*nods* yeah, I suspect Apple could benefit from better mid-range offerings. Though given how many manufacturers already crowd into that space, it could be argued that they simply do not fit in well there. Apple will never be Dell, and if they tried they would probably loose their shirts.
Since the vast majority of PCs can not run Crysis out of the box, I am not sure this is a useful metric. On-board video has never been all that good, which if you buy any 'all in one' computer is what you usually get.
I am quite familiar with the topic. I simply attribute such things to market forces while you are attributing them to a social agenda. Different motivation, same net result.
I would less call it 'censored' and more selectively reported in order to appeal to viewers, since viewers are what drive advertising revenue. People generally do not want to hear bad things about their country unless it is bad things they can attribute to people they already do not like.. and when they do, they vote with their dollars and view elsewhere.
No conspiracy or control needed.. just simple economics and self interest on the part of the networks.
Damn. Now I want to see this channel! That actually does sound interesting.
Reminds me of a Japanese news site I follow... it is always fascinating to see the site report on the same stories as American ones and having a completely different tone.. sometimes even different (but not contractory) facts presented.
I am not even sure I would call the punishment legal. They really shoehorned a law designed for something else into this case. In many ways he is getting punished for following his employer's rules when politics said he should have broken them.
Specific to western democracies no, but it is a common characteristic that they share which is not universal to all governmental forms. Soviet style communism did not resonate there for the same reason.
The 'stable rule of law' thing is one of the reasons our form of government does not fit very well there. A big strong federal government does not sync well with a people who are used to (and have traditionally preferred) localized authority.
Bigger and more centralized is not always what people want or understand.
It should also be pointed out that there are fanatic factions within the Taliban, but for the most part it was made up of fairly pragmatic local authorities. Local authorities with an interest in keeping wealth local... they were at least an evil that the population knew how to live with.
Ahm.. you do realize that one of the reasons the Taliban is gaining power again is that they are doing a better job of delivering basic services to the countryside then the US backed government?
While the Taliban was bad for the people, the new government is actually worse in some rather fundamental ways. One of the problems with western style democracies is they tend to focus power into urban centers and drain rural areas of resources... so the cities (small percentage of the population) are getting wealthier but the countryside (most of the population) is getting poorer.
They also have serious issues with how centralized the new power is, given that Afghanistan, pre-soviet invasion, had a long history of decentralized democracy. The Taliban dovetailed with local authority better then the new government does.
Given how much of the American public is behind him.. if we are at the point where someone is a spy for the american public against their own government.. something is very wrong.
When your options are 'hit soft targets' or 'give up because hard targets are not viable', generally people who are willing to die for a cause will go after the targets that have the highest return for the lowest cost. Humans rarely take 'you can not win because you can not beat us by our rules' very well. America's own revolutionary army did not.
NN is about not discriminating based off SOURCE, not the type of content..... ISPs want to start either charging other ISP's customers for not degrading traffic to their actual paying customers, OR cut out other ISP's customers if they compete with companies that are owned by the ISP (or its parent).
Now, much of this would be mitigated if there was real competition, but since the FCC REMOVED the rules requiring line owners to lease lines to competitors, ISP choice dropped from dozens to, if you are lucky... 2.
I admit, I would personally just prefer to see those rules put back into place rather then complex NN rules.. but no one makes a political name for themselves with simple rules or putting someone else's rules back in place.
True, but the US already had most of the needed political infrastructure in place before the revolution. All they had to do was swap out the very top people... the nation was not really being micromanaged. Today it would be the equivelent of swapping out the senate but having the house/governers/etc already in place. What usually kills revolutions trying to rebuild is they wipe out too much of the existing political machine and can not fill it again quickly enough.
Even with that though, plenty of bad things happened right after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was put in place quickly to try to address some of the worst of the abuses you were seeing in states that no longer had the crown forcing them to play fair. There were massive waves of repression as local leaders discovered that no one was really stopping them from building their toy theocracies and such.
Which still depends on who writes the history books. If you look at most modern terrorist groups, once you get away from press releases and individual rants, they generally have a very specific manifesto, grievances that can not be address through the current legal framework or political process.
Al Quaeda for example has a very specific goal:
Drive Americans off "Muslim soil" (most notably Saudi Arabia)
Topple Western backed local dictatorships in the middle east.
Destroy Israel
Build Muslim nations based on the first Caliphs.
Which functionally comes down to 'we want independence, to form a government of our choosing based off XYZ rues'. While the methods and final government are different, the basic idea is pretty much the same. A similar thing could be said for the IRA too. 100 years from now, just like America today, they will be judged on if they win.... until then the weaker party in a conflict is almost always called a 'terrorist'.. well, unless your local government wants them to win; then they get pained as 'revolutionaries' and are given public support ^_^
This is something I have been wondering. You have the speech from the DoD saying that wikileaks exposed all these civilian names, and news outlets referencing that... but I have not seen anyone come out saying they actually read through and found names in the documents... nor have people talked much about the 12k or so that wikileaks did not post.
If nothing else, it shows how little power the president REALLY has. No matter who you put in office, if they want to get anything done, they have to play the exact same games with the exact same players as the previous one.
Realistically though,in 20 years China will probably look a lot more like the US, given that it was not all that long ago the US looked like China... till social unrest and outrage forced change.
Slashdot Mirror
*nods* yeah, I suspect Apple could benefit from better mid-range offerings. Though given how many manufacturers already crowd into that space, it could be argued that they simply do not fit in well there. Apple will never be Dell, and if they tried they would probably loose their shirts.
Eh, I ran into the same problem with XP. The vast majority of my crashes were ATI related.
