"London is NOT the center of terrorist attacks. I guess third world countries don't count."
You have a point. However, can you name any other non-third-world city with a comparable record of terrorist attacks?
"Those CCTVs have not made you any safer, just like the cameras in banks, convenience stores, grocery stores, and any other place of business don't keep them from being robbed."
I served on a Jury just last week where CCTV evidence strongly supported a conviction. They serve as a deterrent in the same way police do. I may not like them for privacy/big brother reasons but I'm not blind to their benefits.
Yes, indeed anyone pointing out that the USA isn't the greatest nation in all categories *must* be unhappy with their life. They're probably terrorists too.
I recommend researching more of the history of mankind before demonstrating your ignorance of it.
Literally everything you said in two short sentences is highly debatable at best.
I don't agree at all - I thought the book and film were very different, but the film delivers better than the book IMO.
Not much more to say on that really... I was surprised when I read the book that it wasn't better than it was.
"LOTRO deeds are different from CoX badges because a lot of them aren't simply ornamental titles."
I think you meant to say something along the lines of "LOTRO deeds are a direct copy of CoX badges and Accolades".
Many, many badges in CoX are far from ornamental titles.
"How is this any worse from having to deal with a Catholic man who refuses to use condoms, or any other religious sect?"
Yes, I don't consider that to be a minor issue either. I don't see how that minimises what we're discussing though.
"If you're dead set about your religion, you're prolly not going to intermarry regardless. Jewish people are a little more lenient 'cause there's not a big pool to pick from to begin with, and inbreeding like chihuahuas isn't a great option either.
Compromises abound, but you've got to be willing to bend too, ya know?"
Sure, in the scenario you pose, I can see that. It's still a lot to ask though!
"raisin' em so ain't asking much"
Is it not? I think it's asking a great deal.
What would you think if your potential spouse insisted that your children be raised as, say, Greek Orthodox? Would you accept? If not, and it's something that would prevent your marriage, how can it not be asking much?
Ah no, I was in Colorado, mostly Denver. Sadly I didn't get a chance to visit the East Coast (yet!).
Sainsbury's and Tesco have come on a lot in the last 2 years... generally the industry is becoming extremely competitive and given that people in the UK work a lot, prepared food is one of the key battlegrounds for the supermarkets.
Thanks for the info.
Eh?
It's not marketing bullshit at all. The Organic Foods certifications are strict and hard to get - if there's so much demand for organic, why do you think the scale of production hasn't reached saturation level yet? It's because it can take years for a farm or other producer to get organic certification after they stop using inorganic fertilisers, pesticides etc. It's punishingly hard and mostly it's the producers that have always been organic that are providing for now.
Expect organic food to come down in price steadily, and please read more about the subject!
Weird, I came to the US recently and had the reverse reaction. In the US it seemed that basic foodstuffs were plentiful, but of relatively low quality, and even more sugar and starch-centric than the UK. Good quality prepared food was hard to find. Then again, the quality of prepared food in UK supermarkets has improved steadily over the years, and of course there's a vast variety between chains. Which supermarkets did you go to in the UK, and when?
You must be a big fan of the total banning of guns in the UK. Now that no one has guns, they've turned it into the perfect utopian society without crimes or violence.
BTW, that's called sarcasm. Since they've banned guns, that catchy NRA slogan has become a reality (if it's a crime to have guns, only criminals will have guns). The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.
You should really read the Wikipedia Guns and crime article which largely debunks this:-
"In addition, it is widely claimed that the firearms crime rate in the United Kingdom has massively increased since an almost total ban on handguns in 1997/8, with violent gun crimes, including shootings to death, increasing year on year for over five years despite otherwise declining levels of reported crime levels. (Note however that victimisation levels have reportedly risen as has non-recorded crime due to apathy and lack of police response.) Some claim that this demonstrates a negative correlation between more restrictive gun laws and violent crimes involving firearms.
Such claims, though, overlook a number of other factors in play since the handgun ban, quite apart from the fact that prior to it less than 1% of the population actually owned handguns that were affected by the ban. There were two separate changes in police crime reporting rules (in 1998/99 and 2002/03), both of which had the effect of "adding" offences that would not previously have been included, while the removal of border controls within Europe has also made the illicit movement of firearms from one state to another more easy."
The article further goes on to state, in comparison between Australian gun crime and US:-
"Australia has always had tougher gun laws than the U.S. - despite that country's own frontier history and its cultural similarities to the United States. In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the States the number exceeded 1,300. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia."
Elsewhere it notes that even at the so-called "increased gun crime" levels, the UK has had an average of 72 deaths per year since 1998 when the laws were tightened even further. The population of the UK is approximately 60 million, to the USA's 300 million - even taking that into account, the USA has at least four times the level of gun homicide incidents per capita than the UK.
