I want to like blimps, but the Hindenburg shows just how bad an accident could get.
I want to like space travel, but the Columbia shuttle incident shows just how bad an accident could get.
I want to like sex, but AIDS shows just how bad an accident could get.
I mean, seriously, are you honestly trying to make this sort of argument? In the development of any technology or process, mistakes are made, and they are learned from. Are you under the impression that there's never been a fatal accident at a coal-based power plant, in the history of their development? Are you under the impression that there have never been accidents with dams? With the development of air travel? Space travel?
Here's a news flash for you: production of energy, at its most basic level, involves the harnessing of an exothermic -- or at least exergonic -- reaction, either chemical or nuclear, at some level or another. This essentially means that if you are dealing with large amounts of energy all concentrated in one place, there always remains the distinct possibility that it could all blow up in your face.
This is true of every single energy production method that actually generates large amounts of energy in a small space. Wind and solar aren't dangerous because the amount of energy generated per square foot is very small; and this is exactly what makes them (at this point in time) unworkable solutions for large scale energy production.
For everything else, you're dealing with potentially explosive, volatile (but hopefully controlled) chemical or nuclear reactions. That's how you get the energy out of them. (Fusion may be an exception).
However, despite the fact that your car runs by constantly harnessing the energy produced by an exploding gasoline/air mixture, it itself doesn't explode. Why is this? Engineering. See, despite the fact that gasoline is volatile (less so now than fuels used in the past, when combustion engines were first being developed) we have figured out how to stabilize engines running on them. They don't blow up in your face. But I'm willing to bet you that when people were first messing around with driving pistons by explosive force, someone got hurt. It was inevitable. It's part of the process.
Look, no one likes accidents, but the Chernobyl thing is silly to bring up. In terms of design, it's like comparing modern cars to Pintos, and concluding that every car will behave that way in an accident -- but Chernobyl, like the Pinto, was flawed from an engineering perspective, not from a technology perspective. When the Pinto was recalled, people didn't say, "Man, this automobile technology is bunk, let's never use it again, and use pogosticks for transportation from now on", they said, "Damn, Ford sure fucked up the design of that car. Let's never design cars like that again."
Throw in the word nuclear, and suddenly, everyone is saying, "Yeah, Chernobyl was poorly designed, and to boot, the operators were running it in a deliberately unsafe manner, and there was an accident; so let's stop the development of nuclear energy completely, and just use our radioactive reserves to build weapons of mass destruction instead." I mean, WHAT?
If someone had suggested that same idea wrt to automobile technology right after the Pinto incident, people would have rightly thought he was looney. But if it's nu-cu-lar, well, darn! I guess that logic makes perfect sense!
Nevermind that current reactor designs are completely different from Chernobyl's, and that the same accident would not be possible again, even if they tried.
Yeah, let's just kill the most promising means of producing renewable, clean energy because, during early development of the engineering principles needed to control such a powerful reaction, an accident occured. Let's wax lyrical about wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power solutions solving all our problems when a) they don't scale b) are prohibitively expensive and c) have problems
Shhh. Everyone knows AIDS is a disease only faggots get. Didn't you get the memo?
Good, god-fearing Americans abstain from casual sex. That's why information regarding birth control and condoms doesn't need to be taught in school.
Yes, my friend, faggot-sex will be the end of America as we know it. Luckily, George Bush has a plan to save the butt pirates. Through love, Jesus Christ, and make-you-straight boot-camp, we will teach these homos to do what's right for America, Jesus, and themselves.
Or we'll kill them, I guess. That works too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch NASCAR.
The generally quoted figure is 1 in 10, or 10%. How this figure is determined, I'm not sure -- it's meant to include people that are in the closet, so my guess is that they looked at how many people were out of the closet and then looked at how "acceptable" homosexuality was in the sample area and tried to extrapolate. I wouldn't count on this number being much more than a ballpark estimate.
However, anecdotaly, I would say that 10% is probably very close to the truth. Something about me (maybe I'm a little bit feminine, who knows) makes me pretty attractive to gay men, and I get hit on a lot (which doesn't bother me). At any rate, a lot of said gay guys are closet cases. 10% of men, at least, is pretty much in line with my personal experiences. This was as true in California as it has been in much more homophobic areas (for example, China).
I have no idea about lesbians, obviously, since they don't hit on me. Not to mention that women in general seem to be less direct than men when it comes to indicating their interest.
I think a lot of gay men would agree with this anecdotal calculation, too. One of my housemates in college was gay and he tended to hook up with straight-acting closeted guys, and to hear him talk, 10% might have even been conservative. He certainly did bring home a lot of macho seeming guys (football players and the like) that I would have never thought were gay, and my gaydar is pretty good for a straight guy.
At any rate, if 10% is an overestimate, 1-2% is most definitely an underestimate. Take my word for it. If only 1 or 2 in 100 randomly sampled males took a look at my ass, life would be a lot more boring.
Of course it's worth noting that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are two ends of a sexuality continuum, with most people falling somewhere in between. So who knows? How do bisexuals figure into all of this?
You might be able to make a sort of semi-argument when it comes to the four years spent in high school -- although that girl with the purple hair that couldn't pass math but could draw incredibly well and spent most of her junior year on acid might disagree with you -- but let's look at life later on, shall we?
I mean come on, essentially no one values art, literature, or anything like that. At least someone with a CS or Engineering degree can get a job. Don't come back with some Indian outsourcing bullshit; try living as a painter or musician for a while and see how well you fare.
In high school, unless you were a jock-type, you got pounded on. In the corporate world, unless you're a business type, you get pounded on. That's how it works.
In general, the extremely intelligent and gifted -- regardless of what field they prefer -- are intimidating to those that lack the same talents. Since life is essentially a popularity contest, only those that have the luck of both being extremely talented and extremely good at not making the less talented feel stupid are going to succeed.
When you're really smart, not making other people feel stupid is hard work, since folks generally are wont to feel inferior.
Computer geeks are particularly bad at this because they, unlike most other kinds of smart people, have a tendency to overestimate their own intelligence and believe that they are unique in the world, rather like you're doing at this very moment.
But as a mathematician, let me bat you with a cluestick: Math, Physics and CS are not inherently more complex or difficult than art or literature. The funny thing about science-geeks is they often feel like they're better than everyone else because they can do something other people can't do easily. They're rather like jocks in this respect. Someone who can draw or write well also can do something that most people don't do well, and yet he rarely starts acting arrogant about it. Funny, isn't it?
The misunderstood artist, author, or musician is just as ostracized and lonely as you are. Just because he can get laid doesn't mean society accepts him or feels that his contributions are worth supporting.
My personal impression of Hong Kong (disclaimer: I do not live there, I live on the mainland) has always been that it's a place where personal freedoms are quite well guaranteed. It was voted freest society in the world a number of times in a row by some organization or other (I can't remember which, but there was a Slashdot article about it some time ago, and I can't be bothered to look it up, haha).
