> If you send an email to Fred saying "Can you send me xxxx", and Fred replies, saying "Here it is", > you can probably safely open the attachment. You should just exercise caution when Fred sends you > an email out of the blue saying "Hey, read this would you?".
Should Fred open my message "Can you send me xxxx" if it was not preceded by Fred's message "Can you send me your 'Can you send me xxxx'"?
Or should I pick up the phone to inform the Fred that I'm sending the "Can you send me xxxx" message to make him sure he can safely open my message and reply with "Here it is"?
Evolution cannot be stopped (even if going in circles;-)
> 'not open or save Word files,' Do they call it "The Evolution of Microsoft Office"?
> To help you understand more about the merits of Microsoft Office 2003, we are preparing the new series of FREE training courses for you. TRAINING COURSE - RULE#1: Don't open or save Word files!
> It's time for an evolution! Act now to take the Microsoft Office 2003 Training Courses and get rid of your current backward office! TRAINING COURSE - RULE#2: Since you cannot open/save your documents... get rid of your current backward Office!
> The army will have to think harder when civilians start running at them with faraday cages around them.
The sad thing is that "professional rioters" will learn quickly how to protect themselves. The only unprotected people - as usually - will be those innocent people that didn't foreseen or didn't wont any fight...
Should print a t-shirt with the label "Raw meat is going after you!" on the front side and "Ding! Bloody steak running away!" on the back side?
How can you say that people are free if they must sue each other because there is no natural and widely accepted consensus what is the "free speech" in something trivial as this case.
To me (and I believe to all people in my country) at this times it is hard to believe that someone could be suspended for something like: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". Does it mean that we are more free then the people in the "most free country in the world"?
Last thing that I can compare to it is when somebody said "I'll not join the communistic party and I hate communists". It had the same results. But it is many years ago. And now it's stunning to hear something like that is happening in your country that was always accepted as a measure for the word "freedom".
You helped us by being our "freedom idols", maybe the sides flipped and there is coming time when we will pay back what you gave us...;-)
> One innocent person accidentally shot by police.
I'm sorry, but I think that so-called "war on terror" has far more then one innocent person killed... By now you can count those innocent victims on thousands.
When facing to these imposed restrictions in the name of the "war on terror" - do you feel more safe then before the campaign against the terror started? Now is the time to look back and learn from the mistakes or at least stop lying to ourselves.
The antiterror campaing didn't make, does not make, will not make the world any safer. Let's stop lying about it and let's look for other solutions to this problem. Securing the borders and airports is not a solution. It has only delaying effect...
I didn't mention why they wanted to be shoot into space in the book:-) They wanted the people on the Earth to die...;-))
>> Thus, building a base on the moon would/should stimulate the tech and manufacturing industry on earth. It will stimulate mainly (if not only) high-high-high-tech and high-high-high-tech-manufacturing industry on earth that is benefit to nobody but the few people because high-high-high-tech is really-really-really-expensive so while millions are starving few people can have their laser-driven wristwatches. There can be milions of better ways how to spend the funds (for example whole planet is searching for renewable resources,...,...).
In our country we have a writer (Egon Bondy) who foreseens this (book Cybercomix). There was written in his book that: * Workers are working for the world elites * The technology is pushed so far that workers turns to be replacable by machines * World is full of useless (for the elites) people (people loose the buying force because of loosing jobs...) * Elites decide to build the moon base:-) Funny why to have a moon base? How many people could live/work there? Only researchers? Who will own the patents of the research results? Is it benefitting all of us? Why not to solve visible and well known Earth problems with that funds instead of investing to uncertainity? Shouldn't we learn first how to live on the Earth in pease (not only between us but in with the nature too) before expanding in the space?
What makes me different? Why does this censorship apply to me? I feel offended that Google offers tools for censorship to its users. I guess that Chinese see the same message for many political videos...
Once they build the censorship software for itself they should not allow customers to use the same *****. Or maybe it is the purpose? Let people use free censoring software and if there are thousands of real Americans using the real censorship then who will dare to blame Google for censoring information?
Restricting information based on the geographical location is simply BAD. Dot.
I hope that you will never read something like this (because this is exactly what I feel they do): "Sorry, you are not authorized to see the content you requested because your government is not as good as ours or your continent is not as cool as ours or your currency is not as hard as ours... Try again few years later. Your Free Google."
