Keep in mind that the government's actions directly benefited companies. The people benefited more indirectly. The companies had a market for their goods which meant they had the money to grow and the need for employees.
Also, back in WW2 manufacturing was pretty much completely domestic. Like it or not, globalism is here and it's not going away. This means the US is competing with the rest of the world now. And unfortunately, as we've seen countless times, companies are going to move where it's cheaper to do business.
Maybe helping the average person will make everyone feel good, but would is really help the economy in the long run? How much more money will the government put in the hands of individuals? A few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand of dollars at best?
What will they do with that money? The smart ones will save it, which won't really directly help anyone but that individual. Most people, I predict, will spend it. But spend it on what? Televisions, electronics, clothing, and cars.
Who does that really benefit? Given how much is made in foreign countries, by foreign companies, I don't see how it's really going to help the US economy. Sure it will help some, especially retailers but in the long run I don't see the benefit.
The fact is that companies create the jobs. I'd rather give companies the incentive to remain in the US. By no means do I want to see companies get away with whatever they want. I'd like to see severe penalties for taking advantage of people and the country. Companies should be so heavily penalized for outsourcing with no good reason that it is more cost-effective to keep those jobs in the US.
The problem I have with income redistribution is that it doesn't encourage personal responsibility. It certainly doesn't encourage people to get educated and work harder, which I think is far more valuable to this country than simple handing them a check.
The first hour or two of Doom 3 were genuinely creepy. There was this sense of foreboding That made me reluctant to keep playing. It was an interesting sensation, stopping in some part of the complex, knowing that it was relatively safe and feeling some level of relief, but imagining what the hell might be going on elsewhere. The voices early on were extremely unsettling. Curiosity, however kept me going because I thought that all those elements were hinting at the coming story. Unfortunately, that never came to be. The game just became frustratingly tedious.
I haven't played many other scary games, but one that was genuinely scary all the way through was the original Alone in the Dark. And there was that one freaking room in the house that I don't recall ever revealed. It's too bad that the graphics are so primitive I don't think I could recapture the same feeling playing the game now.
One disappointing thing about both games and movies in this genre is that shock and gore seems to have become an obsession. Depravity seems to be the recurring theme. The shock comes I believe because of a lack of talent and imagination and the gore because it's a cheap way to disturb people. A second problem is that the Japanese horror movie theme has been beaten to death and there seems to be no end in sight.
One thing I like so much about H.P. Lovecraft's work was the sense of dread that arises from feeling insignificant. I'm surprised his themes haven't been explored more in games. I guess it's too much of a challenge for developers to handle.
I guess this means I'm somewhere in the middle since my interests would indicate I'm a liberal but I have a tendency to want things neat and organized.
I have to say, it's quite obnoxious how utterly polarized politics has become in the US. It's basically all or nothing with too many people on both sides, to the point where a potentially sound idea is completely dismissed because it might have hints of being conservative or liberal. Instead of fixing existing systems too many people are intent on completely trashing it and replacing it with whatever conforms to their worldview. I don't even bother trying to discuss politics with some people I know because it results in them becoming openly hostile. They wont even take the time to consider my viewpoint and argue it. Instead I'm dismissed as a shill for one entity or another. The friends I do get into interesting discussions with are the ones who are legitimately moderate.
And this is amongst people who are somewhat informed, although some might draw all their news from one side of the aisle. Unfortunately, I encounter far too many people who don't know what the hell is going on beyond what they hear in sound bites. I find that overseas people seem to be better informed about politics. And their opinions seem to be more balanced. They seem inclined to side with parties based more on specific issues. And there's much less of this notion that one side has to take one stance on issues and the other side has to adopt the opposite stance.
What troubles me is that this is basically using science to reinforce stereotypes. Maybe someday someone will come along and tell us we can be cured of our political affiliations.
I realize my comments probably violate your faith in socialized healthcare but I think my statement was quite clear.
The elderly population is increasing while birthrate continues to fall. This means that while the number of people dependent on healthcare keeps growing the number of people contributing to the system, via taxes continues to shrink. Simply put, there's too much money coming out of the system and not enough going in.
And that isn't the only problem. The system is also over-burdened. It's much like the problem being experienced in Taiwan where there are still enough people to pay into the system.
In Taiwan it cost me $2 to see the doctor. Two dollars! Sounds great, but then what happens is that people end up going to the doctor for every little thing. Any time I got a cold I had people insisting I see a doctor.
And what did that visit consist of? I sit down, the doctor asks whats wrong, I describe the symptoms and he quickly rattles off what I must be afflicted with. I don't even recall my blood pressure being checked or temperature being taken. He then types up a few things in his computer and hands me a small sack of pills. Small talk is out of the question.
Doctors there don't earn particularly well so they end up trying to find ways to earn additional income. For a while they were making money by selling prescription medication on the side. More recently they've taken to opening private practices where patients can get better service but have to pay out of their pockets for it. It's illegal for a doctor working at a public facility to recommend a visit to his private office but they do it anyway.
I also happen to have family in various countries in Europe so I also know the problems they face there. The most immediate being the government cutting back on services. It's bad enough in France that I have an uncle who got private health insurance last year in order to get the kind of coverage he needed.
I had an uncle who had to wait a few months to get the exam he needed to see if he had lung cancer. My sister in law's grandmother also had to wait a few months for tests related to her heart attack. My grandfather had a stroke and lived another 7 years unable to walk or speak properly because the government didn't bother providing any sort of therapy. A recurring theme seems to be if someone is considered to old they don't bother with treatment especially if the condition is serious and potentially expensive. I could go on, I've got more examples.