I think things have arguably improved for the locals since the Brits were booted in 97. Now that the local Chinese (with the exception of Tung Chee Hwa, who can suck it) are in charge of their own city, Hong Kong is a clean and beautiful place, the harbour doesn't have so much trash floating in it, the air is clean, etc. Labour rights are still shitty, but that's Libertarianism for you.
I was there the weekend before last and there was a huge demonstration in support of the Falung Gong in Kowloon, complete with pictures of people tortured and a recorded voice saying "Shame on you, Jiang Zi Min" in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin. Pretty gruesome stuff. They'd written all the posters in Simplified Characters, so it was clear they were targeting mainland tourists with the information.
There was no security police that showed up to stop them.
When Tung Chee Hwa tried to implement Article 23 of the basic law, there were demonstrations of the sort HK has never seen. He had to back down.
I very much doubt Beijing will force the Hong Kong issue, to be honest. Shanghai will overtake Hong Kong as the financial capital of Asia in a few years, and protecting Hong Kong's civil liberties gives them much face in the eyes of the west. It's too easy to do.
It's actually to Pudong International Airport, which is one of the two airports in Shanghai (the other being Hongqiao, which while smaller and serving fewer international flights, is an international airport).
As an aside, I love the thing. It costs 50 RMB (40 RMB with a plane ticket) -- that's $6.25 USD, roughly -- and it gets you from the Long Yang Lu subway station to the airport in 8 minutes. For comparison, the 12 RMB bus that does the same route (without stopping) takes 45 minutes or more. But then, 431 kmph will do that.
While faster, it isn't as smooth as the TGV. Sadly. Those germans, you know (they designed the maglev). They build great, fast trains, but just can't do the comfort thing the way the French do. Just look at the ICE. Technically, it can go faster than the TGV (if only they'd lay proper rails), but it just shakes around and isn't fun at all.
The TGV, well, it usually doesn't cruise at more than 320 kmph, but it feels like you're floating. Mmm. SNCF baby, I love you!
Now, I spent a large amount of my life in Silicon Valley and now live in Shanghai. I will admit that Jan Wong is being selective in her praise; she talks about a lot of good stuff and ignores the bad (and there's a lot of bad).
But I hate to tell you this, pretty much everything she said really is better here. Since I lived in Palo Alto for 15 years, I think I should be pretty qualified to make the comparison.
You seem to discount a lot of the ways that China is better by simply saying "That's a function of Free Market vs. Socialism". This tells me two things: one, you aren't aware of how extremely the free market influences things here (hint, in a place like Shanghai it's comparable to the US) and two, you seem to assume that "Free Market > Socialism, therefore if a benefit is derived from a Socialist system, it must be inferior to the one derived from the Free Market system, even if that is demonstratably false."
Let's take your transit debit card thing. Now, ignoring for a moment that public transportation is publicly subsidized in Silicon Valley, and thus not substantially different from the Chinese case (except that I can't use my Bus Flash Pass on Caltrain, or vice versa), having a "transit card" is demonstratably more convenient than not having one.
Now, to refute your socialism comment, consider: we have social public transportation in the US (with the admitted exception of taxis, but then those companies are private in China too, surprise, surprise) and yet we have no public transport cards, though it would be easy to do and convenient to boot (at least, there are none in Silicon Valley, but I can't speak for the rest of the US). Furthermore, Hong Kong, which is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination (it is, essentially, a purely libertarian city-state, or was) has transit debit cards (the octopus card).
And your comment about "good service" in the states is just laughable. As any non-American who has been to the states (or any American who has spent much time abroad) will tell you, it is simply amazing what low standards of service Americans put up with (with the notable exception of extremely upscale places, where you pay through the nose for the privilege.)
In China, the smallest restaurant's waiters are polite, attentive (some Americans find them too attentive, but that's cultural) and don't expect to be tipped. Contrast that to the average American diner, where the waitress spills your coffee and gives you some napkins to clean it up yourself, doesn't appologize, and expects a tip no matter what (yeah, I know everyone says, if the service is bad, don't tip, but most people tip no matter what -- it's even included in the price in some restaurants -- and so theirs no actual negative feedback, it's just imagined).
And your cellphone coverage comment is just laughable. I mean, REALLY. I have never, ever had my cellphone cut out here, and I've been out in the boondocks. It works absolutely everywhere I go.
I mean, comparing the US to China in this respect is folly and you only look like an idiot when you do it.
Seriously, go to China. Or shut up, take your pick.
With respect, his anecdotal evidence and your anecdotal evidence are both irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence often is.
I know a number of intelligent Bush supporters, and I know a number of rather dumb Kerry-supporters. Dumb supporters on both sides of the equation are usually sheep. That is, they can't take the time to form their own political opinions, and so they absorb the opinions of those around them, and end up voting someone else's conscience.
The thing is, intelligent Bush supporters seem to fall into two camps. The wealthy elite support Bush because he serves their own interests; working in investment I know quite a number of them. They make more money when he's in office, and so voting for him is a no-brainer. These people aren't stupid, but their values are not in-line with the majority of the world's -- they live on a different planet.
The other group of intelligent Bush supporters are mostly middle class, educated white folks who aren't the wealthy elite but hope to be. They see the support of tax-cutting, wealthy-favoring government as being a long-term investment -- they're ambitious and expect to eventually be in a position to benefit from the political climate created by the GOP.
Now, with due respect, most people that don't fall into these two categories are sheep. Many of them superficially resemble the second group of intelligent supporters, in the sense that they support Bush's aid to the wealthy because they dream of being wealthy themselves someday -- it's the myth of the American dream, and its the cornerstone of American political and social rhetoric. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (based on social studies of social mobility in American society), people do believe that they can be born on the streets and lift themselves up to the top through hard work.
Unfortunately, the days of that being true are mostly behind us.
The sheep in this case, unlike their intelligent counterparts, don't truly understand the nature of the "fiscally conservative" measures being taken by the Party, but believe that, while they may be hurt in the short term, they will somehow live to see the benefits. They aspire to be wealthy landowning oil barons like Dubya. He represents what they want to be -- and why not? He seems like a simple guy, not overly intelligent or good looking, but just an average joe. If he can do it, why can't I? It's part of what makes him so popular. He seems just like you and me.
Of course, rather like Clinton (a Rhodes scholar who went to Oxford) and his affected southern drawl, it's all an act. Bush went to Yale, grew up in a rich political family, and is essentially the same kind of elitist bastard that made everyone (including myself) dislike Kerry so much. The difference is, Bush knew how to hide this from the American people, but Kerry didn't.
Now, Kerry supporters also can be easily divided into the intelligent and the, shall we say, less than intelligent. Among the poor and uneducated, people supporting the left probably think the idea of greater social benefits doesn't sound half bad, and we lefties make a point of using this to our advantage when trying to recruit votes. These people are no different in terms of education or wealth, essentially, than the "trailer trash Bush supporter" we all love to hate.
But they come overwhelmingly from minorities, and minorities, having been shafted by the system for generations, gobble up the myth of the American Dream with less readiness than poor whites from the midwest, who aren't constantly reminded that everyone in a position of power has a different skin color, ethnicity, or religion than they do.