I'm sure that audience is coming to Video.Google.com, but is google coming to the audience?
This is what google served me instead of the clips in "Music Videos" menu:
"We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorized Google to display this video in your location. To see more videos visit our home page."
It is just about money. But I'm afraid that with this kind of discussion I can end up with 3 minutes long page loading from Wikipedia meanwhile my neighbor downloads ten high resolution porn clips...:-( Sad discussion, isn't it?
This are just two swimming pools and dormitories that are being build for the GoogleRestPlex program.
The GoogleRestPlex program is all about taking care of ex-employees - Google is always ahead and this is the next generation of the retirements homes. Big cooling house is because of 10.000 bodies of retired employees (yes, that is the capacity of one GoogleRestPlex complex) produce lot of heat!
=== "Yes, that's exactly what it means. They have a lower education level and a poor infrastructure... It's not "immoral" to make value judgements." === No, certainly it is not immoral. Your "value judgements" is judged by different "value" then mine. Your "value" is defined as "amount of green papers" but in my eyes your "paper" is not valued as much to be the default unit for making "value judgements" of the humans. Our "value judgements" are incompatible but dispite that fact I can say - yes, from business POV you are right. Those people have nothing to offer for investors. You are right.
=== It's how the improvement starts. If, say, Vietnam, required that workers be paid $5USD/hr, why would any company set up shop there? === I understand now. If it is just a "start" then it will be the continuation toward the happy end. "Continuation" in this case means that after Vietnam develops the infrastructure using the investments and people gets more educated and starts asking $5USD/hr then companies move more "east/south" because "why would any company set up shop there?"
Imaginge - USA has too expansive labor. You are better consumers then labor. But isn't it dangerous if you tend to consume more and work oportunities are shrinking? Isn't the unemployment logical result of the outsourcing of the jobs you defend? Aren't you participating on your own destruction?
The most dangerous thing is not division of the world on "poor" and "rich" - it was like that always and it will be like that probably forever. The real threat is the "geographical" divison on "poor" and "rich" because companies are following this geographical line and are moving to east/south. But there is a news (few hundred years old) the Globe is a ball!
"Poor" countries when recieving investments tend to develop their infrasturture and education causing the businesses to move to cheaper labor markets... Hey, how will that end?
This will be a big problem. (But if we will be pretending that we are helping developing countries and instead we will exploit their labor without really helping them or make them poorer then before - well, in that scenario we will not be moving more east - because east continent from Asia is America - and everybody will be happy forewer and certain countries will be poor forewer...)
"Given that information, if person E, living in area F makes 50, is he well-off or poor?"
Your "information" is not complete. You operate with abstract term "area" that I cannot understand. Please, define "area": How many square miles/meters is "one area"?
- If it is 1 square meter then I'm the reachest man in my "area". - If the "area" is in the size of "asia" I'll be probably among the poor people. - If the "area" is about feeling/knowledge then I'm afraid that I'm among the poorest on the world (that is in my head).
"I'm looking through American eyes... But I'm not Chinese; perhaps in Chinese culture these things are perfectly acceptable."
Try to look at it through the human eyes (looks like the American eyes does not work well;-). You don't need to be biologist to know that the biological difference (considering the ability to work) between our and their race is not so different to be for a second in doubt.
Don't be afraid to make a clear judgement based on your intellect instead of waiting for somebody to prove you that NOBODY likes working 15 hrs/day no matter what culture it is. This is not about the culture.
"I am sorry to hear that you enjoy making people suffer." I didn't tell that.
"I am also sorry to hear that you need an iPod in order to be happy in life.":-)) No. It was really non-materialistic discussion - just a virtual example. I have no IPod. They are expensive for me.
"Perhaps some people find joy in things that aren't materialistic, perhaps some people like to have a strong work ethic." I'm not living the live driven by pure Materialism nor pure Idealism. And who is not materialistic? I leave normal life (I hope in the sense of natural harmony with slight emphasis on kalokagathia, I thing that I'm not living the statisticaly normal life).You use a internet, you have probably mobile phone beside your PC and TV and car... so you doesn't look like the second Diogenes of Sinope... you are materialistic too.;-)
"What he's saying is that $50 dollars can buy different amounts depending on where you live." They live in China. Their "local" product is IPod. How many IPods can they buy? You may live in USA. Your imported product is IPod. How many IPods can you buy?
