you know, I work in a field where SQL shouldn't be terribly needed(front office of a trading floor) but every now and then something goes down in the system and since our system guys are 12 hours removed from us, we find out when they are eating dinner or going to sleep. So we have actually been creating our own cookbook to query the database. every time some need arises, we basically file it away in a large spreadsheet that you can copy and paste into Query Analyzer. for us, the cookbook would be great. we aren't database guys. Its not our realm to program outside of VBA (though all of us have some skill outside of it).
So while I understand that if our systems guys are sitting there using a cookbook to handle querying a database that it is there job to maintain is troublesome, I find these books extremely helpful because I shouldn't be spending my time learning all the fundamentals of database management when I should be studying the mathematics behind the current pricing models we use.
yeah, its mindless. but sometimes that's all you need if you are trying to hack together some 20 line query to do some very basic things.
look up Jim Thorpe. And actually, the first pro athlete only was allowed in the olympics back in 1988, not that long ago. it was the dream team that started it. but its ok, they now let pro athletes in lots of the "popular" sports. but, lots of olympic athletes actually work pretty menial jobs. I've heard home depot employs loads because they give them so much leeway to practice their sports.
freedom, like any other word, can have any definition you want. but it does seem like you failed to RTFA. as it said, the question is why another law is needed when they already have been given the trademark over terms that are used to associate with the Olympics. it may be just a more obvious way of saying what is already there. you can still use winter all you want, but you can't use it in a way that implies a real association with the Olympics(by which I mean that you are somehow a sponsor of the Olympics).
your weak association of freedom with intellectual property law though, is just funny. you don't just come out and say all patents, trademarks, and any other form of law that restricts a person should be illegal. in any country with laws, freedom applies to exactly those things the law says it applies to and in this case, it applies to the freedom of those who come up with novel ideas to capitalize on them for a period of time because they came up with the idea. just because you disagree with this definition does not make you some crusader fighting against the injustices of the world. this shit will stop though, if you can convince 1/2 the people of this country that your definition is the correct one.
hm... I thought that was his point. in the 80's and up until about 1997, windows was the only viable choice. apple's may have been slightly more reliable, but far more expensive. By the 2000-2003 era, when linux became stable enough for most hardware and apple finally began opening up, windows had been dominant for so long that there remains a strong selection bias towards it. for those people who started on windows, it can be hard to move off of it especially when there isn't a major financial incentive to it. at best, for every day tasks, every other system (new) costs just as much as a windows system and there isn't widespread available training for linux to get people to continue using perfectly good hardware.
heck, I'd like to get back into linux to tinker around but its proven quite difficult. my attempt at fedora on my new desktop failed miserably(I then read that the core 2 duo isn't easily supported yet). but when my parents' computer gets old, I can definitely see myself setting up linux on it and keeping it going for another 8 years.
good to hear. I'm glad to know that with a superior population and far superior agricultural abilities, the native americans became the dominant population in the new world....
as its been pointed out, your ignorant to any non european culture to think that the same things Europeans colonizers were known for were done by everyone else in the world. Several cultures have little history of rampantly expanding their borders at the expense of wiping out other cultures. in fact, its almost purely a european trait(though the Japanese have been very long history of doing it, as did certain tribes in Africa).
The Muslim conquests hardly wiped out local populations. in fact, the reason there were groups to oppose them in Hispania and the Balkans was because it wasn't their way to completely wipe out a population. The Roman conquest of Gaul was at times genocide.
Study some history and then go study some modern biology to try and figure out why people say disease was the major factor in the fall of the Indian tribes. just to start you off, go look up small pox. you may even find out that there wasn't a single case of it in the new world before introduction by the Europeans. of course, you may just respond with some complete BS that "we have lots of disease cells, its not like one more could possibly wipe out an entire population". You know, AIDS is just one more disease, I'm sure you'd say that the mass introduction of it into a population couldn't wipe it out. of course, then you'd be ignorant of modern history.
actually, I think you make a good example but miss why drug patents hurt. A company with a drug and a very good delivery method is now given a great reason to patent the drug first(with an inferior delivery method) and then patent the delivery method several years laters. This is because with drugs, they file for patents before the drug ever gets FDA approval, which is something like 13 years later or so.
