... and with a subject like that.. you aren't going to here what you expect:
The military (USAF) had a very good IT setup (overall) that was basically setup the way you'd set up a good memory architecture.. you have a hierarchy of IT with the most used/essentialy tasks able to be done close to where they requests come from, and build upwards and outwards. Those local people were "fired" (in the government people don't actually get fired, but moved) if they didn't perform, and they were basically giving the keys to their kingdom. In the grand-scheme of things, it actually ran pretty effeciently, and we were never waiting on IT for more than a day, except in the most extreme cases.
That being said, the military has a pretty large vested interest in people being able to work and use their computers (ie, the cost of failure can be scrubbed missions which equates to huge amounts of money down the drain) so things tended to Darwin into a workable system. It sounds like your company's IT organization is just immature or flat-out poor (I don't mean in money... althought that could explain poor quality, also), and the powers that be don't seem interested in fixing it.
The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money.
At least then I have a fighting chance... as opposed to letting the ship sail on it's current course where my money (the aforementioned 'amateur stock investor') goes directly to someone else, with no questsions asked, via a program that mathematically cannot be sustained, and thus, is giving me nothing in return. Look, I'm not really a fan of any of the asinine "solutions" Washington has come up with Social Security... I just want to be reasonably sure that the money taken out of every one of my paychecks is going to end up coming back to me... otherwise stop taking my money and telling me it's for my own retirement... and right now, there is no "mathematical" way out... so let's stop selling this pile of shit, and start calling Social Security what it really is.. a tax on this generation, to support their parents, and eventually, someone, is gonna have to eat it and foot the bill. It's a god damm pyramid scheme.
Maybe you guys disagree with Bush's proposal. But HOW would you change it? What would you remove?
Sorry, but I just have to point out the incredible irony of your post. No one has responded. Everyone is off in some other corner of this thread karma-whoring to the slashbot groupthink. Meanwhile your +5 interesting post has gone completely unanswered... all of these +5 insightfuls for "I HATE THE PRESIDENT, HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEY" and +5 informative for "HE HATES SCIENCE AND SEEKS TO DESTROY US ALL PS HE IS DUMB"... and yet not one person was able to give you a reasonable response.
Sorry, but you are calling out for an intellectual discussion in the middle of a karma-whoring feeding frenzy.. this is no time for rational debate.
You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy.
Yea, that or the sad state of affairs in our news organizations. Seems you've bought hook, line, into sinker into a non-story dramatized by the media to feed the political machine.
Like "when I give money to charities, you call me a philanthropist. When I take money from charities, you call me a thief!".
Except it's nothing like that at all. He makes a perfect point that when the US doesn't take the lead with something that aligns with your political point of view, you bemoan them. When the US does take the lead with something that doesn't align, you bemoan them. Then you can catagorize what you agree with as "giving money to chairty" and what you don't agree with as "taking money from charity". And you set up an awesome logical fallacy of your own construction...
Citizens of the US: It's time to make your government take actions to stop global warming. You, the US, are the biggest contributor to global warming. In spite of this fact, the US does nothing. Join the EU and the rest of the world.
I'm going to ignore your silly troll, that got modded up, and provide some truth admist the $EMOTION-mongering:
Here is the data (mostly from 2002): Greenhouse gas emissions. As a point of information, while the US totally dominates total greenhouse emissions, we aren't #1 per capita, we are just #6. We are behind Paraguay, Luxembourg, Jamacia, Belize, and Australia. And before Canada gets all high and mighty, we are at 23.35, and you are at 23.11. And, for the record, the US has done alot to cut back on its GHG emissions, despite the fact that it is not part of Kyoto. Therefore, the quote "In spite of this fact, the US does nothing." is catagorically false. You may decide we haven't done enough, and I'd probably agree.
You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours.
Nonsense. A country and its government are not the same thing, and trading with Chinese people has nothing to do with supporting the government that opresses them.
