The OP meant that Royal has some of Bush's combative attitude, a tendency to blame problems on other people, and a lack of ability to clarify personal beliefs and policies. (ie, Bush's campaign promise in 2000 that he would not conduct nation-building, insinuation that Al Gore would, and then three years later invading Iraq to rebuild it.) In other words, she has Bush's personality, but not his politics or his gender. It's not quite Hitler as a Jewish philanthropist:)
Agreed. This causes so many problems. In Britain, my friend was telling me how a town that is now mainly Pakistani decided that they didn't want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day on November 5; they wanted to basically make up a new Muslim holiday instead. Now everyone in the town who wanted to celebrate Guy Fawkes is out of luck-- no bonfire allowed. How can you move to England and not want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day?? It's such a fun holiday.
In America, this causes many problems as well, as school districts have to hire Spanish speaking teachers and administrators to communicate with students and parents who don't speak English. From the media coverage, it seems like that's the biggest issue facing everyone even though obviously it's not. Immigrants do seem to blend in better in America than Europe, although maybe not first-generation ones.
Whether Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism is irrelevant-- he was a mass murderer and a killer of his own people, so I'd consider him to be a terrorist himself (which obviously means that he would support terrorism). The Iraq war was justified on two grounds: 1.) Saddam had a link with al-Qaeda and knew or had something to do with the September 11 attacks, proved false; and 2.) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was keeping to attack America or its interests soon, also proved false. The fact that he paid suicide bombers' families off does not mean anything beyond what we already know and doesn't justify the current war.
That is interesting about BNP, though. Hadn't heard that.
Yes, the French were right. The problem is, they oppose us on so many international issues (sometimes, it seems, just to be the ones to disagree) that it just seemed like they were pulling their usual devil's advocate act. If Britain had gone against us or another country that had sensible policies and agreed with us from time to time, that might have carried more weight... but since we did ignore what the UN had to say, it might not have, either.
The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.
Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway. Thus, the Gulf War. Why France wouldn't allow us to use their airspace for something perfectly legitimate (especially by today's standards), I don't know.
I agree totally with AC-- the British and French were completely wrong in the Suez disaster, America was completely wrong in Iraq, and Britain was completely wrong to support us.
For everything you said about "America" in your last sentence, you can substitute Bush/Cheney/most Republicans rather than America. America in general has been more right than wrong (the huge exceptions being the CIA's foreign activities, Vietnam and Iraq) and with Bush we're in a no-win situation because he's "The Decider."
Yes, Britain was fighting for years before America got into the year, but keep in mind that we were not being attacked and were in the midst of the greatest depression in American history. The American people would not have supported the war before Japan got us into it. Remember that Ireland didn't fight at all, and they were right next to Britain. Remember that your own prime minister Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted in the "Appeasement" policy that ended up to be an abject failure. Remember that it was Germany's fault in the first place! We all helped win the war, and thank goodness or things would be a lot different.
I studied abroad junior year in England and always felt welcomed. A friend studied abroad in Versailles and said that almost any time she tried to practice her French (fluent by American standards), she would be ignored or treated badly by native French people. This is the type of person who wouldn't say anything bad about anyone, yet she said they were rude. This was in 2003-2004, so the time period could have had something to do with it.
Maybe it was the fact that you were wearing LEATHER shoes... after all, the French (with their foie gras) love animal cruelty.
I wouldn't classify shoes that came at a defenseless animal's expense as dressing nicely. Sorry, I'd take spaghetti straps, burkas, or pimp outfits over that any day.
Also, no one leaves a tip in France! But I bet it made the waitstaff extra happy:)
He's not like Tony Blair. What you must have heard was that he was more like Tony Blair than, for instance, Jacques Chirac, in that he's young and has interesting ideas. He's not like Bush either-- he doesn't support Iraq and all that. He may be more of a Reagan, especially since it seems that he doesn't really have plans to bring down the huge public deficits that much.
Segolene Royal actually often talked of Tony Blair and her admiration for him.