So in order to definitely maximize profits, another patent application goes out a few years after FDA approval for a major improvement. It just happens to be that that improvement was old news in the company. This is bad for patients but reflects reasonable actions by the company. I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe drug patents should only be granted and the clock start ticking once the drug is approved by the FDA.
For an example, see the differences between claritin and clarinex. From a medical standpoint, the drug itself is just as effective. It just has a much better delivery method. now look at the timing.
I'm a bit off topic, but everyone seems to be ignoring the major difference between an ebook/ paperback compared to a cd/downloaded music. With the music, there is no different whatsoever in the content. with an ebook, there is significant difference.
just to name a few:
1) reading on a computer screen is much harsher on the eyes than a paperback book(only recent tech gets around this, but at a real price)
2) printing out an ebook and carrying around a stack of 8 1/2 x 11 paper is tedious compared to a small sized paper back of the same book.
The first is the reason I still buy books rather than download from Baen, even though I do enjoy some of their authors.
buddy, actually try looking up the Anti Comintern Pact. Your dependence on Wikipedia(which is great for some things, but doesn't give very clear explanations to people like you is its major failure)
what I really can't believe is that you read a Wikipedia article which tells you that full embargoes weren't levied until 1941. Btw, the anti-comintern pact was originally signed in 1936 and later revived after the outbreak of fighting between Germany and the USSR.
Now, we did break our treaty in 1939 that allowed us to begin imposing embargoes, but the severe embargo(which was only on oil and scrap metal, so it didn't exactly destroy the happiness of the population) didn't begin until 2 years later. Before that time, Japan joined the Axis, began a small war with Mongolia/USSR, invaded IndoChina, and again attacked certain free areas in China to cement control on the area. Now, we did put in place limited embargoes in 1939, but when we demanded that Japan immediately leave East Asia(along with fully cutting off oil supplies) Japan began planning the attack against the US to try and force us to support their expansion. At the same time, they planned a major expansion into south east asia to control their own supplies of oil(I'm sure this pissed off the British, it was their colonies).
read. or try the wikipedia article you mentioned. its not well written and very unclear about the time line.
So yeah. I guess the straw that broke the camels back was when we demanded that Japan stop enslaving the Chinese and Korean populace or we won't trade with them at all. poor Japanese government. That sounds like such an unreasonable demand now that I think about it. I mean, especially in the context of their deep friendship with Nazi Germany. Gonna call me wrong again? Or maybe you can just admit that you were mistaken on the WWII time line.....
By the start of the blockades, Japan was taking more than enough resources from mainland East Asia. Or maybe you didn't realize that they had been taking those resources for years. Their alliance with Germany also predated the blockades. America was not their only supply of resources. it happens to be that their major trading partners were all at war with Germany. Sounds more like a case of choosing the wrong side.
But, nice attempt at making a general jab at American foreign policy. You're right. By stopping all trade with Japan we were telling them to stop being ass holes in east asia or we won't trade with you. Or did you really mean America should be equally open with all countries, regardless of their foreign policies and actions in the world? Because in my opinion that would be stupid.
Do you think every other country that cut off trade with Japan did it solely out of respect for America? Or might it have been that all those countries were allied against Germany and didn't care too much for Germany's biggest ally. Interesting you seem to ignore the decision making process and seem to think in the 1930's and 40's America carried the same international weight as it did in the 60's and 70's.
oh, you mean trade embargoes that were enacted due to rampant aggression by Japan against several East Asian countries.
Of course, in reference to Hawaii, you regret to mention that it was agreed between representatives of Hawaii and President McKinley. Of course, you seem to have also forgotten that several people(i.e. the slaves on plantations) in Hawaii were ecstatic about becoming part of the US and immediately began petitioning for statehood. Now, was the overthrow of the Monarchy(only a few years earlier) a violent taste of American expansionism. Maybe. But that isn't for sure at all. The initial rebellion was led by people born and raised in Hawaii(though many were of American and European decent). You should read the Wikipedia article, its pretty darn accurate and has a lot of information that could get you caught up before you make really really poor comparisons.