My personal opinion in all of this is that idiots exist on both sides of the equation, and each party really knows how to play this to their advantage. Democrats play on the disenfranchised minority vote that would benefit most from social aid; Republicans play on the disenfranchised poor white vote by propogating the idea that "if you just wo
Also, don't confuse democracy with the bill of rights.
A political system that allows the people to choose its leaders or make decisions on issues may tend towards freedom, but this tendancy is not absolute. As Hermann Goering insightfully noted,
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
While any comparison of the state of affairs in the US today to the situation in Germany under the Third Reich is inappropriate, flaimbait and in violation of Godwin's Law, I think it's important to note that, regardless of how decisions are made, the powerful are in a unique position to influence the decisions of the electorate.
Democracy is most certainly a great and noble thing, and preferable to many of the other systems available, but it is not a panacea. In the US, we have a democratic republic founded on the principle of civil rights. It is this combination of values which the OP was projecting on the Chinese government, not democracy in itself.
For example, many democracies do not grant absolute freedom of speech, and some have attempted to censor hate speech on the internet when they felt it was appropriate.
What most people find reprehensible about Chinese government censorship is the combination of censorship and totalitarianism. Because arguably, if the French or Germans decide that they don't want their people looking at Nazi propaganda, say, it is with the consent of the people that this speech is censored.
A place that respects civil rights (or has historically, at any rate, and continues to do so today, despite the looming threat of crackdown) but is not democratic is Hong Kong.
I know you know all of this, but I think it's important that we use words in a manner consistant with their meaning, because there are exceptions to the generalization "all democracies are against censorship", and to its converse, "all governments against censorship are democracies."
Of course, whenever you say GNU/Linux, some Slashbot who doesn't realize that there is an important difference between the Linux kernel and the OS as a whole jumps on you for assisting RMS in his pinko crusade to steal Linus' credit.
If people on a board like Slashdot can't figure it out, how can we honestly expect PHBs to understand it?
say what you will but at least most Iraqis are glad the US invaded, and want us to stay for a while. oh, and we let them protest and practice their religion.
Friend, you must be joking. They aren't glad we invaded. As for freedom, they don't really have that, either. Ask them how free they are to support a non occupation-approved political faction, such as, for example, an Islamofacist one. Do you think US soldiers will wait around in an Iraqi warzone to see if, for example, a demonstration in favor of Al-Sadr will be peaceful or not? You kid yourself.
See, we think we know better. The South Vietnamese would have elected Ho Chi Minh, if we'd let them. But we must protect them from themselves!
Anyway, the comparison with the people of Iraq is a bad one. Better would be a comparison of the clash between US expansionist interests and the Native American Nations that occupied this land before our forefathers righteously claimed it for themselves. And even that isn't all that great, because our society didn't control or partially control those regions on and off for thousands of years.
I think you completely missed the point of my post, AC. I agree that Leviticus is completely irrelevant to most Christians. In fact, there's substantial evidence that it exists only in the Jewish canon as a guide for the sons of Aaron, which is generally interpreted to mean priests.
That's my whole point, in fact. Because the standard part of the Christian bible parroted by armchair Christians everywhere to support their homophobia is Leviticus 18:22. This is essentially the only passage in Leviticus that is widely sited as binding by such people, and so it begs the question: why is that they feel it is acceptable to discard the rest of Leviticus, and yet reference that one passage everytime Homosexuality comes up?
If they were truly Christians with a knowledge of the bible, they would know that Leviticus is considered by essentially everyone to be completely irrelevant, and would instead quote a more relevant, NT passage, such as Romans 1:26. But they don't, because most of these biggots haven't read the bible, or know much about the faith they profess to have. It is my firm belief that anyone that understands the spirit of the NT would realize that good Christians have no place judging others, as they will be judged by the almighty in time. Instead, they should ask themselves, WWJD? Unfortunately, they heed the answer to this question only when it falls in line with their narrow-minded interpretations of some of the most profound teachings ever introduced to man.
As has been aptly noted, "Even Satan may quote the Bible to his own ends." And to spread hatred, biggotry, lack of tolerance and strife are all stated goals of the Prince of Tyrus. How appropriate that so-called Christians should allow themselves to be tempted to fear what they do not understand, as the Judeans in JC's day feared the Lepers. How appropriate that they should quote irrelevant biblical passages to support their lack of tolerance, just as it used to be popular to equate black skin with the Mark of Cain when racial discrimination was the norm.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are simple and easily followed. An inspired reading of the NT will teach anyone this. People that claim to be Christians and attempt to shear the sheep they are meant to shepherd are truly doing Satan's work.
It is a well known fact that the NSDAP called itself Socialist to appeal to the large number of left-leaning Germans at the time. These were left-leaning for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
However, the NSDAP was never Socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Parties always call themselves things that make them sound good to voters.
The NSDAP was, essentially, fascist. We define people by their actions, not by their campaign promises. Hitler was ignored by the west because he was fanatically anti-communist and the west feared Stalin and the USSR, especially because the Soviet Union, thanks to its centrally planned micro-managed economy, was essentially completely unaffected by the Great Depression, and therefore was perceived as possibly having a leg up on everyone else.
I know that you know this, but saying that because the NSDAP stood for "National Socialist German Workers' Party" they were Social Democrats is like saying that because the "DPRK" stands for the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", North Korea is democratic.
Re:George Bush ignores the way of Christ
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Hi. Quoting Leviticus is stupid. Leviticus also includes such gems as "If you shave your beard you will be killed", "If you disobey your father you will be killed", and a whole host of dietary laws that are universally ignored by Christians of pretty much all denominations.
Catholics, who believe in the authority of the Pope, have a leg to stand on when they quote certain passages as being meaningful and discard others, because the Vicar of Christ has the authority in their Church to reinterpret the word of God. If you're protestant, you'll simply have to take it all or leave it all, or you're being hypocritical.
Anyway, didn't Jesus say that the new covenant replaces the old?
So, if you're going to use your faith -- a faith that preaches love, acceptance of others, and general tolerance (did Jesus shun the lepers?) -- to validate your own biggotry, at least quote the new testament. I'll even help you. Romans 1:26 has a passage which could be interpreted as anti-homosexual.
But as the parent said, WWJD? Did he shun the lepers or the whores? No, he didn't. He loved. You should do the same.
Why don't you actually read the bible sometime, instead of just parroting Jerry Falwell's talking points? There's holiness there, you know, but unless your mind is open you won't have the depth required to understand it.
I too am an expatriate. Currently I live in Asia but I've lived all over the world. Pretty much all expatriate Americans feel the way you do -- disenfranchised. I love America, but very few Americans have experienced what we have; heck, most of them are monoglots and don't even have a passport. It's hard for them to make good foreign policy a priority when they don't have any real experience with the effects of poor foreign policy, first hand. But I digress.
In 1996 I was an expat in Germany; I really like Germans. Good food, an appealingly expressive language, and very hospitable. I'd like to comment on their economic woes, though. It's true that Germany's economy is in a shambles at the moment, and has been for quite a while. Unemployment is high, people are leeching on welfare, etc. It's tempting to blame their generous social aid programs for this stagnancy, but don't fall into the trap.