France has "prospered and held off globalization's worst"? France has such high unemployment, and it's not due to globalization. If France was prospering so much, they would not have elected Sarkozy, who promises to change everything around.
Maybe you can see it from their perspective, rather than as an IT worker.
My mother is an RN in the same hospital for almost 40 years now. She went to nursing school in a hospital, when they didn't give degrees in nursing. Now, she's looked down on for that, is the oldest nurse working at the hospital, but given the hardest jobs because the young nurses don't want to work. The head nurse sits in her office all day doing nothing and gets paid three times what the nurses-- working 12 hour shifts-- do. Meanwhile, the head nurse changes the computer program that the nurses have to use every six months. I swear to God, every six months, she comes up with a reason why the old program isn't good enough and she brings in a completely new program. It doesn't hurt her any and she gets to send out a press release trumpeting the hospital's acquisition of the latest technology. The nurses have to stay, inputting all their data into these programs before they can leave at night. It sometimes takes hours to do. If it crashes, they have to start all over... and they can NEVER submit written reports. My mom says she didn't become a nurse to become a secretary, and that's what she's had to become. She spends a fourth of her day doing paperwork, which means less time for patients, who are being charged more than ever and getting shoddier care. Technology can help in many ways, but in many cases it can make things much worse! Bad technology hurts future good technology, because it repels people from any sort of change-- hence the reaction of the woman you mentioned who is close to retirement. My mom's head nurse instituted a "program" in which she could fire any nurse at any time, for any reason. One nurse who'd worked there for 25 years was fired a few months ago for getting one pill wrong-- a terrible mistake, yes, but one in 25 years and she gets sacked for it? She lost her house after that because she couldn't make her payments. Maybe the people you worked with were worried about policies like that rather than whether they were making the IT person's day better by not complaining about the technology. My mom works at a small hospital, so I can only imagine what must go on at a large one.
See it from their perspective and it's easy to understand. They're overworked, underpaid, in charge of people's lives but not appreciated, and they have tech problems on top of that? It's easy to understand their annoyance.
It's difficult to start a business there.
"Reality-adjusted" unemployment (as in, including those on long-term sick leave who are probably not sick) is 15-17%, one of the highest in the EU
Unemployment benefits are 80% of former wages for three years, which encourages unemployment
mmigrants have a hard time assimilating
It has high taxes and a huge welfare state, which both prevent companies from creating jobs and people from taking them (30% of people receive welfare benefits)
Government jobs make up 30% of total jobs, twice that of Germany
The above three problems are the exact same huge problems that France has, causing riots in the banlieues
Source:
The Economist
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ id=7880173
I agree that jobs should not be linked with health insurance. It's not fair to employers or to employees afraid of quitting and losing insurance.
Is America really one of the least admired countries? I think you are exaggerating a bit with that. Countries all around the world who are our allies depend on us for protection and count us as friends. Bush has shot the whole country in the foot, but that can be forgotten a bit in a few years when the US goes on a new path of minding its own business.
Polls have found that while a majority of respondents in Arab countries view America in a negative light, a majority also admire the US for its democracy, advances in technology and personal freedom.
http://forum.khurram.ca/viewtopic.php?p=3643
It's not an incurable divide.
I also disagree that if one is black or Hispanic or female one cannot succeed in American schools. I fall into a few of the categories you listed and I made my own way, listened to my lessons and taught myself in my spare time. America is all about individual freedom and students need to show it as well. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. A friend who is a cop says that every person coming in to be booked blames "the system" rather than themselves. America has better schools than most countries and an excellent system for funding college education for those who can't afford it. There's also an extensive, usually excellent community college system in America, of which few if any countries have an equivalent. Yes, the schools have problems, but the students have problems as well. I tutor some inner-city, failing-on-No Child Left Behind kids, and they don't want to work. They want to play hangman or doodle or talk about TV shows and rappers instead. Maybe their parents/teachers/society haven't taught them well, but they aren't giving themselves a chance either by not paying attention to good teaching (which I am providing:))
We've already gone to the moon, why would we have to do it again? Mars seems a much better investment, and NASA is making plans for that right now.