Now I don't know about, but in the midst of having entire villages wiped out by Japanese tests, I don't think any Chinese person in the entire country saw the occupation by Japan as a good thing. You seem to ignore all the historical context of both time periods while trying to accuse me of doing exactly that. No, the attack was unprovoked. You seem to think embargoes to stop the extraordinarily violent expansion of a country allied with Hitler (who was seen as one of the greatest threats ever face with the outbreak of full conflict in Europe) is not allowed. Now, I'm not sure what imperialistic actions the US took in the decade preceding Pearl Harbor, but I'd love to know of one that came in direct conflict with Japanese expansion.
Yeah, I've studied a bit about Japanese/ US relations. It probably has something to do with the fact that I've spent most my adult life living in Japan working here and have always been interested in how cultures progress over time. I find many arguments that blame the US for the break out of war in the Pacific to be pretty poor arguments hardly based in fact and definitely ignoring the political landscape in Europe that led to several decisions the US made in regards to Japan.
when said nation is being discouraged for rampaging across other soveriegn nations, enslaving their population, yeah. According to the Japanese, they declared war to try recover those supplies to continue their war in China and Korea. You probably should learn why the oil supplies were being cut. Along with rampant expansion throughout east asia, Japan was a strong supporter of Hitler. I support not trading with a country that keeps friends like that and does what it did.
what exactly are you referring to wtih the japanese? oh, you mean an unprovoked attack by an imperialistic country taht led to them getting most of their country and culture wiped out.....
uh, generally it was a teen girl paired with a much older, financially responsible man. It just happens that in teh last 50 years, most of the world has rebelled again a 14 year old girl getting married to a 25 year old guy. The girl still isn't/wasn't a viable, independent financial entity but she does have a husband who is/was theoretically at that level.
so you're kind of comparing two different social structures.
you do realize that for the first 180 years of the US's history, we never kept a large standing army. This was only first considered after the rise of communism in Russia(as I didn't live through the time, I'll accept it as a credible threat) and its need had ended with the fall of another major power with a large standing army threatening war.
So it just may be rational for you to wonder why the US wasn't ever conquered for all those years that it lacked a large standing army. It used to be standard that the military was mobilized on an "need" basis rather than being constantly mobilized.
Do we need millions of ground troops ready to go at the drop of a pin? depends on if you think there is some country with a large standing military that is prepping for war. Of course, right now we are involved in 2 wars so the discussion of reducing the military will have to wait for some time. But it would serve you well to consider the many countries with small or non-existent standing armies around the world that have not been conquered.
Now, there are arguments to be made as to why, given modern warfare tactics, it may be meaningful to keep a larger standing army that we did before WWII, it is hard to believe you ever began to think about those things with your response(granted, I'm not saying the GP every insinuated a deeper thought about the place of the military in a country).
see, this is the problem with a mac fan, you think that someone actually wants the parts just how apple give them. I know its hard for you, but try to imagine this isn't my first computer and most of those gadgets I already own. But, because those parts aren't optional on a mac, I don't give apple bonus points for doubling what I already own. I don't buy something saying, "well they tried to give me something I needed. I mean, I'll pay for it even though I don't".
1. I don't want a built in mic at all 2. I have no use for blue tooth because a phone I bought 2 years ago came with it. But I coudl buy it for 25 bucks if I wanted one. 3. graphics was the 7950 GT 4. This was about 4 months ago, ish 5. I've had a webcam for about 18 months, but I also don't need one because I got a new one 6 months ago as a going away present. 6. a remote is fucking worthless for what I use my computer for, I have a mac book and have never, not even once, used the remote 7. I have no way to compare monitors but my monitor was 400 bucks retail(though there was a sale going on at this particular store so I picked it up at ~340, and this was the only store putting it on sale). the model is at IO Data, AD-194VB. I have a widescreen model as well because I saved so much on the computer. 8. The mac towers are only now quad core. they weren't all quad core 4 months ago.
now, even after buying a second monitor, I have over 600 bucks left over. I'm comparing with the tower now, which is at least 2500 bucks w/o monitor, much less dual monitors. I'm quote happy with my monitor so I'd get the same one for a mac tower if I had bought one. Just the box, I'm at half the price, far more powerful than any iMac I could have gotten, and with my use of the computer, close enough to a mac tower at the time.
now, my machine is quiet, just a hum I don't mind. I prefer its form simply because I'm not lugging it around everywhere. The form makes it easier to upgrade when I feel like I need to make my machine more powerful rather than buy a new one.