"dollars just might be enough to satisfy their basic needs." Sure. I always new that food, shelter and place where I can put my shit is enough for happy cheap life.
"Beyond the basic needs, wealth affects happiness in terms of who has it and who doesn't." It sounds like abstract models used in economy. Is it that kind?
"For example, before TVs were invented, people weren't terribly upset that they didn't have TVs. In a country where everyone is poor, if the king slave is getting his basic needs satisfied, he is indeed a king." Sure, world is changing... People that created economical theories two hundred years ago didn't imagine that today you can speak fro USA with your partner in China in real time. They didn't hear about globalization. You can be the "king" if you don't know there are bigger "kings". You are not a prisoner unless you find locked doors. Do you think that they don't know about locked doors? Do you think that they don't know that they cannot afford goods they make with their hands? Do you think that _they_think_ they are kings?
"How much wealth should everyone have in order that they be happy? It's hard to say because you define the rich by how much more they have than the poor." Right. So we both see the problem. Polarizing world. They would be rich if nobody tell them that they are richer. You feel rich because they are telling you that they are poorer.
"The much more immediate and practical concern is whether or not everyone's getting the things they/must/ have, like food, water, and shelter. Then we can take on things like basic health treatment, and elementary education." Sounds like nice wording...:-) $50/month looks like the "immediate and practical concern" but how long will that "immediate and practical concern" last before they get a rise? Probably as long as they'll be willing to work for $50/month.;-) Be honest - if there is not "public" pressure there will not be nothing more beyond "immediate and practical concern" because staying with only withy "immediate and practical concern" is simply what we need. We need their labor and we don't want them rich (because by the things discussed above we get poorer if they get richer).
"Then we can worry about relative wealth.":-))) We are worying -that's why they are relatively poor - and nobody really wants to change it, right?
"No, it means that you need to consider the buying power of "X" per month"
Sure I know that. So explain me your logic in "buying power" terms per month. Answer:
1) How many IPods can you buy from your one month salary? 2) How many IPods can the Chinese woman buy from her one month salary?
Go to relative stuff: 1) How many times more IPods can afford from your salary? 2) How many times less do you work?
People are not living only by the food (which is maybe cheap in the context where they live). People like to buy also IPods or PCs to feed their minds... So if you speak how much they can buy then it is easy to pick up the "right" goods for comparison, right?;-)
I'm from the globalized world. I'm probably living on the other continent then you but I have the option to buy the same products as you - for example I can buy the same IPod as you. One would say that despite our "context" we are still on the same "global boat" or in the same "global shop" if you prefer.
Back to the problem - is it right that I can buy one IPod for the salary I earn in few hours but somebody else on the other world is not able to do so even after one month of hard work 15hrs/day? Somebody can call it "contextually" OK. But I call it global injustice. This people have not choice (compared to us).
Yes somebody on the other side on the world can earn "contextually huge cash" but in fact he/she cannot afford pretty common "global" gadgets - for example IPod. Is it OK? Hm. I don't like something on it - and I don't know what. Do you know what is wrong?
I don't want to change how the things are - I'm benefiting from the poor people that serve me as a cheap labor in developing countries like China. I like it! I don't need to work 15hrs every day to buy one IPod and I'm happy that others must work instead of me without any chance getting rich as me. I like it! You all like it too (it is enough to read your posts where many of you claim that it is a "normal" state)! But in contrast to you I'm not lying to myself and I'm calling things with right names instead of "contextual" or relative names.:-)
Yes when I buy my IPod I'm exploiting Chinese labor. I know that - do you know that?
"- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context..."
I think that this is maybe business logic but it is immorall. Does it mean that the work of the people on the other side of the world is valued less? Is not this the way how the exploatation of poor countries starts? Is not the "contexting" the beginning of the problem?
Isn't the logic dangerous?: "Look that slave is the king among other slaves because he has exactly 30% more food then other slaves!" Yes "contextually" he lives on pretty high level... BUT(!) isn't that king slave still just a poor slave?
O man... how can be the "contextual" stuff misleading when speaking about humans in globalized world.
"flaw in JavaScript" - you really mean "flaw in JavaScript" or flaw in the implementation of the so-called "JavaScript"? I mean - all browsers with "JavaScript" are affected? Including mobile devices, linuxes, unixes...?