She admits in the Pittsburghlive article that half the clocks at the school were right and half were wrong. When she was reprogramming the microwave clock in the break room, it seems evident she would have thought, "Wait a minute, that log from the bomb threat could be off, too." The police, of course, should have thought of this also, but she was at the school the whole morning when by her own admittance half the clocks were the wrong time.
If what the kid is saying is true, she really, really messed up. She did the opposite of what she was supposed to-- this kid was an honor student. Now his school has let him down and he won't be back.
What if someone was really calling in a bomb threat who meant to actually do something that day? The threat should have been thoroughly investigated. Her interviewing techniques seem lacking. She failed at her job and she should resign.
The article you link to says that the US gov. said this guy and his friend had ties to a Muslim cleric in London affiliated with al-Qaeda.
There are two sides to every story. Perhaps the US was right in suspecting them of having terrorist ties-- but if that's the case, they should be tried in a court of law rather than languishing in Gitmo. If they're terrorists, I see nothing wrong with putting them on trial and punishing them.
The cable company is charged to show channels to viewers, even though those channels are already being paid for by the viewer watching endless amounts of ads. Is that wrong, too? This is the same thing-- a different revenue stream for the ISPs. Whoever pays more, gets faster service. If Google doesn't want to pay more to get more advertising revenue from Adwords, they don't have to, but they will, because it would be in their best interest and would make them more money. I'm not confusing libertarianism with anarchism, I'm just espousing the true tenets of libertarianism. If someone doesn't want to pay extra to access the Net, they can start their own ISP, go to a different one that doesn't charge extra to be faster, or whatever. It's a free world and a free and fair market. We need as little government regulation as possible. How is this any different than dialup costing less than broadband? Should that be illegal, too?
We'll just have to respectfully disagree, because you are wrong for saying I'm wrong. Cheers.
How is it fraud? I have Time Warner for Internet access. For their television cable rates, they charge more if you take more channels, and more if you have digital cable as opposed to regular cable. They also have two-tiered Internet with different bandwidths. I pay more to get a higher bandwidth. Someone who wants to pay less can get less bandwidth. It just follows that someone, like Google, who has the money to pay for extra bandwidth, would be charged for using it and then get faster access, just as I pay more for Internet and have a faster connection than my friend who has dialup from AOL... and that's why Google is for net neutrality. Even though they have the billions to pay, they don't want to pay more than I do, even though my salary wouldn't even buy a doorknob at Google HQ. It's not that my net would slow down.. it's that Google and Yahoo, etc., would have to pay up. It's not like anyone's going to be banned from the Internet if they don't pay thousands of dollars a month. It's possible that Internet costs would then go down. Maybe I'd be paying $25 a month rather than $35 for Internet.
And yes, I do claim that anyone who shares the first property must hold the third, or they're not really libertarian at all, and that anyone who shares the first two shares the third. My point is quite relevant, thanks. Libertarians do not believe that the government should step in to solve problems, even in the case of the Internet.
I'm a libertarian, I'm against net neutrality, and I'm not a chump.
How, exactly, did the government pay to build the Internet?
If companies have no way to make money, they won't provide the products. It's pretty simple.
NC State fifth-ranked?
Is that really true? According to US News, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's engineering program is ranked fifth, NC State is 33rd.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng /brief/engrank_brief.php
That's for grad schools. Is NC State really, really better at undergrad than graduate school or what? I don't see where you're getting that number.
NC State does have a great solar house, though.
What a great comment.
I never heard of Google Answers until a few months ago when a friend became involved with it. I found myself loving the service. My friend is deeply upset at the loss of it. I don't see how the service cost Google money, since the customers paid for the questions and Google got 25% of the cut. It's just that Google hasn't cared about it in about three years.
Anyway, a petition has been created to save the service (or just to let Google know that it will not end quietly):
http://petitiononline.com/ganswershttp://www.savegoogleanswers.com/
And this is a great video on how Yahoo Answers is not a replacement for GA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Google didn't promote the site AT ALL. They promoted it when it first came out and haven't done anything for it in three years. There was still a steady stream of questions, even until the last day, nonetheless-- although Google didn't have the kindness to cut it off at midnight, but did it instead at 5pm. The site might not be termed an ubersuccess the way it was, but with no promotion, it did pretty darn well. That was Google's own fault. They completely dropped the ball.