so wait, what did I trade again compared to the mac?? I can now use my money to get a KMV switch and start using my macbook as a dual screen machine as well.
very true, because I only took it down 1 notch. score: odie_q : 1 gordo3000: 0
in my defense, I had originally written 2 for both, and then afterwards realized that at the time of purchase, it was only one notch down(though I knew there would soon be a release of another higher end system..)
actually, far cheaper, I got a just sub top end machine for 1500 bucks, 19 inch monitor and all. by top end, the only things I didn't get at the penultimate were the video card and processor. those I took down by 2 adn 1 notch repsectively(because Intel still doubles the cost to get the best out there). and I guess I skimped 80 bucks and only got 1 gb of ram so far. Granted, I'm happy to get a computer where for 1500 bucks I'm near the top end and can easily upgrade it at any time with easy to access parts. I don't understand how you can consider a mac comparable to that in price. and I know as performance goes it competes in the mid mac towers.
Now, what didn't I get with it: firewire, built in mic, built in wi fi. of those, I wanted a mic which will cost me 100 bucks. but this is because I want a wireless one so I can use skype like a wireless phone and cook or do house chores while talking online. I would need this with a mac even so there is no loss.
man, your township sucks. thanks for the story though. It means I have a much bigger reason to push for the adoption of open source software in my town. I guess luckily my town is small enough that they won't take electronic submissions(or if they do, its more like I email it to someone so as long as its a standard format its alright).
I think at the extent your area has reached, its more than unreasonable to require you to submit in MS 2000 + formats. its very unreasonable for your sign up costs to be upwards of 1000$ besides the taxes they will take from you.
Thanks for the detailed post. I don't know if you were annoyed by my response, but honestly, I've never encountered anything like that....
no, what I mean to imply, though obviously not well (after reading my own words) was this correlation:
Net Neutrality becomes issue Republicans get solicited by ISP's and other business's that it is a bad thing Without even attempting to get a clue form a 3rd party source, blindly follow what the pro's in the business say.
So I would be surprised that the republicans would actually take a stand in favor of the consumer. It can mean one of two things:
A republican with a clue actually made his own decision before corporates realized they should be lobbying or more likely(which is sad to say) a lucky shot for the people of texas
I'm not saying democrats are any better at this mind you. Just that republicans seem to favor business interests when being lobbied far more than any other group.
well, after the republican showing in the net neutrality bills in front of congress its surprising they would take a stand in the realm of technology that could help the people and promote freedom.
what kind of interaction do you have with the government? There are a ton of programs that interact cleanly with office documents(definitely to the extent that you can extract all the information you need to run your business at no hassle). Are you revising government documents that require you to beable to share changes and updates on the documents? at that point, its a question of which software best provides for said interaction. If you are willing to merely highlight and modify the document and then send it back, you can do this just as easily with open office (along with a nice feature of exporting to pdf, which generally is seen as a more professional looking document).
keep in mind this is how I do all my work I need to do from home. Now, I am strongly against both forms of monopolistic practices we are seeing in the market right now. But I don't see the distinction as clearly. Now what really pisses me off are things like Ecareers (not sure if this is everywhere,but my school used it to match up employers and employees). It requires uploads in the MS.doc format and then converts those files to pdf for you to send off to employers. How wasteful. It forces me to use MS office purely to make sure I get a clean export to.pdf when there are tons of tools I can use myself to do just that from any editor I want. That is a tax I hate to pay(and never will) and that directly puts me at a severe disadvantage in the job hunt out of college.
depends, I've never had a problem opening MS office documents. in school I could get it for "free" and open office reads the file format just fine. so actually, unless something changes with MS's format, its a worse lock in than ITMS DRM(because I have a variety of "players" to access it, rather than having to bootstrap something together..)
now, before 2 years ago, I don't think open office could handle MS office documents correctly, but lately I haven't had any problems at all....
you're wrong!! I've seen at least 500 separate tests of this hypothesis, all involving a wise old owl. adn the answer was always three. I mean, my god!!! sigma = 0.