Or consider hosting in different (more free) country.
Is there any "more free" country? Let me know! I'm afraid that all the politicians from all the countries all over the world were attending the same school of politics...:-(
If I hear that the same things happen in Russia then I say: "What do you expect from the totalitarian regime?". And now - what I'm supposed to say about America? If I'll try to be unbiased then I must say the same sentence no matter what country it is.:-|
So I say: "What do you expect from the totalitarian regime?":-(
'It now appears that if you go to a resturant and get bad food and bad service and write that in a review of that resturant then the resturant can sue you for giving them a bad "rank" '
If you write it then the restaurant have the right to ask you what did you dislike.
Maybe the restaurant's service was suited well for the type and taste of different customers and cooker can be surprised by the way you react... It is in your best interest to give as much information as possible to the other side and it is in the best interest of the other side to take your yelling seriously and improve the service... This is how the relations and services and products improve - ballancing, it goes out of ballance? Then there is a time for corrections. Corrections can be made only if there is enough information.
Imagine that you run the restaurant and one day people stop comming in. No customers - no business. You close your restaurant and the only information you got is "you have bad review". But you don't know what was wrong, who was unsatisfied, who and how was doing the review... That is not fair, is it?
SE service is based on "reviewing" the sites by secret and unseen "Agents". You cannot see them, you cannot know what they say, you feel only the impact that can kill your business. Is it fair? You should have right to know at least the base information.
Slashdot Mirror
It is really silly. And what about using planes to pull out the soldiers? It will safe more lives then Silly Strings.
Should not mothers lobby for their children returning home instead of gathering silly things?
> And the richest 2% pay 50% of the taxes
;-)
And do they work enough to make 50% of all work that needs to be done?
> If you send an email to Fred saying "Can you send me xxxx", and Fred replies, saying "Here it is",
;-)
> you can probably safely open the attachment. You should just exercise caution when Fred sends you
> an email out of the blue saying "Hey, read this would you?".
Should Fred open my message "Can you send me xxxx" if it was not preceded by Fred's message "Can you send me your 'Can you send me xxxx'"?
Or should I pick up the phone to inform the Fred that I'm sending the "Can you send me xxxx" message to make him sure he can safely open my message and reply with "Here it is"?
Evolution cannot be stopped (even if going in circles
> 'not open or save Word files,'
a ult.mspx
Do they call it "The Evolution of Microsoft Office"?
> To help you understand more about the merits of Microsoft Office 2003, we are preparing the new series of FREE training courses for you.
TRAINING COURSE - RULE#1: Don't open or save Word files!
> It's time for an evolution! Act now to take the Microsoft Office 2003 Training Courses and get rid of your current backward office!
TRAINING COURSE - RULE#2: Since you cannot open/save your documents... get rid of your current backward Office!
More Office tips and tricks: http://www.microsoft.com/hk/office/officetips/def
> The army will have to think harder when civilians start running at them with faraday cages around them.
The sad thing is that "professional rioters" will learn quickly how to protect themselves. The only unprotected people - as usually - will be those innocent people that didn't foreseen or didn't wont any fight...
Should print a t-shirt with the label "Raw meat is going after you!" on the front side and "Ding! Bloody steak running away!" on the back side?
How can you say that people are free if they must sue each other because there is no natural and widely accepted consensus what is the "free speech" in something trivial as this case.
;-)
To me (and I believe to all people in my country) at this times it is hard to believe that someone could be suspended for something like: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". Does it mean that we are more free then the people in the "most free country in the world"?
Last thing that I can compare to it is when somebody said "I'll not join the communistic party and I hate communists". It had the same results. But it is many years ago. And now it's stunning to hear something like that is happening in your country that was always accepted as a measure for the word "freedom".
You helped us by being our "freedom idols", maybe the sides flipped and there is coming time when we will pay back what you gave us...
> One innocent person accidentally shot by police.
I'm sorry, but I think that so-called "war on terror" has far more then one innocent person killed... By now you can count those innocent victims on thousands.
When facing to these imposed restrictions in the name of the "war on terror" - do you feel more safe then before the campaign against the terror started? Now is the time to look back and learn from the mistakes or at least stop lying to ourselves.