The following data in another article corroborates this (emphasis mine):-
"Despite its high crime rate Britain has a low murder rate per capita, accounting for 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. The UK's population is more than 60 million, which translates into fewer than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population. In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004."
I'm happy to live in a country where I cannot own a gun, and know that I am vastly less likely to get murdered. Gun possession by the general populace grants the illusion of security and a much greater risk of being killed during common domestic incidents, petty criminal action and mundane feuds.
It's clear that as a group, Slashdotters profess a greater knowledge of the supply/demand curve, production costs, and other grim realities of the recording industry, than the record industry itself. This raises the question: why don't you -- or anybody else reading this -- do just that? Start your own online record store, sign artists, pay for production and marketing, and sell albums for a buck each or ten cents a track, just like allofmp3. You said that the existing record companies would make a fortune doing that. Why not make that fortune yourself?
The bottom line, in layman's terms, is that it's not easy to break into any established market as an "average Joe", even if Joe is a smart, well-educated and creative individual, or set of individuals. If it were, we wouldn't see commerce in the world largely being driven by global corporations, and corner shop greengrocers would be effectively competing with the Wal-Marts of the world. There's plenty of smarts in the world, but capitalism rewards having lots of money and existing corporate structures far more than "smarts".
On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores.
Easy - they're almost unknown to the general public. I certainly hadn't heard of them before you mentioned them.
Just to make it even more difficult for them - those in the know enough to know about Magnatunes also probably know about AllOfMp3... having a direct competitor at a quarter of the price (with a really usable service, too) hurts badly.
They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each?
AllOfMp3 pay royalties that, under Russian copyright law and the regulations of the non-profit organisations that regulate them (FAIR and ROMS), can be claimed by any relevant copyright owner. The royalties are 15% (see the AllOfMp3 legality FAQ, which is an interesting read). We could debate whether 15% is reasonable (even AllOfMp3 admit they are considering paying another 5% directly to the artist), but it's not really fair to say that they pay the artists nothing.
his is exactly why many people in the Middle East hate America so much - they either believe you[1] approve of everything your leaders do, or they realise you disagree but know you're too apathetic to actually oppose them.
I think I'd be pretty pissed off if my life was going to hell... and even though the American people disagreed they couldn't be bothered to oppose the guy doing it in their names.Sublime insight. I'd be modding this up myself if I wasn't in the discussion. This is one of the heart-of-the-issue realities, IMHO.
and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them.Speaking from and as part of the UK, I can assure you that the majority of the UK is extremely pissed off with US foreign policy, and the weakness of our own administrators who go along with it. This is most certainly not our finest hour.
I see no evidence to suggest that the people of China will be unable to donate to Wikipedia for any reason. What makes you think that they won't? The concept of charitable donation was not created by, nor is owned by, Capitalism.
In my experience (for what it's worth), women love consoles of all forms (and do generally seem to get on better with non-violent games) but don't tend to actually buy consoles very often - they either tend to play with a male friend's console or have one bought for them.
As for non-violent games, the PS2 was the best in the last generation at nontraditional games IMO. Most of the gamecube games are "kiddified", but violent nonetheless.
If voters elect representatives knowing that said representatives want to fund the last-mile buildout of an entry-level ISP, then they have declared Internet access a "right".
I see where you're coming from, but really, they haven't. What they've done is indicate a preference to have a product in place within their domain. This is far from having a "right" to have that product.
"Right" is a word that's tossed around far too liberally and loosely at the moment. You don't have a right to have a particular product, be it beans or broadband. Nobody has to sell it to you. You do have a right to free speech in that country (theoretically), and to not be enslaved, or murdered, etc etc. The laws and (more importantly) societal customs of that nation determine this. Societies have relatively few fundamental rights, the claims of the MTV generation notwithstanding.
I consider the British much closer to the Swedish or the Dutch, for example, than the US Americans in most social aspects I can think of.
Thanks, that's a nice compliment for the UK. Having travelled and lived in many parts of the world, I can only agree... the UK is far more part of the Old World than the new.
Oh man, tell me about it... with the Scrapbook and Session Saver Firefox extensions and mouse with a middle button... well, let's just say the concept of "spare time" has got very interesting around here.
So, are there any *better* success stories of an open approach to knowledge in existence, or is Wikipedia pretty much the Best Damn Thing since sliced bread?
Not just that - it has a *really cool name*, as opposed to the relatively dull and meaningless "Mozilla".
I think a lot of coders underestimate the value of a really cool name - one that is cool not just to coders, but also to the general public.
If Firefox and IE were totally identical save for the name, and starting from a totally equal standpoint, I'd lay hard cash down that Firefox would be the more popular. IE's function is easy to understand from it's name, which has value, but not as much as the "vibrant energy" of Firefox. Firefox is also more simply memorable.