Slashdot Mirror
you know, I work in a field where SQL shouldn't be terribly needed(front office of a trading floor) but every now and then something goes down in the system and since our system guys are 12 hours removed from us, we find out when they are eating dinner or going to sleep. So we have actually been creating our own cookbook to query the database. every time some need arises, we basically file it away in a large spreadsheet that you can copy and paste into Query Analyzer. for us, the cookbook would be great. we aren't database guys. Its not our realm to program outside of VBA (though all of us have some skill outside of it).
So while I understand that if our systems guys are sitting there using a cookbook to handle querying a database that it is there job to maintain is troublesome, I find these books extremely helpful because I shouldn't be spending my time learning all the fundamentals of database management when I should be studying the mathematics behind the current pricing models we use.
yeah, its mindless. but sometimes that's all you need if you are trying to hack together some 20 line query to do some very basic things.
um..... no.
look up Jim Thorpe. And actually, the first pro athlete only was allowed in the olympics back in 1988, not that long ago. it was the dream team that started it. but its ok, they now let pro athletes in lots of the "popular" sports. but, lots of olympic athletes actually work pretty menial jobs. I've heard home depot employs loads because they give them so much leeway to practice their sports.
freedom, like any other word, can have any definition you want. but it does seem like you failed to RTFA. as it said, the question is why another law is needed when they already have been given the trademark over terms that are used to associate with the Olympics. it may be just a more obvious way of saying what is already there. you can still use winter all you want, but you can't use it in a way that implies a real association with the Olympics(by which I mean that you are somehow a sponsor of the Olympics).
your weak association of freedom with intellectual property law though, is just funny. you don't just come out and say all patents, trademarks, and any other form of law that restricts a person should be illegal. in any country with laws, freedom applies to exactly those things the law says it applies to and in this case, it applies to the freedom of those who come up with novel ideas to capitalize on them for a period of time because they came up with the idea. just because you disagree with this definition does not make you some crusader fighting against the injustices of the world. this shit will stop though, if you can convince 1/2 the people of this country that your definition is the correct one.
hm... I thought that was his point. in the 80's and up until about 1997, windows was the only viable choice. apple's may have been slightly more reliable, but far more expensive. By the 2000-2003 era, when linux became stable enough for most hardware and apple finally began opening up, windows had been dominant for so long that there remains a strong selection bias towards it. for those people who started on windows, it can be hard to move off of it especially when there isn't a major financial incentive to it. at best, for every day tasks, every other system (new) costs just as much as a windows system and there isn't widespread available training for linux to get people to continue using perfectly good hardware.
heck, I'd like to get back into linux to tinker around but its proven quite difficult. my attempt at fedora on my new desktop failed miserably(I then read that the core 2 duo isn't easily supported yet). but when my parents' computer gets old, I can definitely see myself setting up linux on it and keeping it going for another 8 years.
good to hear. I'm glad to know that with a superior population and far superior agricultural abilities, the native americans became the dominant population in the new world....
as its been pointed out, your ignorant to any non european culture to think that the same things Europeans colonizers were known for were done by everyone else in the world. Several cultures have little history of rampantly expanding their borders at the expense of wiping out other cultures. in fact, its almost purely a european trait(though the Japanese have been very long history of doing it, as did certain tribes in Africa).
The Muslim conquests hardly wiped out local populations. in fact, the reason there were groups to oppose them in Hispania and the Balkans was because it wasn't their way to completely wipe out a population. The Roman conquest of Gaul was at times genocide.
Study some history and then go study some modern biology to try and figure out why people say disease was the major factor in the fall of the Indian tribes. just to start you off, go look up small pox. you may even find out that there wasn't a single case of it in the new world before introduction by the Europeans. of course, you may just respond with some complete BS that "we have lots of disease cells, its not like one more could possibly wipe out an entire population". You know, AIDS is just one more disease, I'm sure you'd say that the mass introduction of it into a population couldn't wipe it out. of course, then you'd be ignorant of modern history.
actually, I think you make a good example but miss why drug patents hurt. A company with a drug and a very good delivery method is now given a great reason to patent the drug first(with an inferior delivery method) and then patent the delivery method several years laters. This is because with drugs, they file for patents before the drug ever gets FDA approval, which is something like 13 years later or so.
So in order to definitely maximize profits, another patent application goes out a few years after FDA approval for a major improvement. It just happens to be that that improvement was old news in the company. This is bad for patients but reflects reasonable actions by the company. I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe drug patents should only be granted and the clock start ticking once the drug is approved by the FDA.