Please sign this letter to Google to protest their decision:
http://www.savegooglenaswers.com/
And this is a great video about the whole thing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Everyone is really upset about this. Google is supposed to not be "evil". I guess things change.
What were your questions?
I found that often questioners didn't know how to ask a question properly. They wanted legal advice but didn't say what state or country it involved. They wanted hours of research that could save them thousands but didn't price appropriately. There are also some issues GA researchers couldn't touch, such as anything illegal or other sketchy issues.
So I'm curious-- what were your questions?
Here's a great video on the difference between Google Answers and Yahoo Answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Help save Google Answers by signing a letter to Google.
http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/
Slashdot Mirror
The OP meant that Royal has some of Bush's combative attitude, a tendency to blame problems on other people, and a lack of ability to clarify personal beliefs and policies. (ie, Bush's campaign promise in 2000 that he would not conduct nation-building, insinuation that Al Gore would, and then three years later invading Iraq to rebuild it.) In other words, she has Bush's personality, but not his politics or his gender. It's not quite Hitler as a Jewish philanthropist :)
Royal is rich, white and Christian. Those adjectives doesn't have anything to do with Sarkozy's policies.
Being a second-generation immigrant, he's not a cookie cutter French politician.
Agreed. This causes so many problems. In Britain, my friend was telling me how a town that is now mainly Pakistani decided that they didn't want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day on November 5; they wanted to basically make up a new Muslim holiday instead. Now everyone in the town who wanted to celebrate Guy Fawkes is out of luck-- no bonfire allowed. How can you move to England and not want to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day?? It's such a fun holiday.
In America, this causes many problems as well, as school districts have to hire Spanish speaking teachers and administrators to communicate with students and parents who don't speak English. From the media coverage, it seems like that's the biggest issue facing everyone even though obviously it's not. Immigrants do seem to blend in better in America than Europe, although maybe not first-generation ones.
Whether Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism is irrelevant-- he was a mass murderer and a killer of his own people, so I'd consider him to be a terrorist himself (which obviously means that he would support terrorism). The Iraq war was justified on two grounds: 1.) Saddam had a link with al-Qaeda and knew or had something to do with the September 11 attacks, proved false; and 2.) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was keeping to attack America or its interests soon, also proved false. The fact that he paid suicide bombers' families off does not mean anything beyond what we already know and doesn't justify the current war.
That is interesting about BNP, though. Hadn't heard that.
Yes, the French were right. The problem is, they oppose us on so many international issues (sometimes, it seems, just to be the ones to disagree) that it just seemed like they were pulling their usual devil's advocate act. If Britain had gone against us or another country that had sensible policies and agreed with us from time to time, that might have carried more weight... but since we did ignore what the UN had to say, it might not have, either.
The CIA did put Saddam's Baath party in (his predecessor was a communist), but he was in no way a puppet of theirs.
Kuwait is an ally of theirs, we told Saddam not to invade it, and he did anyway. Thus, the Gulf War. Why France wouldn't allow us to use their airspace for something perfectly legitimate (especially by today's standards), I don't know.
I agree totally with AC-- the British and French were completely wrong in the Suez disaster, America was completely wrong in Iraq, and Britain was completely wrong to support us.
For everything you said about "America" in your last sentence, you can substitute Bush/Cheney/most Republicans rather than America. America in general has been more right than wrong (the huge exceptions being the CIA's foreign activities, Vietnam and Iraq) and with Bush we're in a no-win situation because he's "The Decider."
Yes, Britain was fighting for years before America got into the year, but keep in mind that we were not being attacked and were in the midst of the greatest depression in American history. The American people would not have supported the war before Japan got us into it. Remember that Ireland didn't fight at all, and they were right next to Britain. Remember that your own prime minister Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted in the "Appeasement" policy that ended up to be an abject failure. Remember that it was Germany's fault in the first place! We all helped win the war, and thank goodness or things would be a lot different.