What a false distinction. The reason that China is able to use and abuse companies into listening to its laws is because China is an economic force. The reason China is economic force is because you are supporting its "people". By supporting the "people", you put wealth into the hands of the Chinese, and therefore you give China's government the ability to force companies who want to trade that wealth for services at the whim of the regulations. The "people" you are supporting have to spend that money somewhere (after all, you can't eat money..)... and the Chinese government dictates who is allowed to recieve that money as payment.
To my mind, there's a significant difference between buying a pair of Chinese-made shoelaces and offering a search engine that blocks links about Tibet and Taiwan. YMMV.
Is that how you sleep at night? Google is making an economic decision here. They want part of China's economy. They, are, essentially, getting "paid" to do this. Where do you think that money is coming from? If Super-Brand-Shoe-Company of China puts up an ad on google.cn for more workers, then will the relationship be "close enough" to home for you to actually take the stand you demand others to take? Or is it still "different"?
I am not an aeronautical or structural engineer for these aircraft. I did electrical systems so I cannot answer your question with any degree of certainty.
However, I am reasonably certain that "strength" of the aircraft does not depend on the skin's structural properities as much as it does it's aerodynamic properities. A plane who took damage to skin is likely to survive all but the most extreme cases where the aerodynamic instability caused by the damage caused catastrophic structural or control failures.
Here for example is a story about some of the problems the USAF is running into now with the F-15 wing, which is composite and approaching 20 years old in many aircraft, e.g. the linked article notes an F-15 coming apart midflight in 2003 because of a sudden failure of the wing, and yet routine inspections every 200 hours had shown no signs of incipient failure.
Two points of information: The failure was not part of the wing, but part of the vertical stablizer (the fins). And, secondly, the failure was part of the load-bearing honeycomb, which is not "composite" but mainly aluminum. The 'skin' of the aircraft is composite, and not load-bearing. F15s are all getting structural upgrades (as is noted in the article) to correct this problem, and the air-force has removed the "profile" used that day (which, as i understand, was pretty extreme).
I worked at Eglin shortly after this happened, and worked with many people involved with that aircraft.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... we're obviously dealing with the direct effects of global warming that have been talked about forever. Over the past few years, we've had more severe weather (hurricanes), higher average temperature, melting ice (Ross ice shelf). Perhaps the most telling sign is the slump in SUV sales (Ford cuts jobs)... are people finally getting the point? I hope so!
I believe in global warming. However, the only "point" I'm getting from what you said is that a bunch of computer science folks are proving that computer science programs around the country are doing a terrible job teaching statistics... If they don't clean up their act, we might just have people claiming that global warming has caused SUV sales to drop....
I must have come to the site instantly as this was posted, beacuse the first time I clicked on "On the Subject of Slashdot Article Formatting", I got "Nothing to see here, please move along". I gave it a +5 funny.
That is simplistic and incorrect. There is no accepted legal definition of hate speech which is entirely legal or illegal. Certain forms of "hate speech" are in fact illegal, and others are not.
Do you think the ACLU should be defending the rights of white supremacists (or radical muslims, for that matter) to own machine guns, nuclear weapons etc?
Ignoring the stupid "machines guns, nuclear weapons, etc" hyperbole, I'll ask a simple question: are you saying that the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights only apply to people whom we agree with? Would not the ACLU defend radical muslims and white supremacists first amendment rights (up to but not including hate speach and incitement of violence.... )... yet somehow you do not think they should defend their second amenment rights (up to but not including some analgous level of firearms). It is, inherently, hypocritical.
Your reading comprehension skills needs to be improved.
Irony.
Disarmament is one of the foundations of the treaty. The existing nuclear states (at the time of signing) should take steps towards effective disarmament with a goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. With US going forward with new types of nuclear devices, it hardly seems that they intend to remove all nuclear weapons.
Do you notice the completly amazing fallacy you've just put out. You state that the treaty requires "steps towards effective disarmament". Aside from the fact that isn't what the treaty says at all, you then go on to equate "steps towards effective disarmament" with "remove all nuclear weapons".