Before the reunification, West Germany was, essentially, the economic engine of continental Europe. It was extremely wealthy and extremely dynamic, much as South Korea is today (more so, in fact).
When the Berlin wall came down, Germans made a pragmatic decision: in order to ensure that the former residents of East Germany did not become a hopelessly disenfranchised "serf" class in the new, reunited Germany -- due to their relative poverty -- West Germany decided that they would honor the Ostmark, the DDR's currency. They adopted the 1 DM = 1 OM plan.
What this meant was that the DDR's currency, essentially monopoly money with very little value, became equal in value to the Deutsch Mark, Europe's strongest currency, overnight. Obviously, the DM, and West Germany's economy, crashed just as East Germany's climbed, until they reached a sort of equilibrium.
Frankfurt has often been described as Europe's financial capital. Not surprisingly, given the huge numbers of economists and investment bankers that have their centers there. So it was not without understanding of the consequences of this radical decision the West German government went ahead with the plan. Germany has been in a slow recovery ever since.
But ultimately, it was decided that in a reunited Germany, a poverty-striken east would have created a tremendous burden on Germans anyway. This "redistribution of wealth" hurt the west, but revitalized the east -- as you probably know, Berlin is one of the most interesting, dynamic cities in Europe, and not just on the West side.
Give the Germans credit -- they decided that compassion was more important than progress, and they're paying the price for it now. Young Germans who were in primary school when the wall came down resent Germany's current slump and many feel the reunification was handled poorly. As with all things, looking back, we see the mistakes we might have been able to avoid but didn't.
But Germany will bounce back. Germans are hardworking and good at thinking out of the box. They are currently more involved in the burgeoning Chinese economy than anyone else in the West, and they got in on the ground floor. Volkswagen is arguably China's most popular car, Siemens builds China's trains, subway cars, and many of their mobile phones, and Deutsche Bank is one of the premier investment banks active in this part of the world.
Germany will bounce back. I have no doubt. But you can't seriously expect to reintegrate a country as messed up as the DDR was without at least a decade or two of economic and financial recovery. It was inevitable.
The existance of firmware is nothing new; all those old cards you had had firmware as well, but that firmware was on a flash memory chip on the card, and didn't need to be loaded at boot. But those chips cost money... so, they figured out that you can save a few bucks by not including them and instead loading it everytime.
Incidentally, ROM stands for Read Only Memory, so rewriteable ROM is something of an oxymoron. But I understood what you meant, I'm just letting you know.
You're right, I did not know the origin of the term before posting this, but many people in this thread have been thoughtful enough to point it out to me.
With all due respect, though, I'm not sure it's relevant. We can wax lyrical about the origins of racially insensitive language all we want. After all, nigger (not at all in the same class, I know) comes from a mispronunciation of the Spanish word "negro", which means black and was the socially acceptable way to refer to peoples of African descent for many generations in the US. Given this harmless etymology, does it make sense that it should be considered one of the most vulgar words in the English language?
You see, the thing about these kinds of terms is that it doesn't matter much where the term comes from; what matters is the way it's used. Let's turn this around for a moment. Have you ever been white in Asia? If so, you'll probably be familiar with the terms "gaijin", "waiguk", "laowai", "waiguoren", "guailoh", etc, depending on where you lived. Now (with the exception of perhaps guailoh), all of these terms just mean "foreigner" in their respective languages. Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with them.
What becomes an issue is the way they are used, you see. They are frequently used with an underlying current of sarcastic bitterness that serves to sting you if you're trying your best not to stand out like a sore thumb in a country where the majority of people don't look like you.
So, the "rice burner" story is interesting, and I believe you, and I'm glad you've educated me on this point. But, pointedly, it's irrelevant. Because when the term ricer is used, or at least in the contexts I've heard it, it uses a conspicuously distinguishable aspect of steryotypical east asian culture (the consumption of rice) and associates it with silly and uninspired modding of cheap cars.
I mean, calling Jews penny-pinching comes from the historical mandate in Europe that prevented non-Christians from being merchants, forcing Jews to enter the banking and money-lending professions. Based in fact; nonetheless tremendously insulting and generally not correct in this day and age.
As a final aside, if the Japanese were adding rice wine into their fuel to increase methanol content, I would be very concerned about them. Methanol is extremely toxic to humans and "rice wine" sounds like something (sake?) that people might actually want to drink. Perhaps you meant "ethanol"? I'm not a modder so this is an honest question.
My point was not that those cars came from Northern China; it was that saying "White Americans eat Potatoes as their staple food" is just as ignorant as saying "Asians eat rice as their staple food". The difference is that everyone white on Slashdot knows that the former is ignorant, but I would wager that a large number of non-Asians don't realize that actually much of East-Asia doesn't eat rice.
However, I will admit that in my head, I associated the term "ricer" with the people doing the modding, not with the cars themselves, and several people have pointed out in this thread that "ricer" actually (at least originally) refered to people that rode Japanese Motorcycles. I did not know this.
However, when I hear the term ricer it is usually directed at a young asian kid in a souped up automobile, not with the make of the car (although these admittedly are usually Hondas).
Anyway, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not telling you what to say or not to say. Of course you're welcome to use whatever terms you want. But consider that you might be insulting people without intending to.
Most of my white friends aren't racist, they're just insensitive. So think of my comment as being a heads up for people that might not have thought much about the use of the term.
If you have internalized my point and deemed it irrelevant, that's your perogative of course.
You know, I don't want to be always be the politically correct one, but the term ricer has always seemed inappropriate when coming out of a non-asian person's mouth.
Now, it does so happen that many "ricers" are asian, that the practice probably originated in west-coast asian-american subculture. It is likewise true that East Asians consume large amounts of rice, although this is not necessarily true of Asian Americans (many of whom are sadly about as out of touch with their culture of their ancestors as that white guy who says he's German-Irish-Italian).
But I guess it just seems crass to me to take a practice and associate it with the race that does it. It would be like calling Karaoke "Yellow Yodeling". Sure, it's funny, but I would imagine that for the vast majority of non-ricer Asian-Americans it might get tiring to constantly hear their ethnicity lampooned by non-asians who lack the sensitivity to seperate a culture from a steryotype.
But maybe that's just me. Personally, I wouldn't use this term.
After all, it really just is modding Asian imports. White americans have been modding American cars since the days of Henry Ford but we don't call them "potatoers" or whatever the staple white american food is.
Oh, I hear someone say, "Potatoes aren't the staple of white america! It's not the same!" Hey, did you know that in the vast majority of northern China, people don't eat rice? They eat mantou, I kind of bread, instead. Why? Because rice doesn't grow in subarctic climates.
Of course, they're all gooks and chinks to us, eh? Man I love ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to like blimps, but the Hindenburg shows just how bad an accident could get.
I want to like space travel, but the Columbia shuttle incident shows just how bad an accident could get.
I want to like sex, but AIDS shows just how bad an accident could get.
