The norm for the world of this era was "slaughter the other". In the Muslim world the norm was "oppress the other a bit but otherwse leave them be". Sure you can point to examples of Muslims treating non-muslims poorly if you rate them by the standards of today. If you rate them by the standards of history then Muslims come out amazingly tolerant.
Of course both Microsoft and Sony did not have major network problems outside the norm during their latest console launchings. Did you not read the article and just assumed "launch problems" meant "network problems"? In fact, one of the actuall, sited launch problems was the fact that the Xbox one cost more due to extra hardware being forced on customers. Guess what your idea would do?
So, again, your "solution" does not do much to solve any problems
(I'll just ignore your condescending and rambling second paragraph where you just put words in my mouth)
You missed my point. What you propose is a non solution because it has no relevence for games released after a console's launch which are going to make up the vast majority of most collections.
You're idea is terrible on top of terrible. You, yourself, point out the very onbvious problem of people hacking the games stored. Add onto that the fact that every system ever has launched with only a few quality games with the rest as garbage. I mean really, almost all of a console's quality content comes out after launch. How could this ever be a solution to anything?
You're being condescending by standing on high as an enlightened soul and personalising your responces to the individual (which is why you're getting hostile responces). Whose to say what choices i make in this context? I certainly havent stated how i personally behave. What i'm advocating for though is policy that deals with human nature as it is, not as we'd like it to be. It doesnt take much of a look at history to tell you that if you base policy on the way people "should be" rather then how they really are you're pretty much doomed to failure.
Basically, I'm siting human history to support my claim and you're name calling
Petty and weak retort (not to mention condescending). His point is spot on. Your solution to humanity's problems seems to be we all have to become saints. Hasnt that been the goal of almost every major religion since civization began? Don't get me wrong, it's a noble ideal but humanity has made zero progress on this over the course of its history. What little "progress" you can point to is a function of wealth, take that away and we regress. History is full of examples of this.
Working within the bounds of our limitations is infinitly more practicle then waiting for some sort of progress. Your solution seems to me like giving up physical infastructure to support our economies since someday science will let us transcend our bodies and live us pure energy.
So then Marx was right all along and everyone else was the problem? After all what you seem to describe is what Marx laid out as necessary for communism to work.
I dont think that's all that silly of an assumption for comparing Western nations. They lead pretty similiar lifestyles.
Also, I specifically chose the metric i chose because while a country's unemployment rate is easy to find it's terrible for comparisons between countries. The ratio i chose was still easy to find data on as it has recently become a fashionable measurement amoung economists for doing exactly what i was doing. Was it the very best option i could have chosen to support my claim? Probably not but it was easy to find data for a ton of countries all at once and it is accurate enough to make my claim with. I'm not interested in sorting through a bunch of economic data on a couple dozen countries to bolster my arguement in an internet forum.
Basically, what i chose was good enough for the context.
As for the rest, as i'm sure you saw in the follow up comment, I poorly assumed that because it was an older article that the only person who would be replying was the person i had replied to earlier. My mistake and ignore all the non applicable junk i said.
Yes i mentioned there was no perfect metric but it can be safely assumed that the those working extreme scenarios of improbably short work weeks are probably going to be similar between countries (congradulations on reading the whole wiki btw). It's still one hell of a better metric then "unemployment rate" which has a different deffinition for every country. Is some one who has no job and hasnt looked for worked in 4 weeks really not unemployed?
As for the rest of your post, you're posting a bunch of data with no conclusion. Where's the comparison to countries more socialist then us since that's what we're talking about? The qoute you've posted is literally meaningless in the context of our discussion without a basis of comparison.
I said there are allot of countries more socialist then ours doing alright, you said no. I posted data supporting my conclusion and you posted total hours worked in the US. How is that a contradiction?
There are a ton of ways to gauge economic performance but in the interest of not spending hours writing this and siting sources i'm going to choose the ratio of those employed versus the total population of a country as evidence that quite a few European countries are doing at least reasonably well economically speaking. I am choosing this number over unemployment rate as it is much harder to fudge and doesnt exclude parts of the population like in the US where people who are not working and havent looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not included.
In going over the data you will find the US at a ratio of 67.4 which is not bad. On the other hand though, you will find a ton of European countries (outside of the South of course) and Canada with rates in the 70s which strongly suggests they are at least doing alright economically speaking (not to mention it contradicts the American conservative "wisdom" that socialism disincentivizes people from working)
There are a ton of metrics that can be brought to bare when gauging a country's economic prosperity, some will show the US as top dog economically speaking and others a bit less so (like the fact that Canada has a more rebust middle class then us). In using this one single point, however, I do feel i've established that quite a few countries more socialist then us are doing at least alright economically speaking.
Your point only holds for swing states. For most of the states it literally doesnt matter who you vote for because your state will always go red or blue.
Our lovely electoral system makes sure that in most states your individual vote for president doesnt matter
I thought the same thing at first myself but I'm starting to think that if he hasnt flared out yet it isnt going to happen. This is a very different election then what we've seen in quite some time and i think Trump is tapping into allot of the frustrations people on the Right are having with thier party.