I studied abroad junior year in England and always felt welcomed. A friend studied abroad in Versailles and said that almost any time she tried to practice her French (fluent by American standards), she would be ignored or treated badly by native French people. This is the type of person who wouldn't say anything bad about anyone, yet she said they were rude. This was in 2003-2004, so the time period could have had something to do with it.
Maybe it was the fact that you were wearing LEATHER shoes... after all, the French (with their foie gras) love animal cruelty.
:)
I wouldn't classify shoes that came at a defenseless animal's expense as dressing nicely. Sorry, I'd take spaghetti straps, burkas, or pimp outfits over that any day.
Also, no one leaves a tip in France! But I bet it made the waitstaff extra happy
Well, that bought her another term in office. Way to go, patriotic Brits!
He's not like Tony Blair. What you must have heard was that he was more like Tony Blair than, for instance, Jacques Chirac, in that he's young and has interesting ideas. He's not like Bush either-- he doesn't support Iraq and all that. He may be more of a Reagan, especially since it seems that he doesn't really have plans to bring down the huge public deficits that much.
Segolene Royal actually often talked of Tony Blair and her admiration for him.
France has "prospered and held off globalization's worst"? France has such high unemployment, and it's not due to globalization. If France was prospering so much, they would not have elected Sarkozy, who promises to change everything around.
Maybe you can see it from their perspective, rather than as an IT worker.
My mother is an RN in the same hospital for almost 40 years now. She went to nursing school in a hospital, when they didn't give degrees in nursing. Now, she's looked down on for that, is the oldest nurse working at the hospital, but given the hardest jobs because the young nurses don't want to work. The head nurse sits in her office all day doing nothing and gets paid three times what the nurses-- working 12 hour shifts-- do. Meanwhile, the head nurse changes the computer program that the nurses have to use every six months. I swear to God, every six months, she comes up with a reason why the old program isn't good enough and she brings in a completely new program. It doesn't hurt her any and she gets to send out a press release trumpeting the hospital's acquisition of the latest technology. The nurses have to stay, inputting all their data into these programs before they can leave at night. It sometimes takes hours to do. If it crashes, they have to start all over... and they can NEVER submit written reports. My mom says she didn't become a nurse to become a secretary, and that's what she's had to become. She spends a fourth of her day doing paperwork, which means less time for patients, who are being charged more than ever and getting shoddier care. Technology can help in many ways, but in many cases it can make things much worse! Bad technology hurts future good technology, because it repels people from any sort of change-- hence the reaction of the woman you mentioned who is close to retirement. My mom's head nurse instituted a "program" in which she could fire any nurse at any time, for any reason. One nurse who'd worked there for 25 years was fired a few months ago for getting one pill wrong-- a terrible mistake, yes, but one in 25 years and she gets sacked for it? She lost her house after that because she couldn't make her payments. Maybe the people you worked with were worried about policies like that rather than whether they were making the IT person's day better by not complaining about the technology. My mom works at a small hospital, so I can only imagine what must go on at a large one.
See it from their perspective and it's easy to understand. They're overworked, underpaid, in charge of people's lives but not appreciated, and they have tech problems on top of that? It's easy to understand their annoyance.
Why would you admire Sweden?
_ id=7880173
:))
It's difficult to start a business there.
"Reality-adjusted" unemployment (as in, including those on long-term sick leave who are probably not sick) is 15-17%, one of the highest in the EU
Unemployment benefits are 80% of former wages for three years, which encourages unemployment
mmigrants have a hard time assimilating
It has high taxes and a huge welfare state, which both prevent companies from creating jobs and people from taking them (30% of people receive welfare benefits)
Government jobs make up 30% of total jobs, twice that of Germany
The above three problems are the exact same huge problems that France has, causing riots in the banlieues
Source:
The Economist
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story
I agree that jobs should not be linked with health insurance. It's not fair to employers or to employees afraid of quitting and losing insurance.