I mean, seriously, are you honestly trying to make this sort of argument? In the development of any technology or process, mistakes are made, and they are learned from. Are you under the impression that there's never been a fatal accident at a coal-based power plant, in the history of their development? Are you under the impression that there have never been accidents with dams? With the development of air travel? Space travel?
Here's a news flash for you: production of energy, at its most basic level, involves the harnessing of an exothermic -- or at least exergonic -- reaction, either chemical or nuclear, at some level or another. This essentially means that if you are dealing with large amounts of energy all concentrated in one place, there always remains the distinct possibility that it could all blow up in your face.
This is true of every single energy production method that actually generates large amounts of energy in a small space. Wind and solar aren't dangerous because the amount of energy generated per square foot is very small; and this is exactly what makes them (at this point in time) unworkable solutions for large scale energy production.
For everything else, you're dealing with potentially explosive, volatile (but hopefully controlled) chemical or nuclear reactions. That's how you get the energy out of them. (Fusion may be an exception).
However, despite the fact that your car runs by constantly harnessing the energy produced by an exploding gasoline/air mixture, it itself doesn't explode. Why is this? Engineering. See, despite the fact that gasoline is volatile (less so now than fuels used in the past, when combustion engines were first being developed) we have figured out how to stabilize engines running on them. They don't blow up in your face. But I'm willing to bet you that when people were first messing around with driving pistons by explosive force, someone got hurt. It was inevitable. It's part of the process.
Look, no one likes accidents, but the Chernobyl thing is silly to bring up. In terms of design, it's like comparing modern cars to Pintos, and concluding that every car will behave that way in an accident -- but Chernobyl, like the Pinto, was flawed from an engineering perspective, not from a technology perspective. When the Pinto was recalled, people didn't say, "Man, this automobile technology is bunk, let's never use it again, and use pogosticks for transportation from now on", they said, "Damn, Ford sure fucked up the design of that car. Let's never design cars like that again."
Throw in the word nuclear, and suddenly, everyone is saying, "Yeah, Chernobyl was poorly designed, and to boot, the operators were running it in a deliberately unsafe manner, and there was an accident; so let's stop the development of nuclear energy completely, and just use our radioactive reserves to build weapons of mass destruction instead." I mean, WHAT?
If someone had suggested that same idea wrt to automobile technology right after the Pinto incident, people would have rightly thought he was looney. But if it's nu-cu-lar, well, darn! I guess that logic makes perfect sense!
Nevermind that current reactor designs are completely different from Chernobyl's, and that the same accident would not be possible again, even if they tried.
Yeah, let's just kill the most promising means of producing renewable, clean energy because, during early development of the engineering principles needed to control such a powerful reaction, an accident occured. Let's wax lyrical about wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power solutions solving all our problems when a) they don't scale b) are prohibitively expensive and c) have problems
Honorably admitted, sir.
The face you lost in your (unwillful) spread of disinformation, you regained in your humble admission of defeat.
Kudos to you.
Shhh. Everyone knows AIDS is a disease only faggots get. Didn't you get the memo?
Good, god-fearing Americans abstain from casual sex. That's why information regarding birth control and condoms doesn't need to be taught in school.
Yes, my friend, faggot-sex will be the end of America as we know it. Luckily, George Bush has a plan to save the butt pirates. Through love, Jesus Christ, and make-you-straight boot-camp, we will teach these homos to do what's right for America, Jesus, and themselves.
Or we'll kill them, I guess. That works too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch NASCAR.
The generally quoted figure is 1 in 10, or 10%. How this figure is determined, I'm not sure -- it's meant to include people that are in the closet, so my guess is that they looked at how many people were out of the closet and then looked at how "acceptable" homosexuality was in the sample area and tried to extrapolate. I wouldn't count on this number being much more than a ballpark estimate.
However, anecdotaly, I would say that 10% is probably very close to the truth. Something about me (maybe I'm a little bit feminine, who knows) makes me pretty attractive to gay men, and I get hit on a lot (which doesn't bother me). At any rate, a lot of said gay guys are closet cases. 10% of men, at least, is pretty much in line with my personal experiences. This was as true in California as it has been in much more homophobic areas (for example, China).
I have no idea about lesbians, obviously, since they don't hit on me. Not to mention that women in general seem to be less direct than men when it comes to indicating their interest.
I think a lot of gay men would agree with this anecdotal calculation, too. One of my housemates in college was gay and he tended to hook up with straight-acting closeted guys, and to hear him talk, 10% might have even been conservative. He certainly did bring home a lot of macho seeming guys (football players and the like) that I would have never thought were gay, and my gaydar is pretty good for a straight guy.
At any rate, if 10% is an overestimate, 1-2% is most definitely an underestimate. Take my word for it. If only 1 or 2 in 100 randomly sampled males took a look at my ass, life would be a lot more boring.
Of course it's worth noting that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are two ends of a sexuality continuum, with most people falling somewhere in between. So who knows? How do bisexuals figure into all of this?
Here's a comment to a story on Slashdot from a few years ago that is kind of relevant.
Oh wow, you really are ignorant.
You might be able to make a sort of semi-argument when it comes to the four years spent in high school -- although that girl with the purple hair that couldn't pass math but could draw incredibly well and spent most of her junior year on acid might disagree with you -- but let's look at life later on, shall we?
I mean come on, essentially no one values art, literature, or anything like that. At least someone with a CS or Engineering degree can get a job. Don't come back with some Indian outsourcing bullshit; try living as a painter or musician for a while and see how well you fare.
In high school, unless you were a jock-type, you got pounded on. In the corporate world, unless you're a business type, you get pounded on. That's how it works.
In general, the extremely intelligent and gifted -- regardless of what field they prefer -- are intimidating to those that lack the same talents. Since life is essentially a popularity contest, only those that have the luck of both being extremely talented and extremely good at not making the less talented feel stupid are going to succeed.
When you're really smart, not making other people feel stupid is hard work, since folks generally are wont to feel inferior.
Computer geeks are particularly bad at this because they, unlike most other kinds of smart people, have a tendency to overestimate their own intelligence and believe that they are unique in the world, rather like you're doing at this very moment.
But as a mathematician, let me bat you with a cluestick: Math, Physics and CS are not inherently more complex or difficult than art or literature. The funny thing about science-geeks is they often feel like they're better than everyone else because they can do something other people can't do easily. They're rather like jocks in this respect. Someone who can draw or write well also can do something that most people don't do well, and yet he rarely starts acting arrogant about it. Funny, isn't it?
The misunderstood artist, author, or musician is just as ostracized and lonely as you are. Just because he can get laid doesn't mean society accepts him or feels that his contributions are worth supporting.
I would suggest you branch out a little bit.
Interesting.
My personal impression of Hong Kong (disclaimer: I do not live there, I live on the mainland) has always been that it's a place where personal freedoms are quite well guaranteed. It was voted freest society in the world a number of times in a row by some organization or other (I can't remember which, but there was a Slashdot article about it some time ago, and I can't be bothered to look it up, haha).