And ultimately, despite the high taxes supporting this system people still have to pay for a lot of things themselves. But the taxes are the worst. It's not for nothing that pretty much everything in Europe is nearly twice as expensive as it is in the US.
Taxes are considerably lower in Taiwan and Japan I believe primarily because they still have large populations contributing to the system. They also don't really have to contend with immigration considering how draconian their immigration policies can be. Japan in particular is very selective with their immigrants, something that would never fly in the US or even Europe.
Not that social healthcare doesn't have it's place, but it sure as hell isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I'd rather see careful, sensible regulation of the American system than have us dump it for the fiasco they have in Europe. I think too many people suffer from the green grass syndrome.
Given the problems Japan is facing with socialized healthcare I doubt they're government is going to subsidize the use of this thing. Socialized healthcare is great until someone has to pay for it. That's the problem Japan is facing, not enough people to pay for the growing aging population.
Such technology would see limited use not because of healthcare but because of cost versus value. I actually think $2200 a month isn't bad at all given the nature of this new technology. If this thing had been been introduced by an American company it would likely cost 10 times more because of perceived value. And the technology would probably be more utilitarian and require on-going support and maintenance.
People complain about American companies going overseas but then aren't willing to do what it takes to motivate them to remain in the US. I realize there's a current desire in the US to want to punish corporations with higher taxes.
Certain politicians love talking about how the the middle class apparently is the engine of the economy. In some ways that may be true, but the basic fact is that they don't create the jobs, corporations do. I don't even see why it's become such a political issue. When a company is taxed more heavily it means less money to invest elsewhere, be it employee salaries or equipment. Among other things this is reflected in lower salaries and fewer jobs.
South Korea just lowered taxes for corporations, as did Taiwan last year. And the reason they gave for doing so? To help ensure strong economic growth, and these two countries already have over 4% economic growth. And they wisely realize that this also benefits small businesses.
Unlike Obama's supposed plan to "help" small businesses by cutting capital gains tax. How exactly does this help small businesses when they pay income tax, not capital gains tax. And weren't the democrats up in arms a number of years ago when Bush cut capital gains tax? At the time weren't they claiming that these cuts only helped wealthy investors?
The problem nowadays is that both parties are spending recklessly. It's hard to justify cutting tax in light of this. But still, I think in the long run it's a good thing and would be more effective than all the ridiculous specific tax breaks available now.
To this carrot, however, I'd offer a stick. I'd cut corporate tax significantly, but then, among other things I'd penalize companies heavily for outsourcing, which I consider a significant problem. This would obviously require some nuanced regulations, but basically any company that lays off American workers for the sake of outsourcing gets punished with heavy outsourcing taxes. The goal would be to eliminate the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing.
While I agree that gaming may help reflexes I disagree that it has an inherent benefit on driving. Driving demands good decision-making and experience. What does it help to have quick reactions if you make poor decisions or over-react?
I've known guys who played games extensively and were crap drivers. All that gaming didn't keep them from getting into accidents anyway. I doubt statistics would support the notion that the rise of gaming has had an positive impact on reducing accidents.
Then there's the video online where some dumb kid and his friends play Initial D in the arcade and then decide to go out for a spin in their car. It doesn't take to long before this kid wrecks his car. Young people are already delusional enough about their driving abilities they don't need anyone making it worse.
Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.
I've been following the strip off an on for quite a few years now. I guess it's amusing enough that I generally remain interested. I agree that the characters are generally well-defined but I wouldn't necessarily say they have much depth. It isn't like there's much character development going on. But then, it is just a comic strip.
In general I find the humor a bit dry, but every so often there's a genuinely funny strip. One thing I sometimes find it difficult to get past is the odd dialog. I'm not quite sure what Onstad is going for. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be slang or an attempt at play on words. But for me it comes off as awkward at times.
Still, I have to give credit where it's due. I think Achewood is a step above the majority of other strips. There are too many poor comics out there with lame writing and crappy illustration. Chris Onstad has been at this for years and his writing is interesting enough that it more than makes up for the art. Actually, even the art has it's own character.
Successful brands offer something consumers find valuable. Be it quality, convenience, exclusivity, cost-savings or merely coolness. It is possible to have a brand elevated to a point where it survives on reputation and consumers become overly tolerant of problems.
Then you've got the reverse where some brands have taken on a negative stigma, and in some cases deservedly so. The problem is that the negative stigma sometimes persists longer than it should or is exaggerated.
Apple is in the fortunate situation that they're still riding high on their popularity. The problem is that as their base grows more consumers become aware of problems. If Apple persists with some of it's practices it's only a matter of time before it turns into another Microsoft. The same thing already seems to be happening with Google, actually.
Regarding the statement about cars, Honda and Toyota are still at the top in reliability. However, I do agree people are irrational in their acclaim for these cars.
As far as the Germans are concerned, in terms of design and making the driver feel good they're unmatched. They're always doing interesting things. The problem is that they over-complicate everything. And frankly they have big issues with reliability. They're consistently rated among the worst in reliability, below the Americans. But they do know how to make desirable cars.
I don't see how Android can be fairly compared with the iPhone given that the iPhone is already into it's second iteration and Android has just been released.