How is it that you can accuse me of not reading, and after I gave you the link to the actual treaty, you still continue to get it wrong? Allow me to quote it for you:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Now let me translate it for you: The United States agreed pursue negotiations in good faith to cease the "nuclear arms race" and for a treaty for "general and complete disarmament".
In other words, nothing in the NNPT states the United States is agreeing to complete disarmament. It said it must, in good faith, negotiate with the international community on doing so. It has done this on many occasions.
Iran may or may not attempt to get nuclear weapons, it's sure understandable that they want. However, Iran is allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.
Before spewing your nonsense, you might want to execute a little operation fact check. Under the NNPF, the United States is one of five nations permitted to own nuclear weapons. It is not required to "dispose of them", as you claim.
Furthermore, there is a process by which a nation can prove it's "peaceful purposes" clause of the treaty, and Iran is not following those procedures. It must be in agreement with the IAEA in order to pursue nuclear technologies for "peaceful" purposes... If you'd like the full link to the treaty, I'd ask you pay special attention to Article III, which specifically refutes your claim about Iran.
Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Care to back that statement up, neocon? As far as I know, they've claimed to develop a peaceful, civil nuclear program to generate power.
The idea of your post was good. He clearly is wrong in asserting Iran has claimed to be developing nuclear weapons. However, your compeltely over the top hostile attitude and inane labeling in order to prove your point is just poor form. However, I will grant that it is fun to use ridiculously generalized ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with, you pot-smoking hippy.
me = owned... sigh.. not my day... back to programming for me. I'm outcasting myself. Break tags are too advanced for me... Too bad I can't mod myself down so I don't have to endure the mockery...
>omg patents are so bad (+2, Insightful)
>>omg yea, the system is broken (+2, Insightful)
>>> yea how you can patent a process.. this is riduclous (+5, Informative)
>>>> but we need patents to continue innovation (+3, Interesting)
>>>>> No you don't! In my business, , and then (+5, Informative)
>>>> i have patented complaining about patents, you owe me money (+5, Funny)
>>> It's all president's Bush's fault. (+5, flaimbait)
>>>> I hate microsoft (+5, Off-topic)
The only way this will be stopped is by the big content providers refusing to pay and thereby cutting off the subscribers from these providers. The only way to generate sufficient public interest is if, suddenly, the Bellsouth customers were no longer able to access, say, google. Short of that, good luck.
The tech industry in america is floundering. Oh sure there are some success stories just check Apple, an all american product. Wich state is China in anyway?
It grew 16% last year. Instead, let's talk about Microsoft and Google. Those two companies compare favorably to most Europeon nations, on their own. But let's not silly facts get in the way of your ramblings.
2. I rather they spend it on this then on a war.
Awesome. Here's a bit of logic for you. "This is a good idea because I don't like America and they spend money on a war. This costs money, therefore it is good." That's grade A bullshit.
3. Perhaps a search engine that does not bow to the Chinese goverment in the name of the almighty dollar?
Do we really need to talk about the bullshit the French government does for it's almighty Franc? How about Nazi references? Be honest, wouldn't you be bitching just as much if google -hadn't- respected the wishes of China, and then you could say "Imperiliast America and google imposiing it's will on other nations for the almighty dollar". This is your best steaming pile, yet.
4. Yeah, because the top cellphone company is european and all your pc's are made in the US. No I rather we keep our model. So do the majority of EU voters. EU socialist, US capatalist. Move to location of your choice.
This is the best one yet. Clearly you refer to Nokia. A company that is #1 because it competes in the free market with no government benefits at all. And this is your evidence supporting "socialism". Isn't that... ironic? Err no, wait... It's just plain wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
... and with a subject like that.. you aren't going to here what you expect:
The military (USAF) had a very good IT setup (overall) that was basically setup the way you'd set up a good memory architecture.. you have a hierarchy of IT with the most used/essentialy tasks able to be done close to where they requests come from, and build upwards and outwards. Those local people were "fired" (in the government people don't actually get fired, but moved) if they didn't perform, and they were basically giving the keys to their kingdom. In the grand-scheme of things, it actually ran pretty effeciently, and we were never waiting on IT for more than a day, except in the most extreme cases.
