it be?
Unfortunately that's not the case, but it used to be. The older generation of satelites had a much broader footprint, and if you're living in Asia (like me), you'll remember that there only used to be one beam of STAR TV available for the entire Asian region (meaning that millions of Chinese cried out in pain at their first exposure to Bollywood :-), and a lot of Indians tried to figure out the deeper meanings behind Canto-Pop). But eventually technology progressed, and there are now no less than 5 different beams, which means that the STAR TV we get in India is drastically different from the that available in China, Japan, The Middle East e.t.c.
Basically, what they're trying to say is that 2 very popular forms of wireless transmission can now work together instead of compete. Wi-Fi is big in America, where mobile phone use via GSM is lousy (compared to Europe, Asia). GSM is teh Rox for most of Asia barring South Korea/Japan and basically the de facto European standard. People love GSM because it's digital, reliable, and OPEN. People love Wi-Fi for the very same reasons. The fact these 2 techs are attempting to be bridged means there will less compatibility issues in the future...ummm..er.. at least as far as my imagination goes...
Oh please, six-degrees of separation. You borrowed it from a friend, who borrowed it from a friend, who borrowed it from Kevin Bacon. It was large-scale borrowing then, it's large-scale borrowing now. Besides, I'm willing to wager (with no research whatsoever to back that up), the 90% of P2P is from pr0n and for obscure songs that vacated the Top 15,000 5 years ago, and are no longer available at your local HMV. I mean seriously, put your hands up, how many of us are downloading Christina Aguilera?
In other news, economists have found that countries with extremely high-rates of taxation (barring Scandinavia) tend have extremely large underground economies i.e. black markets....could be it be that people don't like to declare their assets (i.e. cheat on their taxes) when they know that they'll lose 50% to a beaureaucratic-all-consuming Behemoth?
Believe it or not, there are such things as extortion and unfari market practises. Somehow Microsoft is a teh Devil sux0r, but the music companies are all honest-hearted hard-workin' regular joes?