Everything else aside, I think the competition is great. I do give credit to Apple for helping to invigorate this market. Well, RIM and Palm probably deserve a lot of the credit, but Apple really gave this market a swift kick in the pants.
I admit this is an insignificant sampling of the population, I don't know a single family member in Europe who knows or even cares about open source. On the other hand, in the US, I know many people using open source products, even if they aren't aware it's open source. All they know is it isn't Microsoft and it's free.
An odd thing I've noted is that slideshows and other viral crap I get from Europe is almost always created in Powerpoint.
In my experience, here in the US, our clients specifically choose open source products over alternatives because of price. It might help that we do web development which gives up a wide variety of options to offer our clients. When a client goes for a more mainstream commercial solution it's because they've got the money to spend or are willing to do so, and more importantly they're looking for reliability and support.
It's not that the open source solutions are unreliable and support is available in some cases. But they'd rather deal with a known quantity. I'd say a sizable majority of what we've built uses open source solutions. And I've found this to be not all that different from what I've encountered at other companies.
Sometimes I feel like the adoption of open source has been underestimated in the US because its proponents wont be happy until everyone is using an open source alternative to Windows and Office.
The commercials were lame, but as far as crap commercials they're far from the worst. I feel like a good 75% of commercials have been developed not for the sake of the client but rather so that the advertising company has yet another portfolio piece.
I got a new Dell a couple of months ago myself. An Inspiron 540 with a 2.4 GHz quad-core processor and 2GB of Ram. It came installed with one of the several dozen versions of Vista, the one a step above home.
I originally was intent on getting XP, but my brother recommended Vista just to give it a try. I was reluctant, given the constant onslaught of negative press and my own brief interactions with the system. I've tinkered with it in stores and have used it briefly on my coworker's laptop.
Lo and behold, I actually thought the OS was quite decent. Thus far, I haven't had a single issue. I've been quite pleased and I do generally feel it improves on XP.
It's more than I can say for OSX 10.5. I have far more issues with my iMac at the office running that OS than I've had with my iMac at home running 10.4. It seems that people just are as vocal about problems with OSX.
So I can't but wonder if I'm one of the few to not have problems or if too many people are simply jumping on the bandwagon and putting down Vista without actually having used it. It's almost like it's a fad to crap on Microsoft. And I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a Microsoft fanboy.
Why is it that any evidence against global warming is regional and thus dismissed and any miniscule shred of evidence that might support global warming is embraced wholeheartedly?
I'm left with the impression that the evidence didn't quite support the notion of sustained global warming. So the movement has been rebranded as climate change which is so far reaching that basically anything qualifies as climate change.
For me the problem comes down to Gears of War being yet another violent guy-with-gun game. I'll hear about how great a particular game is, play it and come away feeling like I've played the same thing 100 times before. I might be impressed by some aspect of the game, but ultimately that's irrelevant when I'm left feeling developers have little creativity. And these developers need to stop being afraid to use colors other than brown and grey.
It takes about 30 seconds to vote. Most of the time is spend waiting in line, which may not be an issue in some areas but it often is in mine, at least when it comes to presidential elections. Even then it's maybe a 5 to 10 minute wait.
Although, where I live my vote really is insignificant because the vast majority of the population votes another way. But at least I have the satisfaction that I voted my way, be it for a third party candidate or anyone else.
There's an excellent racing simulator out there already; Live for Speed. I was impressed by it's realism, cars handle as expected. They've modeled suspensions well and the game even accounts for tire flex. There are guys out there who've set up cars specifically for drifting and that's pretty much all they do. If you've got a controller that supports it you can even play with a clutch pedal.
It also scales up nicely to high resolutions, and it performs well. I had it running at 2560x1024 across two monitors and it ran consistently at 50-60fps on a 3ghz P4 with a Radeon 9800 Pro.
Where the game is likely to disappoint is in the lack of cars. Most of the cars are inspired by actual models but not the real thing and the tracks aren't based on actual courses. Although they did manage to get approval to include a BMW Sauber F1 car in the game. That car is impressive.
Contrast that with Gran Turismo which has a huge library of actual cars. Although despite the amount of work Sony supposedly has put into those games I've never been impressed by the physics and even worse, the AI.
So I'm curious about iRacing but not yet impressed. And I can't say I'm keen about all the oval tracks and the Nascar leanings.
Because it's a waste of tax money and government resources. Politicians in California have decided they want a nanny state and the troubling thing is that they seem intent on controlling every last aspect of our lives.
Well, there is that show Project Earth coming to Discovery Channel.
Complete with such concepts as wrapping glaciers in blankets, dropping tree seedlings from helicopters, changing the size of water droplets in clouds, an orbital sunshade and carbon dioxide scrubbers.
I had to replace my 5-disc CD changer just recently and happened to get one that supported SACD. So I decided to look into the format and pick up a few discs.
From what I've learned, the format is best suited for recordings of live performances because it's greater dynamic range. It doesn't really help with studio recordings because of all the processing they do. SACD audio is apparently sharpened, but how that affects the music I hear I'm not certain.
According to some tests it's been found that people can generally only hear a difference between standard CDs and DVD Audio and SACDs when volume is set to uncomfortably high levels.
So it becomes clear why those formats haven't been adopted. The level improvement is far less noticeable than it is with Bluray versus DVD. There's no reason for adoption other than the adoption of a new technology. One big concern with these formats is that they open the window for DRM, although that has been rendered a moot point with the advent of buying music online.