The antiterror campaing didn't make, does not make, will not make the world any safer. Let's stop lying about it and let's look for other solutions to this problem. Securing the borders and airports is not a solution. It has only delaying effect...
>> That's why we should shoot them into space.
:-) They wanted the people on the Earth to die... ;-))
..., ...).
I didn't mention why they wanted to be shoot into space in the book
>> Thus, building a base on the moon would/should stimulate the tech and manufacturing industry on earth.
It will stimulate mainly (if not only) high-high-high-tech and high-high-high-tech-manufacturing industry on earth that is benefit to nobody but the few people because high-high-high-tech is really-really-really-expensive so while millions are starving few people can have their laser-driven wristwatches. There can be milions of better ways how to spend the funds (for example whole planet is searching for renewable resources,
I love progress and science. I love people too.
In our country we have a writer (Egon Bondy) who foreseens this (book Cybercomix). :-) Funny why to have a moon base? How many people could live/work there? Only researchers?
0 .html => do they know something that we don't know? :-)))
There was written in his book that:
* Workers are working for the world elites
* The technology is pushed so far that workers turns to be replacable by machines
* World is full of useless (for the elites) people (people loose the buying force because of loosing jobs...)
* Elites decide to build the moon base
Who will own the patents of the research results? Is it benefitting all of us? Why not to solve visible and well known Earth problems with that funds
instead of investing to uncertainity? Shouldn't we learn first how to live on the Earth in pease (not only between us but in with the nature too)
before expanding in the space?
Japan Plans 30-Year Supercomputer Forecasts: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/18/D8IUNBSO
I hope that this is just coincidence ;-) - this is what Google serves me today:
---
Response Headers - http://video.google.com/
Cache-Control: private
Content-Length: 141
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:36:00 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Server: GFE/1.3
404 Not Found
---
When I use the American IP then I see normal content of http://video.google.com/ content.
When I use the URL "http://video.google.com/?test" instead of "http://video.google.com/" from my european IP it works OK. Funny.
What makes me different? Why does this censorship apply to me? I feel offended that Google offers tools for censorship to its users. I guess that Chinese see the same message for many political videos...
Once they build the censorship software for itself they should not allow customers to use the same *****. Or maybe it is the purpose? Let people use free censoring software and if there are thousands of real Americans using the real censorship then who will dare to blame Google for censoring information?
Restricting information based on the geographical location is simply BAD. Dot.
I hope that you will never read something like this (because this is exactly what I feel they do):
"Sorry, you are not authorized to see the content you requested because your government is not as good as ours or your continent is not as cool as ours or your currency is not as hard as ours... Try again few years later. Your Free Google."
I'm sure that audience is coming to Video.Google.com, but is google coming to the audience?
This is what google served me instead of the clips in "Music Videos" menu:
"We're sorry, but the provider of this video has not authorized Google to display this video in your location.
To see more videos visit our home page."
Does it matter that I'm from EU?
"I don't understand why this continues?"
:-( Sad discussion, isn't it?
It is just about money. But I'm afraid that with this kind of discussion I can end up with 3 minutes long page loading from Wikipedia meanwhile my neighbor downloads ten high resolution porn clips...
This are just two swimming pools and dormitories that are being build for the GoogleRestPlex program.
The GoogleRestPlex program is all about taking care of ex-employees - Google is always ahead and this is the next generation of the retirements homes. Big cooling house is because of 10.000 bodies of retired employees (yes, that is the capacity of one GoogleRestPlex complex) produce lot of heat!
===
"Yes, that's exactly what it means. They have a lower education level and a poor infrastructure... It's not "immoral" to make value judgements."
===
No, certainly it is not immoral. Your "value judgements" is judged by different "value" then mine. Your "value" is defined as "amount of green papers" but in my eyes your "paper" is not valued as much to be the default unit for making "value judgements" of the humans. Our "value judgements" are incompatible but dispite that fact I can say - yes, from business POV you are right. Those people have nothing to offer for investors. You are right.
===
It's how the improvement starts. If, say, Vietnam, required that workers be paid $5USD/hr, why would any company set up shop there?
===
I understand now. If it is just a "start" then it will be the continuation toward the happy end. "Continuation" in this case means that after Vietnam develops the infrastructure using the investments and people gets more educated and starts asking $5USD/hr then companies move more "east/south" because "why would any company set up shop there?"