Since the vast majority of PCs can not run Crysis out of the box, I am not sure this is a useful metric. On-board video has never been all that good, which if you buy any 'all in one' computer is what you usually get.
I am quite familiar with the topic. I simply attribute such things to market forces while you are attributing them to a social agenda. Different motivation, same net result.
I would less call it 'censored' and more selectively reported in order to appeal to viewers, since viewers are what drive advertising revenue. People generally do not want to hear bad things about their country unless it is bad things they can attribute to people they already do not like.. and when they do, they vote with their dollars and view elsewhere.
No conspiracy or control needed.. just simple economics and self interest on the part of the networks.
I do recall some claims that America caused Katrina itself via HAARP, but I do not recall seeing anything about other countries involved.
Damn. Now I want to see this channel! That actually does sound interesting.
Reminds me of a Japanese news site I follow... it is always fascinating to see the site report on the same stories as American ones and having a completely different tone.. sometimes even different (but not contractory) facts presented.
When you are looking for an excuse to not bring charges and save your job?
I am not even sure I would call the punishment legal. They really shoehorned a law designed for something else into this case. In many ways he is getting punished for following his employer's rules when politics said he should have broken them.
I think the problem is, judges can read and understand the law just fine. Juries on the other hand generally have no idea what they are doing.
Specific to western democracies no, but it is a common characteristic that they share which is not universal to all governmental forms. Soviet style communism did not resonate there for the same reason.
The 'stable rule of law' thing is one of the reasons our form of government does not fit very well there. A big strong federal government does not sync well with a people who are used to (and have traditionally preferred) localized authority.
Bigger and more centralized is not always what people want or understand.
It should also be pointed out that there are fanatic factions within the Taliban, but for the most part it was made up of fairly pragmatic local authorities. Local authorities with an interest in keeping wealth local... they were at least an evil that the population knew how to live with.
Ahm.. you do realize that one of the reasons the Taliban is gaining power again is that they are doing a better job of delivering basic services to the countryside then the US backed government?
While the Taliban was bad for the people, the new government is actually worse in some rather fundamental ways. One of the problems with western style democracies is they tend to focus power into urban centers and drain rural areas of resources... so the cities (small percentage of the population) are getting wealthier but the countryside (most of the population) is getting poorer.
They also have serious issues with how centralized the new power is, given that Afghanistan, pre-soviet invasion, had a long history of decentralized democracy. The Taliban dovetailed with local authority better then the new government does.
Given how much of the American public is behind him.. if we are at the point where someone is a spy for the american public against their own government.. something is very wrong.
Ok! Actual numbers other then Gate's vague 'there were names in there'. Can you site a source?
Anyone fighting the US probably already has our tactics. It is not like the manuals are hard to get.
When your options are 'hit soft targets' or 'give up because hard targets are not viable', generally people who are willing to die for a cause will go after the targets that have the highest return for the lowest cost. Humans rarely take 'you can not win because you can not beat us by our rules' very well. America's own revolutionary army did not.
*sigh*
NN is about not discriminating based off SOURCE, not the type of content..... ISPs want to start either charging other ISP's customers for not degrading traffic to their actual paying customers, OR cut out other ISP's customers if they compete with companies that are owned by the ISP (or its parent).
Now, much of this would be mitigated if there was real competition, but since the FCC REMOVED the rules requiring line owners to lease lines to competitors, ISP choice dropped from dozens to, if you are lucky... 2.
I admit, I would personally just prefer to see those rules put back into place rather then complex NN rules.. but no one makes a political name for themselves with simple rules or putting someone else's rules back in place.
True, but the US already had most of the needed political infrastructure in place before the revolution. All they had to do was swap out the very top people... the nation was not really being micromanaged. Today it would be the equivelent of swapping out the senate but having the house/governers/etc already in place. What usually kills revolutions trying to rebuild is they wipe out too much of the existing political machine and can not fill it again quickly enough.
Even with that though, plenty of bad things happened right after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was put in place quickly to try to address some of the worst of the abuses you were seeing in states that no longer had the crown forcing them to play fair. There were massive waves of repression as local leaders discovered that no one was really stopping them from building their toy theocracies and such.
If you had 100 million americans ready to die to overthrow the government, they could trivially take over via the existing voting system.
That is probably the problem right there. ANY system, once it gets big, starts to collapse into corruption, factionalism and inefficiency.
It makes a strong case for the US either moving to a weak federal system or allowing it to break up again.
Which still depends on who writes the history books. If you look at most modern terrorist groups, once you get away from press releases and individual rants, they generally have a very specific manifesto, grievances that can not be address through the current legal framework or political process.
Al Quaeda for example has a very specific goal:
Drive Americans off "Muslim soil" (most notably Saudi Arabia)
Topple Western backed local dictatorships in the middle east.
Destroy Israel
Build Muslim nations based on the first Caliphs.
Which functionally comes down to 'we want independence, to form a government of our choosing based off XYZ rues'. While the methods and final government are different, the basic idea is pretty much the same. A similar thing could be said for the IRA too. 100 years from now, just like America today, they will be judged on if they win.... until then the weaker party in a conflict is almost always called a 'terrorist'.. well, unless your local government wants them to win; then they get pained as 'revolutionaries' and are given public support ^_^
This is something I have been wondering. You have the speech from the DoD saying that wikileaks exposed all these civilian names, and news outlets referencing that... but I have not seen anyone come out saying they actually read through and found names in the documents... nor have people talked much about the 12k or so that wikileaks did not post.
If nothing else, it shows how little power the president REALLY has. No matter who you put in office, if they want to get anything done, they have to play the exact same games with the exact same players as the previous one.
Realistically though,in 20 years China will probably look a lot more like the US, given that it was not all that long ago the US looked like China... till social unrest and outrage forced change.