I have two big problems with MP3s and the like. First is the lack of a physical medium, and more importantly the degradation of audio quality. I guess convenience has trumped all that.
Flash has disappeared from common UI use? Have you been browsing the web lately? NBC's Olympic site is currently using Flash components. They seem to be using Silverlight for video, but they could have just as easily used Flash. Even the Olympic committee's own site uses Flash components.
And this is just off the top of my head, thinking about sites I've visited in the past few weeks. Once you get into more consumer-based websites, like automotive or clothing websites Flash becomes far more pervasive and extensive.
What I think has happened is that Flash development has matured. People are using Flash for more specific implementations. They don't make an entire site Flash for no good reason. So they incorporate it into predetermined areas on a website where it will provide the most impact.
The fact is that people want something that grabs a visitors attention or conveys information efficiently and dramatically. A static block of text rarely is effective. And the simple fact is that it's far simpler to build something in Flash than to go with some other language and try to get it to work in multiple platforms. Flash just works, and it works almost exactly the same way on both Windows and OSX, which is honestly what the vast majority of visitors will be running on.
I'd say well over 75% of our clients ask for some level of Flash and in the 6+ years we've used it I don't recall ever having compatibility problems. I certainly can't say the same for the rest of these same websites.
The problem is that people are encountering poor interface design and crap programming and blaming Flash for these problems. Blame the designers and programmers, not the application. I've encountered code provided by other companies, many times, that is complete and utter garbage.
One problem with the perception of Flash is that many companies still see it as a designer's tool. So you've got designers forced into a programming role which they aren't equipped for at all. Flash is a full-fledged development environment, even more so with the advent of AS3. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered many developers than know actionscript or care to develop for it. It certainly doesn't help that many developers have such an antipathy for it. And most companies are reluctant to higher a dedicated Flash programmer especially when it might not comprise a significant portion of their business.
Flash is far from being at the end of its life. I simply think it has found its niche.
I'm guessing there will be an "inquiry" after the Olympics is over where they determine that some of the Chinese girls were indeed underage. But because medals cant be withdrawn or awarded after the Olympics are over the measure will be largely symbolic and will likely garner little attention.
This coupled with the crap judging over the past week of gymnastics has made it frustrating to watch. The results for the vault and uneven bars were especially ridiculous.
I'll give the Chinese credit where it's due, they were phenomenal in men's gymnastics and in diving. But their scores were far too generous, they weren't deducted nearly as heavily as the Americans for obvious mistakes. And the North Korean girl winning gold over the German despite two crap landings takes the cake.
I've heard excuses about their degrees of difficulty. But don't they routinely deduct points from difficulty is the execution is poor? By that rational I could enter the competition with an insanely high degree of difficulty, bust my ass and still win.
Shortly after the recent earthquake in China my wife told me about an interesting news report. I'd post a link, but the report is in Chinese and I don't have a link to the story anyway.
Apparently there was this girl who was pissed that she couldn't get a stable internet connection so that she could play some online game. And more than that, she was resentful about the attention the earthquake victims were getting. So she posted a Youtube video about it.
So her ranting drew the government's attention and they actually arrested her for illegal speech. I don't know how long she was in jail, but I think she was eventually released.
Here's the interesting thing: many Americans would shit themselves if someone were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech, regardless of what's been said, or at least, as I've been discovering, as long as it conforms to their worldview.
On the other hand, Chinese think very differently. Even my wife, and her friends, who are Taiwanese, not even Chinese, agree with the actions taken by the government. And these are people living in the US. They agree with the right to free speech and to be able to be critical of the government. But they believe that there's a line people shouldn't cross. My wife finds it troubling that a person in the US can say anything and everything even if it's socially disruptive.
I think it comes down to a sense of respect for society and the system and this desire to maintain social order. I'm sure some find this to be a very troubling concept. And it's pervasive to one extent or another throughout east Asia. This is how China can be so open about their activities, because many people support it.
I don't agree with this at all, particularly because of the massive potential for abuse. And attitudes certainly are changing out there. But compared to Americans, Asians are still more respectful and a lot more nationalistic. Case in point is how many Americans seem eager to crap on their own country and despite the freedoms they enjoy seem to enjoy imagining they live in some sort of police state. There's a lot wrong with the US, but come on, give me a break.
Too many people seem to be more upset about how the police handles a suspect than they are about high crime rates. It was great when I was living in Taiwan and could be out at 2am without having to be concerned for my well-being. I can't say the same in many parts of the US. I feel like too many people in this country have their priorities backwards.
Don't worry, having lived in Asia for a couple of years rest assured that the same exact thing is happening there although America and Europe maybe be a bit further along.
And don't be deluded by the idea that they're somehow more morally upstanding. They really are no different in that regard.
The difference is that they still by and large have respect for the system. By system I mean the government, society in general, social rules and that sort of thing.
For example, if a sign is posted on the subway that reads "no food allowed" almost everyone follows it without question, hence clean trains.
In the US, on the other hand, people ignore the sign, at best, and at worst are indignant about not being able to do as they please.
Americans are more obsessed about doing what they want, when they want and expecting everyone else to accept that. Whereas in Asia there's more of a tendency to want to maintain social order. There certainly is far more respect for authority in Asia. And they're far less indignant and bitter about their work, even though they probably work harder and longer than many Americans. And they're certainly a lot more nationalistic.
Many of the foreigners I knew out there admired that. But there were many others who just couldn't deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that the government's actions directly benefited companies. The people benefited more indirectly. The companies had a market for their goods which meant they had the money to grow and the need for employees.