Is America really one of the least admired countries? I think you are exaggerating a bit with that. Countries all around the world who are our allies depend on us for protection and count us as friends. Bush has shot the whole country in the foot, but that can be forgotten a bit in a few years when the US goes on a new path of minding its own business.
Polls have found that while a majority of respondents in Arab countries view America in a negative light, a majority also admire the US for its democracy, advances in technology and personal freedom. http://forum.khurram.ca/viewtopic.php?p=3643
It's not an incurable divide.
I also disagree that if one is black or Hispanic or female one cannot succeed in American schools. I fall into a few of the categories you listed and I made my own way, listened to my lessons and taught myself in my spare time. America is all about individual freedom and students need to show it as well. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. A friend who is a cop says that every person coming in to be booked blames "the system" rather than themselves. America has better schools than most countries and an excellent system for funding college education for those who can't afford it. There's also an extensive, usually excellent community college system in America, of which few if any countries have an equivalent. Yes, the schools have problems, but the students have problems as well. I tutor some inner-city, failing-on-No Child Left Behind kids, and they don't want to work. They want to play hangman or doodle or talk about TV shows and rappers instead. Maybe their parents/teachers/society haven't taught them well, but they aren't giving themselves a chance either by not paying attention to good teaching (which I am providing
We've already gone to the moon, why would we have to do it again? Mars seems a much better investment, and NASA is making plans for that right now.
Or give ALL her bosses a call or email.
b /index.htm
l lor/index.htm
1 437&widCall1=customWidgets.content_view_1&usecache =false
p fieldArea/
Wayne Doyle, Superintendent
wayne.doyle@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
Dr. Barbara J. Marin
assistant superintendent, elementary
http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdir/marin
Name: Dr. Barbara J. Marin
E-mail: barbara.marin@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
Location: Administration Office
Phone: (724) 850-2227 FAX: (724) 850-2089
Dr. Rebecca Costello, Director of Pupil Services
http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/webdir/coste
School: Administration Building
E-mail: r.costello@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
Phone: (724) 850-2229
Secretary: Beverly Hudson
Phone: (724) 850-2224 Fax: (724) 850-2089 ---------
School Board
School Board Webpage http://www.hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us/members.asp
John Henry-President
Anthony Bompiani abompiani@comcast.net
Betty Valerio, former board president
Betty L. Valerio, President R. R. 6, Box 76. Greensburg, PA 15601-9315 (724) 834-2590
Louis DePaul
http://www.reedsmith.com/our_people.cfm?cit_id=
# Email: ldepaul@reedsmith.com
# T: +1 412 288 3054 (Pittsburgh)
David Higinbotham
http://www.basd.org/page.php?12#
dhiginbotham@basd.org
Linda Zundel
http://www.w1w.cc/psba/Districts_Policies/H/Hem
linda.zundel@hempfieldarea.k12.pa.us
# F: +1 412 288 3063 (Pittsburgh)
She admits in the Pittsburghlive article that half the clocks at the school were right and half were wrong. When she was reprogramming the microwave clock in the break room, it seems evident she would have thought, "Wait a minute, that log from the bomb threat could be off, too." The police, of course, should have thought of this also, but she was at the school the whole morning when by her own admittance half the clocks were the wrong time. If what the kid is saying is true, she really, really messed up. She did the opposite of what she was supposed to-- this kid was an honor student. Now his school has let him down and he won't be back. What if someone was really calling in a bomb threat who meant to actually do something that day? The threat should have been thoroughly investigated. Her interviewing techniques seem lacking. She failed at her job and she should resign.
The article you link to says that the US gov. said this guy and his friend had ties to a Muslim cleric in London affiliated with al-Qaeda.
There are two sides to every story. Perhaps the US was right in suspecting them of having terrorist ties-- but if that's the case, they should be tried in a court of law rather than languishing in Gitmo. If they're terrorists, I see nothing wrong with putting them on trial and punishing them.