Imaginge - USA has too expansive labor. You are better consumers then labor. But isn't it dangerous if you tend to consume more and work oportunities are shrinking? Isn't the unemployment logical result of the outsourcing of the jobs you defend? Aren't you participating on your own destruction?
The most dangerous thing is not division of the world on "poor" and "rich" - it was like that always and it will be like that probably forever. The real threat is the "geographical" divison on "poor" and "rich" because companies are following this geographical line and are moving to east/south. But there is a news (few hundred years old) the Globe is a ball!
"Poor" countries when recieving investments tend to develop their infrasturture and education causing the businesses to move to cheaper labor markets... Hey, how will that end?
This will be a big problem. (But if we will be pretending that we are helping developing countries and instead we will exploit their labor without really helping them or make them poorer then before - well, in that scenario we will not be moving more east - because east continent from Asia is America - and everybody will be happy forewer and certain countries will be poor forewer...)
"Given that information, if person E, living in area F makes 50, is he well-off or poor?"
Your "information" is not complete. You operate with abstract term "area" that I cannot understand. Please, define "area":
How many square miles/meters is "one area"?
- If it is 1 square meter then I'm the reachest man in my "area".
- If the "area" is in the size of "asia" I'll be probably among the poor people.
- If the "area" is about feeling/knowledge then I'm afraid that I'm among the poorest on the world (that is in my head).
"I'm looking through American eyes... But I'm not Chinese; perhaps in Chinese culture these things are perfectly acceptable."
;-). You don't need to be biologist to know that the biological difference (considering the ability to work) between our and their race is not so different to be for a second in doubt.
Try to look at it through the human eyes (looks like the American eyes does not work well
Don't be afraid to make a clear judgement based on your intellect instead of waiting for somebody to prove you that NOBODY likes working 15 hrs/day no matter what culture it is. This is not about the culture.
"I am sorry to hear that you enjoy making people suffer."
:-)) No. It was really non-materialistic discussion - just a virtual example. I have no IPod. They are expensive for me.
;-)
I didn't tell that.
"I am also sorry to hear that you need an iPod in order to be happy in life."
"Perhaps some people find joy in things that aren't materialistic, perhaps some people like to have a strong work ethic."
I'm not living the live driven by pure Materialism nor pure Idealism. And who is not materialistic? I leave normal life (I hope in the sense of natural harmony with slight emphasis on kalokagathia, I thing that I'm not living the statisticaly normal life).You use a internet, you have probably mobile phone beside your PC and TV and car... so you doesn't look like the second Diogenes of Sinope... you are materialistic too.
"What he's saying is that $50 dollars can buy different amounts depending on where you live."
/must/ have, like food, water, and shelter. Then we can take on things like basic health treatment, and elementary education." :-) $50/month looks like the "immediate and practical concern" but how long will that "immediate and practical concern" last before they get a rise? Probably as long as they'll be willing to work for $50/month. ;-) Be honest - if there is not "public" pressure there will not be nothing more beyond "immediate and practical concern" because staying with only withy "immediate and practical concern" is simply what we need. We need their labor and we don't want them rich (because by the things discussed above we get poorer if they get richer).
:-))) We are worying -that's why they are relatively poor - and nobody really wants to change it, right?
They live in China. Their "local" product is IPod. How many IPods can they buy?
You may live in USA. Your imported product is IPod. How many IPods can you buy?
"dollars just might be enough to satisfy their basic needs."
Sure. I always new that food, shelter and place where I can put my shit is enough for happy cheap life.
"Beyond the basic needs, wealth affects happiness in terms of who has it and who doesn't."
It sounds like abstract models used in economy. Is it that kind?
"For example, before TVs were invented, people weren't terribly upset that they didn't have TVs. In a country where everyone is poor, if the king slave is getting his basic needs satisfied, he is indeed a king."
Sure, world is changing... People that created economical theories two hundred years ago didn't imagine that today you can speak fro USA with your partner in China in real time. They didn't hear about globalization. You can be the "king" if you don't know there are bigger "kings". You are not a prisoner unless you find locked doors. Do you think that they don't know about locked doors? Do you think that they don't know that they cannot afford goods they make with their hands? Do you think that _they_think_ they are kings?