Firefox is simply the coolest-sounding browser around. There's an awful lot in a name, Will.
Slashdot Mirror
"London is NOT the center of terrorist attacks. I guess third world countries don't count." You have a point. However, can you name any other non-third-world city with a comparable record of terrorist attacks? "Those CCTVs have not made you any safer, just like the cameras in banks, convenience stores, grocery stores, and any other place of business don't keep them from being robbed." I served on a Jury just last week where CCTV evidence strongly supported a conviction. They serve as a deterrent in the same way police do. I may not like them for privacy/big brother reasons but I'm not blind to their benefits.
Yes, indeed anyone pointing out that the USA isn't the greatest nation in all categories *must* be unhappy with their life. They're probably terrorists too.
I recommend researching more of the history of mankind before demonstrating your ignorance of it. Literally everything you said in two short sentences is highly debatable at best.
I don't agree at all - I thought the book and film were very different, but the film delivers better than the book IMO. Not much more to say on that really... I was surprised when I read the book that it wasn't better than it was.
Any equipment to receive TV signals requires a license, by law. This most definitely includes a freeview box hooked up to a PC.
"LOTRO deeds are different from CoX badges because a lot of them aren't simply ornamental titles." I think you meant to say something along the lines of "LOTRO deeds are a direct copy of CoX badges and Accolades". Many, many badges in CoX are far from ornamental titles.
"How is this any worse from having to deal with a Catholic man who refuses to use condoms, or any other religious sect?"
Yes, I don't consider that to be a minor issue either. I don't see how that minimises what we're discussing though.
"If you're dead set about your religion, you're prolly not going to intermarry regardless. Jewish people are a little more lenient 'cause there's not a big pool to pick from to begin with, and inbreeding like chihuahuas isn't a great option either.
Compromises abound, but you've got to be willing to bend too, ya know?"
Sure, in the scenario you pose, I can see that. It's still a lot to ask though!
"raisin' em so ain't asking much" Is it not? I think it's asking a great deal. What would you think if your potential spouse insisted that your children be raised as, say, Greek Orthodox? Would you accept? If not, and it's something that would prevent your marriage, how can it not be asking much?
Ah no, I was in Colorado, mostly Denver. Sadly I didn't get a chance to visit the East Coast (yet!). Sainsbury's and Tesco have come on a lot in the last 2 years... generally the industry is becoming extremely competitive and given that people in the UK work a lot, prepared food is one of the key battlegrounds for the supermarkets. Thanks for the info.
Eh? It's not marketing bullshit at all. The Organic Foods certifications are strict and hard to get - if there's so much demand for organic, why do you think the scale of production hasn't reached saturation level yet? It's because it can take years for a farm or other producer to get organic certification after they stop using inorganic fertilisers, pesticides etc. It's punishingly hard and mostly it's the producers that have always been organic that are providing for now. Expect organic food to come down in price steadily, and please read more about the subject!
Weird, I came to the US recently and had the reverse reaction. In the US it seemed that basic foodstuffs were plentiful, but of relatively low quality, and even more sugar and starch-centric than the UK. Good quality prepared food was hard to find. Then again, the quality of prepared food in UK supermarkets has improved steadily over the years, and of course there's a vast variety between chains. Which supermarkets did you go to in the UK, and when?
BTW, that's called sarcasm. Since they've banned guns, that catchy NRA slogan has become a reality (if it's a crime to have guns, only criminals will have guns). The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.
You should really read the Wikipedia Guns and crime article which largely debunks this:-
"In addition, it is widely claimed that the firearms crime rate in the United Kingdom has massively increased since an almost total ban on handguns in 1997/8, with violent gun crimes, including shootings to death, increasing year on year for over five years despite otherwise declining levels of reported crime levels. (Note however that victimisation levels have reportedly risen as has non-recorded crime due to apathy and lack of police response.) Some claim that this demonstrates a negative correlation between more restrictive gun laws and violent crimes involving firearms.
Such claims, though, overlook a number of other factors in play since the handgun ban, quite apart from the fact that prior to it less than 1% of the population actually owned handguns that were affected by the ban. There were two separate changes in police crime reporting rules (in 1998/99 and 2002/03), both of which had the effect of "adding" offences that would not previously have been included, while the removal of border controls within Europe has also made the illicit movement of firearms from one state to another more easy."
The article further goes on to state, in comparison between Australian gun crime and US:-
"Australia has always had tougher gun laws than the U.S. - despite that country's own frontier history and its cultural similarities to the United States. In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the States the number exceeded 1,300. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia."