That being said, the military has a pretty large vested interest in people being able to work and use their computers (ie, the cost of failure can be scrubbed missions which equates to huge amounts of money down the drain) so things tended to Darwin into a workable system. It sounds like your company's IT organization is just immature or flat-out poor (I don't mean in money... althought that could explain poor quality, also), and the powers that be don't seem interested in fixing it.
The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money.
At least then I have a fighting chance... as opposed to letting the ship sail on it's current course where my money (the aforementioned 'amateur stock investor') goes directly to someone else, with no questsions asked, via a program that mathematically cannot be sustained, and thus, is giving me nothing in return. Look, I'm not really a fan of any of the asinine "solutions" Washington has come up with Social Security... I just want to be reasonably sure that the money taken out of every one of my paychecks is going to end up coming back to me... otherwise stop taking my money and telling me it's for my own retirement... and right now, there is no "mathematical" way out... so let's stop selling this pile of shit, and start calling Social Security what it really is.. a tax on this generation, to support their parents, and eventually, someone, is gonna have to eat it and foot the bill. It's a god damm pyramid scheme.
Bush is anti-science.
Anti-abortionists are anti-women.
I guess according to the OwnedByTwoCats School of Shitty Logic that Anti-War people are also Anti-Soldier, and Pro-abortion people are anti-life.
Hi, welcome to the wonderful world of terrible generalizations and inflamatory rhetoric, say goodbye to rational debate on the way in.
Maybe you guys disagree with Bush's proposal. But HOW would you change it? What would you remove?
Sorry, but I just have to point out the incredible irony of your post. No one has responded. Everyone is off in some other corner of this thread karma-whoring to the slashbot groupthink. Meanwhile your +5 interesting post has gone completely unanswered... all of these +5 insightfuls for "I HATE THE PRESIDENT, HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEY" and +5 informative for "HE HATES SCIENCE AND SEEKS TO DESTROY US ALL PS HE IS DUMB"... and yet not one person was able to give you a reasonable response.
Sorry, but you are calling out for an intellectual discussion in the middle of a karma-whoring feeding frenzy.. this is no time for rational debate.
You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy.
Yea, that or the sad state of affairs in our news organizations. Seems you've bought hook, line, into sinker into a non-story dramatized by the media to feed the political machine.
Like "when I give money to charities, you call me a philanthropist. When I take money from charities, you call me a thief!".
Except it's nothing like that at all. He makes a perfect point that when the US doesn't take the lead with something that aligns with your political point of view, you bemoan them. When the US does take the lead with something that doesn't align, you bemoan them. Then you can catagorize what you agree with as "giving money to chairty" and what you don't agree with as "taking money from charity". And you set up an awesome logical fallacy of your own construction...
Citizens of the US: It's time to make your government take actions to stop global warming. You, the US, are the biggest contributor to global warming. In spite of this fact, the US does nothing. Join the EU and the rest of the world.
I'm going to ignore your silly troll, that got modded up, and provide some truth admist the $EMOTION-mongering:
Here is the data (mostly from 2002): Greenhouse gas emissions. As a point of information, while the US totally dominates total greenhouse emissions, we aren't #1 per capita, we are just #6. We are behind Paraguay, Luxembourg, Jamacia, Belize, and Australia. And before Canada gets all high and mighty, we are at 23.35, and you are at 23.11. And, for the record, the US has done alot to cut back on its GHG emissions, despite the fact that it is not part of Kyoto. Therefore, the quote "In spite of this fact, the US does nothing." is catagorically false. You may decide we haven't done enough, and I'd probably agree.
You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours.
Tell that to Luxembourg. Har har.
The ChiComs have been able to abuse anyone within their borders back when China was an economic basket case, too.
Which doesn't change the fact that you somehow think buying Chinese-made shoes is "ok" and doesn't support the government.
Nonsense. A country and its government are not the same thing, and trading with Chinese people has nothing to do with supporting the government that opresses them.