Also, back in WW2 manufacturing was pretty much completely domestic. Like it or not, globalism is here and it's not going away. This means the US is competing with the rest of the world now. And unfortunately, as we've seen countless times, companies are going to move where it's cheaper to do business.
Maybe helping the average person will make everyone feel good, but would is really help the economy in the long run? How much more money will the government put in the hands of individuals? A few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand of dollars at best?
What will they do with that money? The smart ones will save it, which won't really directly help anyone but that individual. Most people, I predict, will spend it. But spend it on what? Televisions, electronics, clothing, and cars.
Who does that really benefit? Given how much is made in foreign countries, by foreign companies, I don't see how it's really going to help the US economy. Sure it will help some, especially retailers but in the long run I don't see the benefit.
The fact is that companies create the jobs. I'd rather give companies the incentive to remain in the US. By no means do I want to see companies get away with whatever they want. I'd like to see severe penalties for taking advantage of people and the country. Companies should be so heavily penalized for outsourcing with no good reason that it is more cost-effective to keep those jobs in the US.
The problem I have with income redistribution is that it doesn't encourage personal responsibility. It certainly doesn't encourage people to get educated and work harder, which I think is far more valuable to this country than simple handing them a check.
The first hour or two of Doom 3 were genuinely creepy. There was this sense of foreboding That made me reluctant to keep playing. It was an interesting sensation, stopping in some part of the complex, knowing that it was relatively safe and feeling some level of relief, but imagining what the hell might be going on elsewhere. The voices early on were extremely unsettling. Curiosity, however kept me going because I thought that all those elements were hinting at the coming story. Unfortunately, that never came to be. The game just became frustratingly tedious.
I haven't played many other scary games, but one that was genuinely scary all the way through was the original Alone in the Dark. And there was that one freaking room in the house that I don't recall ever revealed. It's too bad that the graphics are so primitive I don't think I could recapture the same feeling playing the game now.
One disappointing thing about both games and movies in this genre is that shock and gore seems to have become an obsession. Depravity seems to be the recurring theme. The shock comes I believe because of a lack of talent and imagination and the gore because it's a cheap way to disturb people. A second problem is that the Japanese horror movie theme has been beaten to death and there seems to be no end in sight.
One thing I like so much about H.P. Lovecraft's work was the sense of dread that arises from feeling insignificant. I'm surprised his themes haven't been explored more in games. I guess it's too much of a challenge for developers to handle.
I guess this means I'm somewhere in the middle since my interests would indicate I'm a liberal but I have a tendency to want things neat and organized.
I have to say, it's quite obnoxious how utterly polarized politics has become in the US. It's basically all or nothing with too many people on both sides, to the point where a potentially sound idea is completely dismissed because it might have hints of being conservative or liberal. Instead of fixing existing systems too many people are intent on completely trashing it and replacing it with whatever conforms to their worldview. I don't even bother trying to discuss politics with some people I know because it results in them becoming openly hostile. They wont even take the time to consider my viewpoint and argue it. Instead I'm dismissed as a shill for one entity or another. The friends I do get into interesting discussions with are the ones who are legitimately moderate.
And this is amongst people who are somewhat informed, although some might draw all their news from one side of the aisle. Unfortunately, I encounter far too many people who don't know what the hell is going on beyond what they hear in sound bites. I find that overseas people seem to be better informed about politics. And their opinions seem to be more balanced. They seem inclined to side with parties based more on specific issues. And there's much less of this notion that one side has to take one stance on issues and the other side has to adopt the opposite stance.
What troubles me is that this is basically using science to reinforce stereotypes. Maybe someday someone will come along and tell us we can be cured of our political affiliations.
I realize my comments probably violate your faith in socialized healthcare but I think my statement was quite clear.
The elderly population is increasing while birthrate continues to fall. This means that while the number of people dependent on healthcare keeps growing the number of people contributing to the system, via taxes continues to shrink. Simply put, there's too much money coming out of the system and not enough going in.
And that isn't the only problem. The system is also over-burdened. It's much like the problem being experienced in Taiwan where there are still enough people to pay into the system.
In Taiwan it cost me $2 to see the doctor. Two dollars! Sounds great, but then what happens is that people end up going to the doctor for every little thing. Any time I got a cold I had people insisting I see a doctor.
And what did that visit consist of? I sit down, the doctor asks whats wrong, I describe the symptoms and he quickly rattles off what I must be afflicted with. I don't even recall my blood pressure being checked or temperature being taken. He then types up a few things in his computer and hands me a small sack of pills. Small talk is out of the question.
Doctors there don't earn particularly well so they end up trying to find ways to earn additional income. For a while they were making money by selling prescription medication on the side. More recently they've taken to opening private practices where patients can get better service but have to pay out of their pockets for it. It's illegal for a doctor working at a public facility to recommend a visit to his private office but they do it anyway.
I also happen to have family in various countries in Europe so I also know the problems they face there. The most immediate being the government cutting back on services. It's bad enough in France that I have an uncle who got private health insurance last year in order to get the kind of coverage he needed.
I had an uncle who had to wait a few months to get the exam he needed to see if he had lung cancer. My sister in law's grandmother also had to wait a few months for tests related to her heart attack. My grandfather had a stroke and lived another 7 years unable to walk or speak properly because the government didn't bother providing any sort of therapy. A recurring theme seems to be if someone is considered to old they don't bother with treatment especially if the condition is serious and potentially expensive. I could go on, I've got more examples.