For an example, see the differences between claritin and clarinex. From a medical standpoint, the drug itself is just as effective. It just has a much better delivery method. now look at the timing.
I'm a bit off topic, but everyone seems to be ignoring the major difference between an ebook/ paperback compared to a cd/downloaded music. With the music, there is no different whatsoever in the content. with an ebook, there is significant difference.
just to name a few:
1) reading on a computer screen is much harsher on the eyes than a paperback book(only recent tech gets around this, but at a real price)
2) printing out an ebook and carrying around a stack of 8 1/2 x 11 paper is tedious compared to a small sized paper back of the same book.
The first is the reason I still buy books rather than download from Baen, even though I do enjoy some of their authors.
buddy, actually try looking up the Anti Comintern Pact. Your dependence on Wikipedia(which is great for some things, but doesn't give very clear explanations to people like you is its major failure)
m ony.shtml
what I really can't believe is that you read a Wikipedia article which tells you that full embargoes weren't levied until 1941. Btw, the anti-comintern pact was originally signed in 1936 and later revived after the outbreak of fighting between Germany and the USSR.
Now, we did break our treaty in 1939 that allowed us to begin imposing embargoes, but the severe embargo(which was only on oil and scrap metal, so it didn't exactly destroy the happiness of the population) didn't begin until 2 years later. Before that time, Japan joined the Axis, began a small war with Mongolia/USSR, invaded IndoChina, and again attacked certain free areas in China to cement control on the area. Now, we did put in place limited embargoes in 1939, but when we demanded that Japan immediately leave East Asia(along with fully cutting off oil supplies) Japan began planning the attack against the US to try and force us to support their expansion. At the same time, they planned a major expansion into south east asia to control their own supplies of oil(I'm sure this pissed off the British, it was their colonies).
http://www.jref.com/culture/Japan_WWII_Asian_hege
read. or try the wikipedia article you mentioned. its not well written and very unclear about the time line.
So yeah. I guess the straw that broke the camels back was when we demanded that Japan stop enslaving the Chinese and Korean populace or we won't trade with them at all. poor Japanese government. That sounds like such an unreasonable demand now that I think about it. I mean, especially in the context of their deep friendship with Nazi Germany. Gonna call me wrong again? Or maybe you can just admit that you were mistaken on the WWII time line.....
I doubt british teens even come close to the texting done by Japanese... well, everyone in this country.
It probably has something to do with basic calling rates sitting around 40 cents a minute(on a cheap plan).
By the start of the blockades, Japan was taking more than enough resources from mainland East Asia. Or maybe you didn't realize that they had been taking those resources for years. Their alliance with Germany also predated the blockades. America was not their only supply of resources. it happens to be that their major trading partners were all at war with Germany. Sounds more like a case of choosing the wrong side. But, nice attempt at making a general jab at American foreign policy. You're right. By stopping all trade with Japan we were telling them to stop being ass holes in east asia or we won't trade with you. Or did you really mean America should be equally open with all countries, regardless of their foreign policies and actions in the world? Because in my opinion that would be stupid. Do you think every other country that cut off trade with Japan did it solely out of respect for America? Or might it have been that all those countries were allied against Germany and didn't care too much for Germany's biggest ally. Interesting you seem to ignore the decision making process and seem to think in the 1930's and 40's America carried the same international weight as it did in the 60's and 70's.
actually, since you do seem educated, I live in Tokyo(though I was in Osaka a couple years ago). What are you coming for?
oh, you mean trade embargoes that were enacted due to rampant aggression by Japan against several East Asian countries.
Of course, in reference to Hawaii, you regret to mention that it was agreed between representatives of Hawaii and President McKinley. Of course, you seem to have also forgotten that several people(i.e. the slaves on plantations) in Hawaii were ecstatic about becoming part of the US and immediately began petitioning for statehood. Now, was the overthrow of the Monarchy(only a few years earlier) a violent taste of American expansionism. Maybe. But that isn't for sure at all. The initial rebellion was led by people born and raised in Hawaii(though many were of American and European decent). You should read the Wikipedia article, its pretty darn accurate and has a lot of information that could get you caught up before you make really really poor comparisons.