What a false distinction. The reason that China is able to use and abuse companies into listening to its laws is because China is an economic force. The reason China is economic force is because you are supporting its "people". By supporting the "people", you put wealth into the hands of the Chinese, and therefore you give China's government the ability to force companies who want to trade that wealth for services at the whim of the regulations. The "people" you are supporting have to spend that money somewhere (after all, you can't eat money..)... and the Chinese government dictates who is allowed to recieve that money as payment.
To my mind, there's a significant difference between buying a pair of Chinese-made shoelaces and offering a search engine that blocks links about Tibet and Taiwan. YMMV.
Is that how you sleep at night? Google is making an economic decision here. They want part of China's economy. They, are, essentially, getting "paid" to do this. Where do you think that money is coming from? If Super-Brand-Shoe-Company of China puts up an ad on google.cn for more workers, then will the relationship be "close enough" to home for you to actually take the stand you demand others to take? Or is it still "different"?
I am not an aeronautical or structural engineer for these aircraft. I did electrical systems so I cannot answer your question with any degree of certainty.
However, I am reasonably certain that "strength" of the aircraft does not depend on the skin's structural properities as much as it does it's aerodynamic properities. A plane who took damage to skin is likely to survive all but the most extreme cases where the aerodynamic instability caused by the damage caused catastrophic structural or control failures.
Here for example is a story about some of the problems the USAF is running into now with the F-15 wing, which is composite and approaching 20 years old in many aircraft, e.g. the linked article notes an F-15 coming apart midflight in 2003 because of a sudden failure of the wing, and yet routine inspections every 200 hours had shown no signs of incipient failure.
Two points of information: The failure was not part of the wing, but part of the vertical stablizer (the fins). And, secondly, the failure was part of the load-bearing honeycomb, which is not "composite" but mainly aluminum. The 'skin' of the aircraft is composite, and not load-bearing. F15s are all getting structural upgrades (as is noted in the article) to correct this problem, and the air-force has removed the "profile" used that day (which, as i understand, was pretty extreme).
I worked at Eglin shortly after this happened, and worked with many people involved with that aircraft.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone... we're obviously dealing with the direct effects of global warming that have been talked about forever. Over the past few years, we've had more severe weather (hurricanes), higher average temperature, melting ice (Ross ice shelf). Perhaps the most telling sign is the slump in SUV sales (Ford cuts jobs)... are people finally getting the point? I hope so!
I believe in global warming. However, the only "point" I'm getting from what you said is that a bunch of computer science folks are proving that computer science programs around the country are doing a terrible job teaching statistics... If they don't clean up their act, we might just have people claiming that global warming has caused SUV sales to drop....
I must have come to the site instantly as this was posted, beacuse the first time I clicked on "On the Subject of Slashdot Article Formatting", I got "Nothing to see here, please move along". I gave it a +5 funny.
That is simplistic and incorrect. There is no accepted legal definition of hate speech which is entirely legal or illegal. Certain forms of "hate speech" are in fact illegal, and others are not.
Do you think the ACLU should be defending the rights of white supremacists (or radical muslims, for that matter) to own machine guns, nuclear weapons etc?
Ignoring the stupid "machines guns, nuclear weapons, etc" hyperbole, I'll ask a simple question: are you saying that the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights only apply to people whom we agree with? Would not the ACLU defend radical muslims and white supremacists first amendment rights (up to but not including hate speach and incitement of violence.... )... yet somehow you do not think they should defend their second amenment rights (up to but not including some analgous level of firearms). It is, inherently, hypocritical.
Your reading comprehension skills needs to be improved.
Irony.
Disarmament is one of the foundations of the treaty. The existing nuclear states (at the time of signing) should take steps towards effective disarmament with a goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. With US going forward with new types of nuclear devices, it hardly seems that they intend to remove all nuclear weapons.
Do you notice the completly amazing fallacy you've just put out. You state that the treaty requires "steps towards effective disarmament". Aside from the fact that isn't what the treaty says at all, you then go on to equate "steps towards effective disarmament" with "remove all nuclear weapons".