It wasnt Socialism itself that killed Greece, there are plenty of countries that are doing fine in the world that are roughly as socialist as Greece is.
Greece's problem wasnt the tool, it was how they used it. If you hit your thumb with a hammer it's not the hammer's fault that you werent using it right. This is why, aside from the South, most of Europe is doing reasonably well economically speaking.
Practicality doesnt enter into this. The Death Star was a terror weapon and with its ability to blow up planets, about as good as they come. They even spell this out for the viewer in Episode IV: A New Hope when one of the senior imperials goes on at length about fear of the space station keeping systems in line.
A typo on an internet forum! Thank god you were here to make sure all of us were aware of this author's most grievous of sins. Clearly the author wasn't taking seriously the grave responsibility that comes with posting in an internet forum! Oh when will the Slashdot editors take resposible action and delete this post as we all know the most insignificant of errors that can easily be read around completely invalidates a point.
Or in other words, go post in another forum and let the adults talk here.
Adding an extra week does seem uncalled for but how does that tie into using "except"? It sounds like you thought that was a counter point to what i said?
Yeah, Liberal here and I dont think a childs life should be ruined because they did something dumb and childish. Yes the kid should be punished and the suspension seems reasonable, but forcing the kid to change school and threatening them with felony charges because of one tweet is massive overkill.
Also, the meaning of the word "actually" in this context is the same as "literally", meaning that the tweet was not a joke no matter what the kid tweeting intended.
So it's not a joke if someone implies that what they're saying is true? Do you even know what a joke is?
Whether its a smart watch or an old mechanical, all watches are highly reduntant except as jewelry. So far smart watches look like cheap calculator watches from the 80's which makes them a fail for anything other then fullfilling the need to have the latest gadget.
Any day of the week i will take a finally produced piece of jewlery (what a watch basically is in the 21st century) over a lame fad that at first glance looks like a cheap piece of garbage on my wrist and does nothing usefull that my cell doesnt do better.
The first time i saw an Apple watch on someone's wrist i honestly thought they were wearing an ironic throwback time piece. Then i realized they were wearing an expensive, highly redundant, cheap looking piece of trash.
The article uses the term "sexist" in its title as a hook. I would hope most people would be sharp enough to realise it's probably not being used in a literal sense when they first read it.
Slashdot Mirror
The norm for the world of this era was "slaughter the other". In the Muslim world the norm was "oppress the other a bit but otherwse leave them be". Sure you can point to examples of Muslims treating non-muslims poorly if you rate them by the standards of today. If you rate them by the standards of history then Muslims come out amazingly tolerant.
Um, because it's the most applicable data to the subject. Using this data is better than implementing a solution that doesnt have a problem to solve.
Of course both Microsoft and Sony did not have major network problems outside the norm during their latest console launchings. Did you not read the article and just assumed "launch problems" meant "network problems"? In fact, one of the actuall, sited launch problems was the fact that the Xbox one cost more due to extra hardware being forced on customers. Guess what your idea would do?
So, again, your "solution" does not do much to solve any problems
(I'll just ignore your condescending and rambling second paragraph where you just put words in my mouth)
You missed my point. What you propose is a non solution because it has no relevence for games released after a console's launch which are going to make up the vast majority of most collections.
You're idea is terrible on top of terrible. You, yourself, point out the very onbvious problem of people hacking the games stored. Add onto that the fact that every system ever has launched with only a few quality games with the rest as garbage. I mean really, almost all of a console's quality content comes out after launch. How could this ever be a solution to anything?
You're being condescending by standing on high as an enlightened soul and personalising your responces to the individual (which is why you're getting hostile responces). Whose to say what choices i make in this context? I certainly havent stated how i personally behave. What i'm advocating for though is policy that deals with human nature as it is, not as we'd like it to be. It doesnt take much of a look at history to tell you that if you base policy on the way people "should be" rather then how they really are you're pretty much doomed to failure.
Basically, I'm siting human history to support my claim and you're name calling
Petty and weak retort (not to mention condescending). His point is spot on. Your solution to humanity's problems seems to be we all have to become saints. Hasnt that been the goal of almost every major religion since civization began? Don't get me wrong, it's a noble ideal but humanity has made zero progress on this over the course of its history. What little "progress" you can point to is a function of wealth, take that away and we regress. History is full of examples of this.
Working within the bounds of our limitations is infinitly more practicle then waiting for some sort of progress. Your solution seems to me like giving up physical infastructure to support our economies since someday science will let us transcend our bodies and live us pure energy.
So then Marx was right all along and everyone else was the problem? After all what you seem to describe is what Marx laid out as necessary for communism to work.
I dont think that's all that silly of an assumption for comparing Western nations. They lead pretty similiar lifestyles.
Also, I specifically chose the metric i chose because while a country's unemployment rate is easy to find it's terrible for comparisons between countries. The ratio i chose was still easy to find data on as it has recently become a fashionable measurement amoung economists for doing exactly what i was doing. Was it the very best option i could have chosen to support my claim? Probably not but it was easy to find data for a ton of countries all at once and it is accurate enough to make my claim with. I'm not interested in sorting through a bunch of economic data on a couple dozen countries to bolster my arguement in an internet forum.