I think things have arguably improved for the locals since the Brits were booted in 97. Now that the local Chinese (with the exception of Tung Chee Hwa, who can suck it) are in charge of their own city, Hong Kong is a clean and beautiful place, the harbour doesn't have so much trash floating in it, the air is clean, etc. Labour rights are still shitty, but that's Libertarianism for you.
I was there the weekend before last and there was a huge demonstration in support of the Falung Gong in Kowloon, complete with pictures of people tortured and a recorded voice saying "Shame on you, Jiang Zi Min" in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin. Pretty gruesome stuff. They'd written all the posters in Simplified Characters, so it was clear they were targeting mainland tourists with the information.
There was no security police that showed up to stop them.
When Tung Chee Hwa tried to implement Article 23 of the basic law, there were demonstrations of the sort HK has never seen. He had to back down.
I very much doubt Beijing will force the Hong Kong issue, to be honest. Shanghai will overtake Hong Kong as the financial capital of Asia in a few years, and protecting Hong Kong's civil liberties gives them much face in the eyes of the west. It's too easy to do.
I doubt they will allow democracy there, though.
I would wager, sir, that he speaks your language considerably better than you speak his.
Do you even speak another language?
Didn't think so.
It's actually to Pudong International Airport, which is one of the two airports in Shanghai (the other being Hongqiao, which while smaller and serving fewer international flights, is an international airport).
As an aside, I love the thing. It costs 50 RMB (40 RMB with a plane ticket) -- that's $6.25 USD, roughly -- and it gets you from the Long Yang Lu subway station to the airport in 8 minutes. For comparison, the 12 RMB bus that does the same route (without stopping) takes 45 minutes or more. But then, 431 kmph will do that.
While faster, it isn't as smooth as the TGV. Sadly. Those germans, you know (they designed the maglev). They build great, fast trains, but just can't do the comfort thing the way the French do. Just look at the ICE. Technically, it can go faster than the TGV (if only they'd lay proper rails), but it just shakes around and isn't fun at all.
The TGV, well, it usually doesn't cruise at more than 320 kmph, but it feels like you're floating. Mmm. SNCF baby, I love you!
Amtrak, well.... Let's not go there.
Now, I spent a large amount of my life in Silicon Valley and now live in Shanghai. I will admit that Jan Wong is being selective in her praise; she talks about a lot of good stuff and ignores the bad (and there's a lot of bad).
But I hate to tell you this, pretty much everything she said really is better here. Since I lived in Palo Alto for 15 years, I think I should be pretty qualified to make the comparison.
You seem to discount a lot of the ways that China is better by simply saying "That's a function of Free Market vs. Socialism". This tells me two things: one, you aren't aware of how extremely the free market influences things here (hint, in a place like Shanghai it's comparable to the US) and two, you seem to assume that "Free Market > Socialism, therefore if a benefit is derived from a Socialist system, it must be inferior to the one derived from the Free Market system, even if that is demonstratably false."
Let's take your transit debit card thing. Now, ignoring for a moment that public transportation is publicly subsidized in Silicon Valley, and thus not substantially different from the Chinese case (except that I can't use my Bus Flash Pass on Caltrain, or vice versa), having a "transit card" is demonstratably more convenient than not having one.
Now, to refute your socialism comment, consider: we have social public transportation in the US (with the admitted exception of taxis, but then those companies are private in China too, surprise, surprise) and yet we have no public transport cards, though it would be easy to do and convenient to boot (at least, there are none in Silicon Valley, but I can't speak for the rest of the US). Furthermore, Hong Kong, which is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination (it is, essentially, a purely libertarian city-state, or was) has transit debit cards (the octopus card).
And your comment about "good service" in the states is just laughable. As any non-American who has been to the states (or any American who has spent much time abroad) will tell you, it is simply amazing what low standards of service Americans put up with (with the notable exception of extremely upscale places, where you pay through the nose for the privilege.)
In China, the smallest restaurant's waiters are polite, attentive (some Americans find them too attentive, but that's cultural) and don't expect to be tipped. Contrast that to the average American diner, where the waitress spills your coffee and gives you some napkins to clean it up yourself, doesn't appologize, and expects a tip no matter what (yeah, I know everyone says, if the service is bad, don't tip, but most people tip no matter what -- it's even included in the price in some restaurants -- and so theirs no actual negative feedback, it's just imagined).
And your cellphone coverage comment is just laughable. I mean, REALLY. I have never, ever had my cellphone cut out here, and I've been out in the boondocks. It works absolutely everywhere I go.
I mean, comparing the US to China in this respect is folly and you only look like an idiot when you do it.
Seriously, go to China. Or shut up, take your pick.
With respect, his anecdotal evidence and your anecdotal evidence are both irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence often is.
I know a number of intelligent Bush supporters, and I know a number of rather dumb Kerry-supporters. Dumb supporters on both sides of the equation are usually sheep. That is, they can't take the time to form their own political opinions, and so they absorb the opinions of those around them, and end up voting someone else's conscience.
The thing is, intelligent Bush supporters seem to fall into two camps. The wealthy elite support Bush because he serves their own interests; working in investment I know quite a number of them. They make more money when he's in office, and so voting for him is a no-brainer. These people aren't stupid, but their values are not in-line with the majority of the world's -- they live on a different planet.
The other group of intelligent Bush supporters are mostly middle class, educated white folks who aren't the wealthy elite but hope to be. They see the support of tax-cutting, wealthy-favoring government as being a long-term investment -- they're ambitious and expect to eventually be in a position to benefit from the political climate created by the GOP.
Now, with due respect, most people that don't fall into these two categories are sheep. Many of them superficially resemble the second group of intelligent supporters, in the sense that they support Bush's aid to the wealthy because they dream of being wealthy themselves someday -- it's the myth of the American dream, and its the cornerstone of American political and social rhetoric. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (based on social studies of social mobility in American society), people do believe that they can be born on the streets and lift themselves up to the top through hard work.
Unfortunately, the days of that being true are mostly behind us.
The sheep in this case, unlike their intelligent counterparts, don't truly understand the nature of the "fiscally conservative" measures being taken by the Party, but believe that, while they may be hurt in the short term, they will somehow live to see the benefits. They aspire to be wealthy landowning oil barons like Dubya. He represents what they want to be -- and why not? He seems like a simple guy, not overly intelligent or good looking, but just an average joe. If he can do it, why can't I? It's part of what makes him so popular. He seems just like you and me.
Of course, rather like Clinton (a Rhodes scholar who went to Oxford) and his affected southern drawl, it's all an act. Bush went to Yale, grew up in a rich political family, and is essentially the same kind of elitist bastard that made everyone (including myself) dislike Kerry so much. The difference is, Bush knew how to hide this from the American people, but Kerry didn't.
Now, Kerry supporters also can be easily divided into the intelligent and the, shall we say, less than intelligent. Among the poor and uneducated, people supporting the left probably think the idea of greater social benefits doesn't sound half bad, and we lefties make a point of using this to our advantage when trying to recruit votes. These people are no different in terms of education or wealth, essentially, than the "trailer trash Bush supporter" we all love to hate.