How is it that you can accuse me of not reading, and after I gave you the link to the actual treaty, you still continue to get it wrong? Allow me to quote it for you:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Now let me translate it for you: The United States agreed pursue negotiations in good faith to cease the "nuclear arms race" and for a treaty for "general and complete disarmament".
In other words, nothing in the NNPT states the United States is agreeing to complete disarmament. It said it must, in good faith, negotiate with the international community on doing so. It has done this on many occasions.
Yea, I definitely did not notice it was his name... haha... you win.
Iran may or may not attempt to get nuclear weapons, it's sure understandable that they want. However, Iran is allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.
Before spewing your nonsense, you might want to execute a little operation fact check. Under the NNPF, the United States is one of five nations permitted to own nuclear weapons. It is not required to "dispose of them", as you claim.
Furthermore, there is a process by which a nation can prove it's "peaceful purposes" clause of the treaty, and Iran is not following those procedures. It must be in agreement with the IAEA in order to pursue nuclear technologies for "peaceful" purposes... If you'd like the full link to the treaty, I'd ask you pay special attention to Article III, which specifically refutes your claim about Iran.
Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall conclude agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this Article either individually or together with other States in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
So strike 1 on USA, and strike 2 on Iran...
Care to back that statement up, neocon? As far as I know, they've claimed to develop a peaceful, civil nuclear program to generate power.
The idea of your post was good. He clearly is wrong in asserting Iran has claimed to be developing nuclear weapons. However, your compeltely over the top hostile attitude and inane labeling in order to prove your point is just poor form. However, I will grant that it is fun to use ridiculously generalized ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with, you pot-smoking hippy.
me = owned... sigh.. not my day... back to programming for me. I'm outcasting myself. Break tags are too advanced for me... Too bad I can't mod myself down so I don't have to endure the mockery...
>omg patents are so bad (+2, Insightful) >>omg yea, the system is broken (+2, Insightful) >>> yea how you can patent a process.. this is riduclous (+5, Informative) >>>> but we need patents to continue innovation (+3, Interesting) >>>>> No you don't! In my business, , and then (+5, Informative) >>>> i have patented complaining about patents, you owe me money (+5, Funny) >>> It's all president's Bush's fault. (+5, flaimbait) >>>> I hate microsoft (+5, Off-topic)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
A valient effort, but alas, incorrect! Behold, the real best quote of B-Frank: Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
The only way this will be stopped is by the big content providers refusing to pay and thereby cutting off the subscribers from these providers. The only way to generate sufficient public interest is if, suddenly, the Bellsouth customers were no longer able to access, say, google. Short of that, good luck.
The tech industry in america is floundering. Oh sure there are some success stories just check Apple, an all american product. Wich state is China in anyway?
It grew 16% last year. Instead, let's talk about Microsoft and Google. Those two companies compare favorably to most Europeon nations, on their own. But let's not silly facts get in the way of your ramblings.
2. I rather they spend it on this then on a war.
Awesome. Here's a bit of logic for you. "This is a good idea because I don't like America and they spend money on a war. This costs money, therefore it is good." That's grade A bullshit.
3. Perhaps a search engine that does not bow to the Chinese goverment in the name of the almighty dollar?
Do we really need to talk about the bullshit the French government does for it's almighty Franc? How about Nazi references? Be honest, wouldn't you be bitching just as much if google -hadn't- respected the wishes of China, and then you could say "Imperiliast America and google imposiing it's will on other nations for the almighty dollar". This is your best steaming pile, yet.
4. Yeah, because the top cellphone company is european and all your pc's are made in the US. No I rather we keep our model. So do the majority of EU voters. EU socialist, US capatalist. Move to location of your choice.
This is the best one yet. Clearly you refer to Nokia. A company that is #1 because it competes in the free market with no government benefits at all. And this is your evidence supporting "socialism". Isn't that... ironic? Err no, wait... It's just plain wrong.