And ultimately, despite the high taxes supporting this system people still have to pay for a lot of things themselves. But the taxes are the worst. It's not for nothing that pretty much everything in Europe is nearly twice as expensive as it is in the US.
Taxes are considerably lower in Taiwan and Japan I believe primarily because they still have large populations contributing to the system. They also don't really have to contend with immigration considering how draconian their immigration policies can be. Japan in particular is very selective with their immigrants, something that would never fly in the US or even Europe.
Not that social healthcare doesn't have it's place, but it sure as hell isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I'd rather see careful, sensible regulation of the American system than have us dump it for the fiasco they have in Europe. I think too many people suffer from the green grass syndrome.
Given the problems Japan is facing with socialized healthcare I doubt they're government is going to subsidize the use of this thing. Socialized healthcare is great until someone has to pay for it. That's the problem Japan is facing, not enough people to pay for the growing aging population.
Such technology would see limited use not because of healthcare but because of cost versus value. I actually think $2200 a month isn't bad at all given the nature of this new technology. If this thing had been been introduced by an American company it would likely cost 10 times more because of perceived value. And the technology would probably be more utilitarian and require on-going support and maintenance.
People complain about American companies going overseas but then aren't willing to do what it takes to motivate them to remain in the US. I realize there's a current desire in the US to want to punish corporations with higher taxes.
Certain politicians love talking about how the the middle class apparently is the engine of the economy. In some ways that may be true, but the basic fact is that they don't create the jobs, corporations do. I don't even see why it's become such a political issue. When a company is taxed more heavily it means less money to invest elsewhere, be it employee salaries or equipment. Among other things this is reflected in lower salaries and fewer jobs.
South Korea just lowered taxes for corporations, as did Taiwan last year. And the reason they gave for doing so? To help ensure strong economic growth, and these two countries already have over 4% economic growth. And they wisely realize that this also benefits small businesses.
Unlike Obama's supposed plan to "help" small businesses by cutting capital gains tax. How exactly does this help small businesses when they pay income tax, not capital gains tax. And weren't the democrats up in arms a number of years ago when Bush cut capital gains tax? At the time weren't they claiming that these cuts only helped wealthy investors?
The problem nowadays is that both parties are spending recklessly. It's hard to justify cutting tax in light of this. But still, I think in the long run it's a good thing and would be more effective than all the ridiculous specific tax breaks available now.
To this carrot, however, I'd offer a stick. I'd cut corporate tax significantly, but then, among other things I'd penalize companies heavily for outsourcing, which I consider a significant problem. This would obviously require some nuanced regulations, but basically any company that lays off American workers for the sake of outsourcing gets punished with heavy outsourcing taxes. The goal would be to eliminate the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing.
While I agree that gaming may help reflexes I disagree that it has an inherent benefit on driving. Driving demands good decision-making and experience. What does it help to have quick reactions if you make poor decisions or over-react?
I've known guys who played games extensively and were crap drivers. All that gaming didn't keep them from getting into accidents anyway. I doubt statistics would support the notion that the rise of gaming has had an positive impact on reducing accidents.
Then there's the video online where some dumb kid and his friends play Initial D in the arcade and then decide to go out for a spin in their car. It doesn't take to long before this kid wrecks his car. Young people are already delusional enough about their driving abilities they don't need anyone making it worse.
Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.
I've been following the strip off an on for quite a few years now. I guess it's amusing enough that I generally remain interested. I agree that the characters are generally well-defined but I wouldn't necessarily say they have much depth. It isn't like there's much character development going on. But then, it is just a comic strip.
In general I find the humor a bit dry, but every so often there's a genuinely funny strip. One thing I sometimes find it difficult to get past is the odd dialog. I'm not quite sure what Onstad is going for. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be slang or an attempt at play on words. But for me it comes off as awkward at times.
Still, I have to give credit where it's due. I think Achewood is a step above the majority of other strips. There are too many poor comics out there with lame writing and crappy illustration. Chris Onstad has been at this for years and his writing is interesting enough that it more than makes up for the art. Actually, even the art has it's own character.
Successful brands offer something consumers find valuable. Be it quality, convenience, exclusivity, cost-savings or merely coolness. It is possible to have a brand elevated to a point where it survives on reputation and consumers become overly tolerant of problems.
Then you've got the reverse where some brands have taken on a negative stigma, and in some cases deservedly so. The problem is that the negative stigma sometimes persists longer than it should or is exaggerated.
Apple is in the fortunate situation that they're still riding high on their popularity. The problem is that as their base grows more consumers become aware of problems. If Apple persists with some of it's practices it's only a matter of time before it turns into another Microsoft. The same thing already seems to be happening with Google, actually.
Regarding the statement about cars, Honda and Toyota are still at the top in reliability. However, I do agree people are irrational in their acclaim for these cars.
As far as the Germans are concerned, in terms of design and making the driver feel good they're unmatched. They're always doing interesting things. The problem is that they over-complicate everything. And frankly they have big issues with reliability. They're consistently rated among the worst in reliability, below the Americans. But they do know how to make desirable cars.
I don't see how Android can be fairly compared with the iPhone given that the iPhone is already into it's second iteration and Android has just been released.
Everything else aside, I think the competition is great. I do give credit to Apple for helping to invigorate this market. Well, RIM and Palm probably deserve a lot of the credit, but Apple really gave this market a swift kick in the pants.