But they come overwhelmingly from minorities, and minorities, having been shafted by the system for generations, gobble up the myth of the American Dream with less readiness than poor whites from the midwest, who aren't constantly reminded that everyone in a position of power has a different skin color, ethnicity, or religion than they do.
My personal opinion in all of this is that idiots exist on both sides of the equation, and each party really knows how to play this to their advantage. Democrats play on the disenfranchised minority vote that would benefit most from social aid; Republicans play on the disenfranchised poor white vote by propogating the idea that "if you just wo
A political system that allows the people to choose its leaders or make decisions on issues may tend towards freedom, but this tendancy is not absolute. As Hermann Goering insightfully noted,
While any comparison of the state of affairs in the US today to the situation in Germany under the Third Reich is inappropriate, flaimbait and in violation of Godwin's Law, I think it's important to note that, regardless of how decisions are made, the powerful are in a unique position to influence the decisions of the electorate.
Democracy is most certainly a great and noble thing, and preferable to many of the other systems available, but it is not a panacea. In the US, we have a democratic republic founded on the principle of civil rights. It is this combination of values which the OP was projecting on the Chinese government, not democracy in itself.
For example, many democracies do not grant absolute freedom of speech, and some have attempted to censor hate speech on the internet when they felt it was appropriate.
What most people find reprehensible about Chinese government censorship is the combination of censorship and totalitarianism. Because arguably, if the French or Germans decide that they don't want their people looking at Nazi propaganda, say, it is with the consent of the people that this speech is censored.
A place that respects civil rights (or has historically, at any rate, and continues to do so today, despite the looming threat of crackdown) but is not democratic is Hong Kong.
I know you know all of this, but I think it's important that we use words in a manner consistant with their meaning, because there are exceptions to the generalization "all democracies are against censorship", and to its converse, "all governments against censorship are democracies."
I couldn't agree more, AC.
Of course, whenever you say GNU/Linux, some Slashbot who doesn't realize that there is an important difference between the Linux kernel and the OS as a whole jumps on you for assisting RMS in his pinko crusade to steal Linus' credit.
If people on a board like Slashdot can't figure it out, how can we honestly expect PHBs to understand it?
It's Godwin's law, you know, not Goodwin.
Friend, you must be joking. They aren't glad we invaded. As for freedom, they don't really have that, either. Ask them how free they are to support a non occupation-approved political faction, such as, for example, an Islamofacist one. Do you think US soldiers will wait around in an Iraqi warzone to see if, for example, a demonstration in favor of Al-Sadr will be peaceful or not? You kid yourself.
See, we think we know better. The South Vietnamese would have elected Ho Chi Minh, if we'd let them. But we must protect them from themselves!
Anyway, the comparison with the people of Iraq is a bad one. Better would be a comparison of the clash between US expansionist interests and the Native American Nations that occupied this land before our forefathers righteously claimed it for themselves. And even that isn't all that great, because our society didn't control or partially control those regions on and off for thousands of years.
I think you completely missed the point of my post, AC. I agree that Leviticus is completely irrelevant to most Christians. In fact, there's substantial evidence that it exists only in the Jewish canon as a guide for the sons of Aaron, which is generally interpreted to mean priests.
That's my whole point, in fact. Because the standard part of the Christian bible parroted by armchair Christians everywhere to support their homophobia is Leviticus 18:22. This is essentially the only passage in Leviticus that is widely sited as binding by such people, and so it begs the question: why is that they feel it is acceptable to discard the rest of Leviticus, and yet reference that one passage everytime Homosexuality comes up?
If they were truly Christians with a knowledge of the bible, they would know that Leviticus is considered by essentially everyone to be completely irrelevant, and would instead quote a more relevant, NT passage, such as Romans 1:26. But they don't, because most of these biggots haven't read the bible, or know much about the faith they profess to have. It is my firm belief that anyone that understands the spirit of the NT would realize that good Christians have no place judging others, as they will be judged by the almighty in time. Instead, they should ask themselves, WWJD? Unfortunately, they heed the answer to this question only when it falls in line with their narrow-minded interpretations of some of the most profound teachings ever introduced to man.
As has been aptly noted, "Even Satan may quote the Bible to his own ends." And to spread hatred, biggotry, lack of tolerance and strife are all stated goals of the Prince of Tyrus. How appropriate that so-called Christians should allow themselves to be tempted to fear what they do not understand, as the Judeans in JC's day feared the Lepers. How appropriate that they should quote irrelevant biblical passages to support their lack of tolerance, just as it used to be popular to equate black skin with the Mark of Cain when racial discrimination was the norm.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are simple and easily followed. An inspired reading of the NT will teach anyone this. People that claim to be Christians and attempt to shear the sheep they are meant to shepherd are truly doing Satan's work.
Hi.
It is a well known fact that the NSDAP called itself Socialist to appeal to the large number of left-leaning Germans at the time. These were left-leaning for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
However, the NSDAP was never Socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Parties always call themselves things that make them sound good to voters.
The NSDAP was, essentially, fascist. We define people by their actions, not by their campaign promises. Hitler was ignored by the west because he was fanatically anti-communist and the west feared Stalin and the USSR, especially because the Soviet Union, thanks to its centrally planned micro-managed economy, was essentially completely unaffected by the Great Depression, and therefore was perceived as possibly having a leg up on everyone else.
I know that you know this, but saying that because the NSDAP stood for "National Socialist German Workers' Party" they were Social Democrats is like saying that because the "DPRK" stands for the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", North Korea is democratic.
Hi. Quoting Leviticus is stupid. Leviticus also includes such gems as "If you shave your beard you will be killed", "If you disobey your father you will be killed", and a whole host of dietary laws that are universally ignored by Christians of pretty much all denominations.
Catholics, who believe in the authority of the Pope, have a leg to stand on when they quote certain passages as being meaningful and discard others, because the Vicar of Christ has the authority in their Church to reinterpret the word of God. If you're protestant, you'll simply have to take it all or leave it all, or you're being hypocritical.
Anyway, didn't Jesus say that the new covenant replaces the old?
So, if you're going to use your faith -- a faith that preaches love, acceptance of others, and general tolerance (did Jesus shun the lepers?) -- to validate your own biggotry, at least quote the new testament. I'll even help you. Romans 1:26 has a passage which could be interpreted as anti-homosexual.
But as the parent said, WWJD? Did he shun the lepers or the whores? No, he didn't. He loved. You should do the same.
Why don't you actually read the bible sometime, instead of just parroting Jerry Falwell's talking points? There's holiness there, you know, but unless your mind is open you won't have the depth required to understand it.
I too am an expatriate. Currently I live in Asia but I've lived all over the world. Pretty much all expatriate Americans feel the way you do -- disenfranchised. I love America, but very few Americans have experienced what we have; heck, most of them are monoglots and don't even have a passport. It's hard for them to make good foreign policy a priority when they don't have any real experience with the effects of poor foreign policy, first hand. But I digress.