Now I don't know about, but in the midst of having entire villages wiped out by Japanese tests, I don't think any Chinese person in the entire country saw the occupation by Japan as a good thing. You seem to ignore all the historical context of both time periods while trying to accuse me of doing exactly that. No, the attack was unprovoked. You seem to think embargoes to stop the extraordinarily violent expansion of a country allied with Hitler (who was seen as one of the greatest threats ever face with the outbreak of full conflict in Europe) is not allowed. Now, I'm not sure what imperialistic actions the US took in the decade preceding Pearl Harbor, but I'd love to know of one that came in direct conflict with Japanese expansion.
Yeah, I've studied a bit about Japanese/ US relations. It probably has something to do with the fact that I've spent most my adult life living in Japan working here and have always been interested in how cultures progress over time. I find many arguments that blame the US for the break out of war in the Pacific to be pretty poor arguments hardly based in fact and definitely ignoring the political landscape in Europe that led to several decisions the US made in regards to Japan.
when said nation is being discouraged for rampaging across other soveriegn nations, enslaving their population, yeah. According to the Japanese, they declared war to try recover those supplies to continue their war in China and Korea. You probably should learn why the oil supplies were being cut. Along with rampant expansion throughout east asia, Japan was a strong supporter of Hitler. I support not trading with a country that keeps friends like that and does what it did.
what exactly are you referring to wtih the japanese? oh, you mean an unprovoked attack by an imperialistic country taht led to them getting most of their country and culture wiped out.....
uh, generally it was a teen girl paired with a much older, financially responsible man. It just happens that in teh last 50 years, most of the world has rebelled again a 14 year old girl getting married to a 25 year old guy. The girl still isn't/wasn't a viable, independent financial entity but she does have a husband who is/was theoretically at that level.
so you're kind of comparing two different social structures.
you do realize that for the first 180 years of the US's history, we never kept a large standing army. This was only first considered after the rise of communism in Russia(as I didn't live through the time, I'll accept it as a credible threat) and its need had ended with the fall of another major power with a large standing army threatening war.
So it just may be rational for you to wonder why the US wasn't ever conquered for all those years that it lacked a large standing army. It used to be standard that the military was mobilized on an "need" basis rather than being constantly mobilized.
Do we need millions of ground troops ready to go at the drop of a pin? depends on if you think there is some country with a large standing military that is prepping for war. Of course, right now we are involved in 2 wars so the discussion of reducing the military will have to wait for some time. But it would serve you well to consider the many countries with small or non-existent standing armies around the world that have not been conquered.
Now, there are arguments to be made as to why, given modern warfare tactics, it may be meaningful to keep a larger standing army that we did before WWII, it is hard to believe you ever began to think about those things with your response(granted, I'm not saying the GP every insinuated a deeper thought about the place of the military in a country).
see, this is the problem with a mac fan, you think that someone actually wants the parts just how apple give them. I know its hard for you, but try to imagine this isn't my first computer and most of those gadgets I already own. But, because those parts aren't optional on a mac, I don't give apple bonus points for doubling what I already own. I don't buy something saying, "well they tried to give me something I needed. I mean, I'll pay for it even though I don't".
1. I don't want a built in mic at all
2. I have no use for blue tooth because a phone I bought 2 years ago came with it. But I coudl buy it for 25 bucks if I wanted one.
3. graphics was the 7950 GT
4. This was about 4 months ago, ish
5. I've had a webcam for about 18 months, but I also don't need one because I got a new one 6 months ago as a going away present.
6. a remote is fucking worthless for what I use my computer for, I have a mac book and have never, not even once, used the remote
7. I have no way to compare monitors but my monitor was 400 bucks retail(though there was a sale going on at this particular store so I picked it up at ~340, and this was the only store putting it on sale). the model is at IO Data, AD-194VB. I have a widescreen model as well because I saved so much on the computer.