Elsewhere it notes that even at the so-called "increased gun crime" levels, the UK has had an average of 72 deaths per year since 1998 when the laws were tightened even further. The population of the UK is approximately 60 million, to the USA's 300 million - even taking that into account, the USA has at least four times the level of gun homicide incidents per capita than the UK.
The following data in another article corroborates this (emphasis mine):-
"Despite its high crime rate Britain has a low murder rate per capita, accounting for 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. The UK's population is more than 60 million, which translates into fewer than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population. In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004."
I'm happy to live in a country where I cannot own a gun, and know that I am vastly less likely to get murdered. Gun possession by the general populace grants the illusion of security and a much greater risk of being killed during common domestic incidents, petty criminal action and mundane feuds.
The bottom line, in layman's terms, is that it's not easy to break into any established market as an "average Joe", even if Joe is a smart, well-educated and creative individual, or set of individuals. If it were, we wouldn't see commerce in the world largely being driven by global corporations, and corner shop greengrocers would be effectively competing with the Wal-Marts of the world. There's plenty of smarts in the world, but capitalism rewards having lots of money and existing corporate structures far more than "smarts".
On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores.Easy - they're almost unknown to the general public. I certainly hadn't heard of them before you mentioned them.
Just to make it even more difficult for them - those in the know enough to know about Magnatunes also probably know about AllOfMp3... having a direct competitor at a quarter of the price (with a really usable service, too) hurts badly.
They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each?
AllOfMp3 pay royalties that, under Russian copyright law and the regulations of the non-profit organisations that regulate them (FAIR and ROMS), can be claimed by any relevant copyright owner. The royalties are 15% (see the AllOfMp3 legality FAQ, which is an interesting read). We could debate whether 15% is reasonable (even AllOfMp3 admit they are considering paying another 5% directly to the artist), but it's not really fair to say that they pay the artists nothing.
his is exactly why many people in the Middle East hate America so much - they either believe you[1] approve of everything your leaders do, or they realise you disagree but know you're too apathetic to actually oppose them. I think I'd be pretty pissed off if my life was going to hell... and even though the American people disagreed they couldn't be bothered to oppose the guy doing it in their names.Sublime insight. I'd be modding this up myself if I wasn't in the discussion. This is one of the heart-of-the-issue realities, IMHO.
and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them.Speaking from and as part of the UK, I can assure you that the majority of the UK is extremely pissed off with US foreign policy, and the weakness of our own administrators who go along with it. This is most certainly not our finest hour.
I see no evidence to suggest that the people of China will be unable to donate to Wikipedia for any reason. What makes you think that they won't? The concept of charitable donation was not created by, nor is owned by, Capitalism.
Yeah, he was joking. I love it when people don't get jokes and get outraged about it.
In my experience (for what it's worth), women love consoles of all forms (and do generally seem to get on better with non-violent games) but don't tend to actually buy consoles very often - they either tend to play with a male friend's console or have one bought for them. As for non-violent games, the PS2 was the best in the last generation at nontraditional games IMO. Most of the gamecube games are "kiddified", but violent nonetheless.
If voters elect representatives knowing that said representatives want to fund the last-mile buildout of an entry-level ISP, then they have declared Internet access a "right".
I see where you're coming from, but really, they haven't. What they've done is indicate a preference to have a product in place within their domain. This is far from having a "right" to have that product.
"Right" is a word that's tossed around far too liberally and loosely at the moment. You don't have a right to have a particular product, be it beans or broadband. Nobody has to sell it to you. You do have a right to free speech in that country (theoretically), and to not be enslaved, or murdered, etc etc. The laws and (more importantly) societal customs of that nation determine this. Societies have relatively few fundamental rights, the claims of the MTV generation notwithstanding.
I consider the British much closer to the Swedish or the Dutch, for example, than the US Americans in most social aspects I can think of.
Thanks, that's a nice compliment for the UK. Having travelled and lived in many parts of the world, I can only agree... the UK is far more part of the Old World than the new.
Profit margin... "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean..."
Oh man, tell me about it... with the Scrapbook and Session Saver Firefox extensions and mouse with a middle button... well, let's just say the concept of "spare time" has got very interesting around here. So, are there any *better* success stories of an open approach to knowledge in existence, or is Wikipedia pretty much the Best Damn Thing since sliced bread?
"Firefox is prettier"
Not just that - it has a *really cool name*, as opposed to the relatively dull and meaningless "Mozilla".
I think a lot of coders underestimate the value of a really cool name - one that is cool not just to coders, but also to the general public.
If Firefox and IE were totally identical save for the name, and starting from a totally equal standpoint, I'd lay hard cash down that Firefox would be the more popular. IE's function is easy to understand from it's name, which has value, but not as much as the "vibrant energy" of Firefox. Firefox is also more simply memorable.
Firefox is simply the coolest-sounding browser around. There's an awful lot in a name, Will.