"How much wealth should everyone have in order that they be happy? It's hard to say because you define the rich by how much more they have than the poor."
Right. So we both see the problem. Polarizing world. They would be rich if nobody tell them that they are richer. You feel rich because they are telling you that they are poorer.
"The much more immediate and practical concern is whether or not everyone's getting the things they
Sounds like nice wording...
"Then we can worry about relative wealth."
"No, it means that you need to consider the buying power of "X" per month"
;-)
Sure I know that. So explain me your logic in "buying power" terms per month. Answer:
1) How many IPods can you buy from your one month salary?
2) How many IPods can the Chinese woman buy from her one month salary?
Go to relative stuff:
1) How many times more IPods can afford from your salary?
2) How many times less do you work?
People are not living only by the food (which is maybe cheap in the context where they live). People like to buy also IPods or PCs to feed their minds... So if you speak how much they can buy then it is easy to pick up the "right" goods for comparison, right?
"Where did you come up with this?"
:-)
I'm from the globalized world. I'm probably living on the other continent then you but I have the option to buy the same products as you - for example I can buy the same IPod as you. One would say that despite our "context" we are still on the same "global boat" or in the same "global shop" if you prefer.
Back to the problem - is it right that I can buy one IPod for the salary I earn in few hours but somebody else on the other world is not able to do so even after one month of hard work 15hrs/day? Somebody can call it "contextually" OK. But I call it global injustice. This people have not choice (compared to us).
Yes somebody on the other side on the world can earn "contextually huge cash" but in fact he/she cannot afford pretty common "global" gadgets - for example IPod. Is it OK? Hm. I don't like something on it - and I don't know what. Do you know what is wrong?
I don't want to change how the things are - I'm benefiting from the poor people that serve me as a cheap labor in developing countries like China. I like it! I don't need to work 15hrs every day to buy one IPod and I'm happy that others must work instead of me without any chance getting rich as me. I like it! You all like it too (it is enough to read your posts where many of you claim that it is a "normal" state)! But in contrast to you I'm not lying to myself and I'm calling things with right names instead of "contextual" or relative names.
Yes when I buy my IPod I'm exploiting Chinese labor. I know that - do you know that?
"- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context..."
I think that this is maybe business logic but it is immorall. Does it mean that the work of the people on the other side of the world is valued less? Is not this the way how the exploatation of poor countries starts? Is not the "contexting" the beginning of the problem?
Isn't the logic dangerous?: "Look that slave is the king among other slaves because he has exactly 30% more food then other slaves!"
Yes "contextually" he lives on pretty high level... BUT(!) isn't that king slave still just a poor slave?
O man... how can be the "contextual" stuff misleading when speaking about humans in globalized world.
"flaw in JavaScript" - you really mean "flaw in JavaScript" or flaw in the implementation of the so-called "JavaScript"? I mean - all browsers with "JavaScript" are affected? Including mobile devices, linuxes, unixes...?
Or consider hosting in different (more free) country.
:-(
:-|
:-(
Is there any "more free" country? Let me know! I'm afraid that all the politicians from all the countries all over the world were attending the same school of politics...
If I hear that the same things happen in Russia then I say: "What do you expect from the totalitarian regime?". And now - what I'm supposed to say about America? If I'll try to be unbiased then I must say the same sentence no matter what country it is.
So I say: "What do you expect from the totalitarian regime?"
'It now appears that if you go to a resturant and get bad food and bad service and write that in a review of that resturant then the resturant can sue you for giving them a bad "rank" '
If you write it then the restaurant have the right to ask you what did you dislike.
Maybe the restaurant's service was suited well for the type and taste of different customers and cooker can be surprised by the way you react... It is in your best interest to give as much information as possible to the other side and it is in the best interest of the other side to take your yelling seriously and improve the service... This is how the relations and services and products improve - ballancing, it goes out of ballance? Then there is a time for corrections. Corrections can be made only if there is enough information.
Imagine that you run the restaurant and one day people stop comming in. No customers - no business. You close your restaurant and the only information you got is "you have bad review". But you don't know what was wrong, who was unsatisfied, who and how was doing the review... That is not fair, is it?
SE service is based on "reviewing" the sites by secret and unseen "Agents". You cannot see them, you cannot know what they say, you feel only the impact that can kill your business. Is it fair? You should have right to know at least the base information.