I admit this is an insignificant sampling of the population, I don't know a single family member in Europe who knows or even cares about open source. On the other hand, in the US, I know many people using open source products, even if they aren't aware it's open source. All they know is it isn't Microsoft and it's free.
An odd thing I've noted is that slideshows and other viral crap I get from Europe is almost always created in Powerpoint.
In my experience, here in the US, our clients specifically choose open source products over alternatives because of price. It might help that we do web development which gives up a wide variety of options to offer our clients. When a client goes for a more mainstream commercial solution it's because they've got the money to spend or are willing to do so, and more importantly they're looking for reliability and support.
It's not that the open source solutions are unreliable and support is available in some cases. But they'd rather deal with a known quantity. I'd say a sizable majority of what we've built uses open source solutions. And I've found this to be not all that different from what I've encountered at other companies.
Sometimes I feel like the adoption of open source has been underestimated in the US because its proponents wont be happy until everyone is using an open source alternative to Windows and Office.
The commercials were lame, but as far as crap commercials they're far from the worst. I feel like a good 75% of commercials have been developed not for the sake of the client but rather so that the advertising company has yet another portfolio piece.
I got a new Dell a couple of months ago myself. An Inspiron 540 with a 2.4 GHz quad-core processor and 2GB of Ram. It came installed with one of the several dozen versions of Vista, the one a step above home.
I originally was intent on getting XP, but my brother recommended Vista just to give it a try. I was reluctant, given the constant onslaught of negative press and my own brief interactions with the system. I've tinkered with it in stores and have used it briefly on my coworker's laptop.
Lo and behold, I actually thought the OS was quite decent. Thus far, I haven't had a single issue. I've been quite pleased and I do generally feel it improves on XP.
It's more than I can say for OSX 10.5. I have far more issues with my iMac at the office running that OS than I've had with my iMac at home running 10.4. It seems that people just are as vocal about problems with OSX.
So I can't but wonder if I'm one of the few to not have problems or if too many people are simply jumping on the bandwagon and putting down Vista without actually having used it. It's almost like it's a fad to crap on Microsoft. And I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a Microsoft fanboy.
Why is it that any evidence against global warming is regional and thus dismissed and any miniscule shred of evidence that might support global warming is embraced wholeheartedly?
I'm left with the impression that the evidence didn't quite support the notion of sustained global warming. So the movement has been rebranded as climate change which is so far reaching that basically anything qualifies as climate change.
For me the problem comes down to Gears of War being yet another violent guy-with-gun game. I'll hear about how great a particular game is, play it and come away feeling like I've played the same thing 100 times before. I might be impressed by some aspect of the game, but ultimately that's irrelevant when I'm left feeling developers have little creativity. And these developers need to stop being afraid to use colors other than brown and grey.
It takes about 30 seconds to vote. Most of the time is spend waiting in line, which may not be an issue in some areas but it often is in mine, at least when it comes to presidential elections. Even then it's maybe a 5 to 10 minute wait.
Although, where I live my vote really is insignificant because the vast majority of the population votes another way. But at least I have the satisfaction that I voted my way, be it for a third party candidate or anyone else.
There's an excellent racing simulator out there already; Live for Speed. I was impressed by it's realism, cars handle as expected. They've modeled suspensions well and the game even accounts for tire flex. There are guys out there who've set up cars specifically for drifting and that's pretty much all they do. If you've got a controller that supports it you can even play with a clutch pedal.
It also scales up nicely to high resolutions, and it performs well. I had it running at 2560x1024 across two monitors and it ran consistently at 50-60fps on a 3ghz P4 with a Radeon 9800 Pro.
Where the game is likely to disappoint is in the lack of cars. Most of the cars are inspired by actual models but not the real thing and the tracks aren't based on actual courses. Although they did manage to get approval to include a BMW Sauber F1 car in the game. That car is impressive.
Contrast that with Gran Turismo which has a huge library of actual cars. Although despite the amount of work Sony supposedly has put into those games I've never been impressed by the physics and even worse, the AI.
So I'm curious about iRacing but not yet impressed. And I can't say I'm keen about all the oval tracks and the Nascar leanings.
In New York sales tax is determined by county as well.
New York City being among the highest at 8 3/8%. The state came up with those fractions, not me. Fractions in percentages, amazing.
Because it's a waste of tax money and government resources. Politicians in California have decided they want a nanny state and the troubling thing is that they seem intent on controlling every last aspect of our lives.
Well, there is that show Project Earth coming to Discovery Channel.
Complete with such concepts as wrapping glaciers in blankets, dropping tree seedlings from helicopters, changing the size of water droplets in clouds, an orbital sunshade and carbon dioxide scrubbers.
I had to replace my 5-disc CD changer just recently and happened to get one that supported SACD. So I decided to look into the format and pick up a few discs.
From what I've learned, the format is best suited for recordings of live performances because it's greater dynamic range. It doesn't really help with studio recordings because of all the processing they do. SACD audio is apparently sharpened, but how that affects the music I hear I'm not certain.
According to some tests it's been found that people can generally only hear a difference between standard CDs and DVD Audio and SACDs when volume is set to uncomfortably high levels.
So it becomes clear why those formats haven't been adopted. The level improvement is far less noticeable than it is with Bluray versus DVD. There's no reason for adoption other than the adoption of a new technology. One big concern with these formats is that they open the window for DRM, although that has been rendered a moot point with the advent of buying music online.