The cable company is charged to show channels to viewers, even though those channels are already being paid for by the viewer watching endless amounts of ads. Is that wrong, too? This is the same thing-- a different revenue stream for the ISPs. Whoever pays more, gets faster service. If Google doesn't want to pay more to get more advertising revenue from Adwords, they don't have to, but they will, because it would be in their best interest and would make them more money. I'm not confusing libertarianism with anarchism, I'm just espousing the true tenets of libertarianism. If someone doesn't want to pay extra to access the Net, they can start their own ISP, go to a different one that doesn't charge extra to be faster, or whatever. It's a free world and a free and fair market. We need as little government regulation as possible. How is this any different than dialup costing less than broadband? Should that be illegal, too? We'll just have to respectfully disagree, because you are wrong for saying I'm wrong. Cheers.
How is it fraud? I have Time Warner for Internet access. For their television cable rates, they charge more if you take more channels, and more if you have digital cable as opposed to regular cable. They also have two-tiered Internet with different bandwidths. I pay more to get a higher bandwidth. Someone who wants to pay less can get less bandwidth. It just follows that someone, like Google, who has the money to pay for extra bandwidth, would be charged for using it and then get faster access, just as I pay more for Internet and have a faster connection than my friend who has dialup from AOL... and that's why Google is for net neutrality. Even though they have the billions to pay, they don't want to pay more than I do, even though my salary wouldn't even buy a doorknob at Google HQ. It's not that my net would slow down.. it's that Google and Yahoo, etc., would have to pay up. It's not like anyone's going to be banned from the Internet if they don't pay thousands of dollars a month. It's possible that Internet costs would then go down. Maybe I'd be paying $25 a month rather than $35 for Internet.
And yes, I do claim that anyone who shares the first property must hold the third, or they're not really libertarian at all, and that anyone who shares the first two shares the third. My point is quite relevant, thanks. Libertarians do not believe that the government should step in to solve problems, even in the case of the Internet.
I'm a libertarian, I'm against net neutrality, and I'm not a chump. How, exactly, did the government pay to build the Internet? If companies have no way to make money, they won't provide the products. It's pretty simple.
NC State fifth-ranked? Is that really true? According to US News, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's engineering program is ranked fifth, NC State is 33rd. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/eng /brief/engrank_brief.php
That's for grad schools. Is NC State really, really better at undergrad than graduate school or what? I don't see where you're getting that number.
NC State does have a great solar house, though.
What a great comment. I never heard of Google Answers until a few months ago when a friend became involved with it. I found myself loving the service. My friend is deeply upset at the loss of it. I don't see how the service cost Google money, since the customers paid for the questions and Google got 25% of the cut. It's just that Google hasn't cared about it in about three years. Anyway, a petition has been created to save the service (or just to let Google know that it will not end quietly): http://petitiononline.com/ganswers http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/ And this is a great video on how Yahoo Answers is not a replacement for GA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Google didn't promote the site AT ALL. They promoted it when it first came out and haven't done anything for it in three years. There was still a steady stream of questions, even until the last day, nonetheless-- although Google didn't have the kindness to cut it off at midnight, but did it instead at 5pm. The site might not be termed an ubersuccess the way it was, but with no promotion, it did pretty darn well. That was Google's own fault. They completely dropped the ball. Please sign this letter to Google to protest their decision: http://www.savegooglenaswers.com/ And this is a great video about the whole thing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA Everyone is really upset about this. Google is supposed to not be "evil". I guess things change.
What were your questions? I found that often questioners didn't know how to ask a question properly. They wanted legal advice but didn't say what state or country it involved. They wanted hours of research that could save them thousands but didn't price appropriately. There are also some issues GA researchers couldn't touch, such as anything illegal or other sketchy issues. So I'm curious-- what were your questions? Here's a great video on the difference between Google Answers and Yahoo Answers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA Help save Google Answers by signing a letter to Google. http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/
I also say no thanks. The differences between Google Answers and Yahoo Answers are absolutely night and day.
Here's a hilarious video on the differences between the two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4E5btrmqyA
Viva La Google Answers!
Sign the petiton:
http://www.savegoogleanswers.com/