Basically, what i chose was good enough for the context.
As for the rest, as i'm sure you saw in the follow up comment, I poorly assumed that because it was an older article that the only person who would be replying was the person i had replied to earlier. My mistake and ignore all the non applicable junk i said.
Oops, sorry. I assumed a post on an article this old would only come from the person i replied to. My point till more or less hold though.
Yes i mentioned there was no perfect metric but it can be safely assumed that the those working extreme scenarios of improbably short work weeks are probably going to be similar between countries (congradulations on reading the whole wiki btw). It's still one hell of a better metric then "unemployment rate" which has a different deffinition for every country. Is some one who has no job and hasnt looked for worked in 4 weeks really not unemployed?
As for the rest of your post, you're posting a bunch of data with no conclusion. Where's the comparison to countries more socialist then us since that's what we're talking about? The qoute you've posted is literally meaningless in the context of our discussion without a basis of comparison.
I said there are allot of countries more socialist then ours doing alright, you said no. I posted data supporting my conclusion and you posted total hours worked in the US. How is that a contradiction?
Except... that's not true.
There are a ton of ways to gauge economic performance but in the interest of not spending hours writing this and siting sources i'm going to choose the ratio of those employed versus the total population of a country as evidence that quite a few European countries are doing at least reasonably well economically speaking. I am choosing this number over unemployment rate as it is much harder to fudge and doesnt exclude parts of the population like in the US where people who are not working and havent looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not included.
Here is my source data: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
In going over the data you will find the US at a ratio of 67.4 which is not bad. On the other hand though, you will find a ton of European countries (outside of the South of course) and Canada with rates in the 70s which strongly suggests they are at least doing alright economically speaking (not to mention it contradicts the American conservative "wisdom" that socialism disincentivizes people from working)
There are a ton of metrics that can be brought to bare when gauging a country's economic prosperity, some will show the US as top dog economically speaking and others a bit less so (like the fact that Canada has a more rebust middle class then us). In using this one single point, however, I do feel i've established that quite a few countries more socialist then us are doing at least alright economically speaking.
Your point only holds for swing states. For most of the states it literally doesnt matter who you vote for because your state will always go red or blue.
Our lovely electoral system makes sure that in most states your individual vote for president doesnt matter
Trump will flame out sooner or later, he has too.
I thought the same thing at first myself but I'm starting to think that if he hasnt flared out yet it isnt going to happen. This is a very different election then what we've seen in quite some time and i think Trump is tapping into allot of the frustrations people on the Right are having with thier party.
It wasnt Socialism itself that killed Greece, there are plenty of countries that are doing fine in the world that are roughly as socialist as Greece is.
Greece's problem wasnt the tool, it was how they used it. If you hit your thumb with a hammer it's not the hammer's fault that you werent using it right. This is why, aside from the South, most of Europe is doing reasonably well economically speaking.
There's nothing wrong with judging our political system in a global context. Our country doesnt exist in a vacume after all.
Well i'm glad you've made such a bold contribution to the conversation.
Practicality doesnt enter into this. The Death Star was a terror weapon and with its ability to blow up planets, about as good as they come. They even spell this out for the viewer in Episode IV: A New Hope when one of the senior imperials goes on at length about fear of the space station keeping systems in line.
A typo on an internet forum! Thank god you were here to make sure all of us were aware of this author's most grievous of sins. Clearly the author wasn't taking seriously the grave responsibility that comes with posting in an internet forum! Oh when will the Slashdot editors take resposible action and delete this post as we all know the most insignificant of errors that can easily be read around completely invalidates a point.
Or in other words, go post in another forum and let the adults talk here.
Adding an extra week does seem uncalled for but how does that tie into using "except"? It sounds like you thought that was a counter point to what i said?
Yeah, Liberal here and I dont think a childs life should be ruined because they did something dumb and childish. Yes the kid should be punished and the suspension seems reasonable, but forcing the kid to change school and threatening them with felony charges because of one tweet is massive overkill.
Also, the meaning of the word "actually" in this context is the same as "literally", meaning that the tweet was not a joke no matter what the kid tweeting intended.
So it's not a joke if someone implies that what they're saying is true? Do you even know what a joke is?
Whether its a smart watch or an old mechanical, all watches are highly reduntant except as jewelry. So far smart watches look like cheap calculator watches from the 80's which makes them a fail for anything other then fullfilling the need to have the latest gadget.
A "clearly inferior product"?
Any day of the week i will take a finally produced piece of jewlery (what a watch basically is in the 21st century) over a lame fad that at first glance looks like a cheap piece of garbage on my wrist and does nothing usefull that my cell doesnt do better.
The first time i saw an Apple watch on someone's wrist i honestly thought they were wearing an ironic throwback time piece. Then i realized they were wearing an expensive, highly redundant, cheap looking piece of trash.
The article uses the term "sexist" in its title as a hook. I would hope most people would be sharp enough to realise it's probably not being used in a literal sense when they first read it.