8. The mac towers are only now quad core. they weren't all quad core 4 months ago.
now, even after buying a second monitor, I have over 600 bucks left over. I'm comparing with the tower now, which is at least 2500 bucks w/o monitor, much less dual monitors. I'm quote happy with my monitor so I'd get the same one for a mac tower if I had bought one. Just the box, I'm at half the price, far more powerful than any iMac I could have gotten, and with my use of the computer, close enough to a mac tower at the time.
now, my machine is quiet, just a hum I don't mind. I prefer its form simply because I'm not lugging it around everywhere. The form makes it easier to upgrade when I feel like I need to make my machine more powerful rather than buy a new one.
so wait, what did I trade again compared to the mac?? I can now use my money to get a KMV switch and start using my macbook as a dual screen machine as well.
very true, because I only took it down 1 notch. score:
odie_q : 1
gordo3000: 0
in my defense, I had originally written 2 for both, and then afterwards realized that at the time of purchase, it was only one notch down(though I knew there would soon be a release of another higher end system..)
actually, far cheaper,
I got a just sub top end machine for 1500 bucks, 19 inch monitor and all. by top end, the only things I didn't get at the penultimate were the video card and processor. those I took down by 2 adn 1 notch repsectively(because Intel still doubles the cost to get the best out there). and I guess I skimped 80 bucks and only got 1 gb of ram so far. Granted, I'm happy to get a computer where for 1500 bucks I'm near the top end and can easily upgrade it at any time with easy to access parts.
I don't understand how you can consider a mac comparable to that in price. and I know as performance goes it competes in the mid mac towers.
Now, what didn't I get with it: firewire, built in mic, built in wi fi. of those, I wanted a mic which will cost me 100 bucks. but this is because I want a wireless one so I can use skype like a wireless phone and cook or do house chores while talking online. I would need this with a mac even so there is no loss.
man, your township sucks. thanks for the story though. It means I have a much bigger reason to push for the adoption of open source software in my town. I guess luckily my town is small enough that they won't take electronic submissions(or if they do, its more like I email it to someone so as long as its a standard format its alright).
I think at the extent your area has reached, its more than unreasonable to require you to submit in MS 2000 + formats. its very unreasonable for your sign up costs to be upwards of 1000$ besides the taxes they will take from you.
Thanks for the detailed post. I don't know if you were annoyed by my response, but honestly, I've never encountered anything like that....
no, what I mean to imply, though obviously not well (after reading my own words) was this correlation:
Net Neutrality becomes issue
Republicans get solicited by ISP's and other business's that it is a bad thing
Without even attempting to get a clue form a 3rd party source, blindly follow what the pro's in the business say.
So I would be surprised that the republicans would actually take a stand in favor of the consumer. It can mean one of two things:
A republican with a clue actually made his own decision before corporates realized they should be lobbying
or more likely(which is sad to say) a lucky shot for the people of texas
I'm not saying democrats are any better at this mind you. Just that republicans seem to favor business interests when being lobbied far more than any other group.
well, after the republican showing in the net neutrality bills in front of congress its surprising they would take a stand in the realm of technology that could help the people and promote freedom.
what kind of interaction do you have with the government? There are a ton of programs that interact cleanly with office documents(definitely to the extent that you can extract all the information you need to run your business at no hassle). Are you revising government documents that require you to beable to share changes and updates on the documents? at that point, its a question of which software best provides for said interaction. If you are willing to merely highlight and modify the document and then send it back, you can do this just as easily with open office (along with a nice feature of exporting to pdf, which generally is seen as a more professional looking document).
.doc format and then converts those files to pdf for you to send off to employers. How wasteful. It forces me to use MS office purely to make sure I get a clean export to .pdf when there are tons of tools I can use myself to do just that from any editor I want. That is a tax I hate to pay(and never will) and that directly puts me at a severe disadvantage in the job hunt out of college.
keep in mind this is how I do all my work I need to do from home. Now, I am strongly against both forms of monopolistic practices we are seeing in the market right now. But I don't see the distinction as clearly. Now what really pisses me off are things like Ecareers (not sure if this is everywhere,but my school used it to match up employers and employees). It requires uploads in the MS
depends, I've never had a problem opening MS office documents. in school I could get it for "free" and open office reads the file format just fine. so actually, unless something changes with MS's format, its a worse lock in than ITMS DRM(because I have a variety of "players" to access it, rather than having to bootstrap something together..)
now, before 2 years ago, I don't think open office could handle MS office documents correctly, but lately I haven't had any problems at all....
you're wrong!!
I've seen at least 500 separate tests of this hypothesis, all involving a wise old owl. adn the answer was always three. I mean, my god!!! sigma = 0.