I have two big problems with MP3s and the like. First is the lack of a physical medium, and more importantly the degradation of audio quality. I guess convenience has trumped all that.
Flash has disappeared from common UI use? Have you been browsing the web lately? NBC's Olympic site is currently using Flash components. They seem to be using Silverlight for video, but they could have just as easily used Flash. Even the Olympic committee's own site uses Flash components.
And this is just off the top of my head, thinking about sites I've visited in the past few weeks. Once you get into more consumer-based websites, like automotive or clothing websites Flash becomes far more pervasive and extensive.
What I think has happened is that Flash development has matured. People are using Flash for more specific implementations. They don't make an entire site Flash for no good reason. So they incorporate it into predetermined areas on a website where it will provide the most impact.
The fact is that people want something that grabs a visitors attention or conveys information efficiently and dramatically. A static block of text rarely is effective. And the simple fact is that it's far simpler to build something in Flash than to go with some other language and try to get it to work in multiple platforms. Flash just works, and it works almost exactly the same way on both Windows and OSX, which is honestly what the vast majority of visitors will be running on.
I'd say well over 75% of our clients ask for some level of Flash and in the 6+ years we've used it I don't recall ever having compatibility problems. I certainly can't say the same for the rest of these same websites.
The problem is that people are encountering poor interface design and crap programming and blaming Flash for these problems. Blame the designers and programmers, not the application. I've encountered code provided by other companies, many times, that is complete and utter garbage.
One problem with the perception of Flash is that many companies still see it as a designer's tool. So you've got designers forced into a programming role which they aren't equipped for at all. Flash is a full-fledged development environment, even more so with the advent of AS3. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered many developers than know actionscript or care to develop for it. It certainly doesn't help that many developers have such an antipathy for it. And most companies are reluctant to higher a dedicated Flash programmer especially when it might not comprise a significant portion of their business.
Flash is far from being at the end of its life. I simply think it has found its niche.
I'm guessing there will be an "inquiry" after the Olympics is over where they determine that some of the Chinese girls were indeed underage. But because medals cant be withdrawn or awarded after the Olympics are over the measure will be largely symbolic and will likely garner little attention.
This coupled with the crap judging over the past week of gymnastics has made it frustrating to watch. The results for the vault and uneven bars were especially ridiculous.
I'll give the Chinese credit where it's due, they were phenomenal in men's gymnastics and in diving. But their scores were far too generous, they weren't deducted nearly as heavily as the Americans for obvious mistakes. And the North Korean girl winning gold over the German despite two crap landings takes the cake.
I've heard excuses about their degrees of difficulty. But don't they routinely deduct points from difficulty is the execution is poor? By that rational I could enter the competition with an insanely high degree of difficulty, bust my ass and still win.
Shortly after the recent earthquake in China my wife told me about an interesting news report. I'd post a link, but the report is in Chinese and I don't have a link to the story anyway.
Apparently there was this girl who was pissed that she couldn't get a stable internet connection so that she could play some online game. And more than that, she was resentful about the attention the earthquake victims were getting. So she posted a Youtube video about it.
So her ranting drew the government's attention and they actually arrested her for illegal speech. I don't know how long she was in jail, but I think she was eventually released.
Here's the interesting thing: many Americans would shit themselves if someone were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech, regardless of what's been said, or at least, as I've been discovering, as long as it conforms to their worldview.
On the other hand, Chinese think very differently. Even my wife, and her friends, who are Taiwanese, not even Chinese, agree with the actions taken by the government. And these are people living in the US. They agree with the right to free speech and to be able to be critical of the government. But they believe that there's a line people shouldn't cross. My wife finds it troubling that a person in the US can say anything and everything even if it's socially disruptive.
I think it comes down to a sense of respect for society and the system and this desire to maintain social order. I'm sure some find this to be a very troubling concept. And it's pervasive to one extent or another throughout east Asia. This is how China can be so open about their activities, because many people support it.
I don't agree with this at all, particularly because of the massive potential for abuse. And attitudes certainly are changing out there. But compared to Americans, Asians are still more respectful and a lot more nationalistic. Case in point is how many Americans seem eager to crap on their own country and despite the freedoms they enjoy seem to enjoy imagining they live in some sort of police state. There's a lot wrong with the US, but come on, give me a break.
Too many people seem to be more upset about how the police handles a suspect than they are about high crime rates. It was great when I was living in Taiwan and could be out at 2am without having to be concerned for my well-being. I can't say the same in many parts of the US. I feel like too many people in this country have their priorities backwards.
Don't worry, having lived in Asia for a couple of years rest assured that the same exact thing is happening there although America and Europe maybe be a bit further along.
And don't be deluded by the idea that they're somehow more morally upstanding. They really are no different in that regard.
The difference is that they still by and large have respect for the system. By system I mean the government, society in general, social rules and that sort of thing.
For example, if a sign is posted on the subway that reads "no food allowed" almost everyone follows it without question, hence clean trains.
In the US, on the other hand, people ignore the sign, at best, and at worst are indignant about not being able to do as they please.
Americans are more obsessed about doing what they want, when they want and expecting everyone else to accept that. Whereas in Asia there's more of a tendency to want to maintain social order. There certainly is far more respect for authority in Asia. And they're far less indignant and bitter about their work, even though they probably work harder and longer than many Americans. And they're certainly a lot more nationalistic.
Many of the foreigners I knew out there admired that. But there were many others who just couldn't deal with it.