In 1996 I was an expat in Germany; I really like Germans. Good food, an appealingly expressive language, and very hospitable. I'd like to comment on their economic woes, though. It's true that Germany's economy is in a shambles at the moment, and has been for quite a while. Unemployment is high, people are leeching on welfare, etc. It's tempting to blame their generous social aid programs for this stagnancy, but don't fall into the trap.
Before the reunification, West Germany was, essentially, the economic engine of continental Europe. It was extremely wealthy and extremely dynamic, much as South Korea is today (more so, in fact).
When the Berlin wall came down, Germans made a pragmatic decision: in order to ensure that the former residents of East Germany did not become a hopelessly disenfranchised "serf" class in the new, reunited Germany -- due to their relative poverty -- West Germany decided that they would honor the Ostmark, the DDR's currency. They adopted the 1 DM = 1 OM plan.
What this meant was that the DDR's currency, essentially monopoly money with very little value, became equal in value to the Deutsch Mark, Europe's strongest currency, overnight. Obviously, the DM, and West Germany's economy, crashed just as East Germany's climbed, until they reached a sort of equilibrium.
Frankfurt has often been described as Europe's financial capital. Not surprisingly, given the huge numbers of economists and investment bankers that have their centers there. So it was not without understanding of the consequences of this radical decision the West German government went ahead with the plan. Germany has been in a slow recovery ever since.
But ultimately, it was decided that in a reunited Germany, a poverty-striken east would have created a tremendous burden on Germans anyway. This "redistribution of wealth" hurt the west, but revitalized the east -- as you probably know, Berlin is one of the most interesting, dynamic cities in Europe, and not just on the West side.
Give the Germans credit -- they decided that compassion was more important than progress, and they're paying the price for it now. Young Germans who were in primary school when the wall came down resent Germany's current slump and many feel the reunification was handled poorly. As with all things, looking back, we see the mistakes we might have been able to avoid but didn't.
But Germany will bounce back. Germans are hardworking and good at thinking out of the box. They are currently more involved in the burgeoning Chinese economy than anyone else in the West, and they got in on the ground floor. Volkswagen is arguably China's most popular car, Siemens builds China's trains, subway cars, and many of their mobile phones, and Deutsche Bank is one of the premier investment banks active in this part of the world.
Germany will bounce back. I have no doubt. But you can't seriously expect to reintegrate a country as messed up as the DDR was without at least a decade or two of economic and financial recovery. It was inevitable.
Essentially because it's cheaper.
The existance of firmware is nothing new; all those old cards you had had firmware as well, but that firmware was on a flash memory chip on the card, and didn't need to be loaded at boot. But those chips cost money... so, they figured out that you can save a few bucks by not including them and instead loading it everytime.
Incidentally, ROM stands for Read Only Memory, so rewriteable ROM is something of an oxymoron. But I understood what you meant, I'm just letting you know.
... Except on Debian.
Thanks for your explanation.
You're right, I did not know the origin of the term before posting this, but many people in this thread have been thoughtful enough to point it out to me.
With all due respect, though, I'm not sure it's relevant. We can wax lyrical about the origins of racially insensitive language all we want. After all, nigger (not at all in the same class, I know) comes from a mispronunciation of the Spanish word "negro", which means black and was the socially acceptable way to refer to peoples of African descent for many generations in the US. Given this harmless etymology, does it make sense that it should be considered one of the most vulgar words in the English language?
You see, the thing about these kinds of terms is that it doesn't matter much where the term comes from; what matters is the way it's used. Let's turn this around for a moment. Have you ever been white in Asia? If so, you'll probably be familiar with the terms "gaijin", "waiguk", "laowai", "waiguoren", "guailoh", etc, depending on where you lived. Now (with the exception of perhaps guailoh), all of these terms just mean "foreigner" in their respective languages. Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with them.
What becomes an issue is the way they are used, you see. They are frequently used with an underlying current of sarcastic bitterness that serves to sting you if you're trying your best not to stand out like a sore thumb in a country where the majority of people don't look like you.
So, the "rice burner" story is interesting, and I believe you, and I'm glad you've educated me on this point. But, pointedly, it's irrelevant. Because when the term ricer is used, or at least in the contexts I've heard it, it uses a conspicuously distinguishable aspect of steryotypical east asian culture (the consumption of rice) and associates it with silly and uninspired modding of cheap cars.
I mean, calling Jews penny-pinching comes from the historical mandate in Europe that prevented non-Christians from being merchants, forcing Jews to enter the banking and money-lending professions. Based in fact; nonetheless tremendously insulting and generally not correct in this day and age.
As a final aside, if the Japanese were adding rice wine into their fuel to increase methanol content, I would be very concerned about them. Methanol is extremely toxic to humans and "rice wine" sounds like something (sake?) that people might actually want to drink. Perhaps you meant "ethanol"? I'm not a modder so this is an honest question.
My point was not that those cars came from Northern China; it was that saying "White Americans eat Potatoes as their staple food" is just as ignorant as saying "Asians eat rice as their staple food". The difference is that everyone white on Slashdot knows that the former is ignorant, but I would wager that a large number of non-Asians don't realize that actually much of East-Asia doesn't eat rice.
However, I will admit that in my head, I associated the term "ricer" with the people doing the modding, not with the cars themselves, and several people have pointed out in this thread that "ricer" actually (at least originally) refered to people that rode Japanese Motorcycles. I did not know this.
However, when I hear the term ricer it is usually directed at a young asian kid in a souped up automobile, not with the make of the car (although these admittedly are usually Hondas).
Anyway, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, I'm not telling you what to say or not to say. Of course you're welcome to use whatever terms you want. But consider that you might be insulting people without intending to.
Most of my white friends aren't racist, they're just insensitive. So think of my comment as being a heads up for people that might not have thought much about the use of the term.
If you have internalized my point and deemed it irrelevant, that's your perogative of course.
You know, I don't want to be always be the politically correct one, but the term ricer has always seemed inappropriate when coming out of a non-asian person's mouth.
Now, it does so happen that many "ricers" are asian, that the practice probably originated in west-coast asian-american subculture. It is likewise true that East Asians consume large amounts of rice, although this is not necessarily true of Asian Americans (many of whom are sadly about as out of touch with their culture of their ancestors as that white guy who says he's German-Irish-Italian).
But I guess it just seems crass to me to take a practice and associate it with the race that does it. It would be like calling Karaoke "Yellow Yodeling". Sure, it's funny, but I would imagine that for the vast majority of non-ricer Asian-Americans it might get tiring to constantly hear their ethnicity lampooned by non-asians who lack the sensitivity to seperate a culture from a steryotype.
But maybe that's just me. Personally, I wouldn't use this term.
After all, it really just is modding Asian imports. White americans have been modding American cars since the days of Henry Ford but we don't call them "potatoers" or whatever the staple white american food is.
Oh, I hear someone say, "Potatoes aren't the staple of white america! It's not the same!" Hey, did you know that in the vast majority of northern China, people don't eat rice? They eat mantou, I kind of bread, instead. Why? Because rice doesn't grow in subarctic climates.
Of course, they're all gooks and chinks to us, eh? Man I love ignorance.
Wasn't that what we was suggesting? Not many languages other than LISP can boast all those features.