You miss the point: it's not about how people identify themselves, but how others identify them. You admit it in your post - "it's a stupid politically correct catch-phrase invented by whites" - the point being that it is widely used.
I'm saying this is indicative of deep-seated prejudice.
To simply call one an 'African-American' because of skin color implies that 'African-American' is a color which it is not but a hijacked term for what it really means. Language evolves. The term "African American", like it or not, is applied to people who are black - true geo-ethnic heritage rarely comes into it (and your example is purposefully misleading - the term "African American" is not just confined to people who have been born in Africa, but also used to describe descendants of African immigrants).
Besides, you miss the point: by classifying people in this way, we presume that they share commonalities (such as culture or "rules" as the GP puts it) when in fact these things are stereotypes.
Put simply, why is an American with African heritage an African American, when a white American with European heritage is simply American?
blocks of people in your country who have a separate culture and separate rules that they want to live by And what culture/rules do the people labelled as African Americans live by?
Classifying people in such a way doesn't make sense. The only thing you can generalise about African Americans is that their skin is black. Grouping them into a sub-culture based on their ethnicity is really stupid, and a testament to the persisting prejudice that runs through the US. This is a perfect example of modern, widely practised, racism.
Both you and the GP are correct - the point being that once a customer has paid for their bandwidth, there should be no question of extra remuneration for the ISPs unless individuals start exceeding the bandwidth usage they've paid for.
I suppose the case the ISPs (particularly the budget ones) are making is that services like the iPlayer are causing a large proportion of their consumers to exceed their bandwidth limits. Now, it would be impractical, the ISPs argue, to go after the individual customers (many of whom have no idea that they're doing anything wrong) so they want the content providers to pay instead.
What the GP is saying is that these budget ISPs are feeling the brunt of this high demand for large-bandwidth content because they are operating on profit margins that are simply too small (hence the GP claiming "broadband is too cheap").
No. From the article you linked to:
The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device to receive TV signals, must buy a licence. The iPlayer does not count as a TV signal any way you spin it. And again, from the article you linked to:
You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV. I don't see how you can be so confused over this, it's quite clear.
That doesn't apply to PCs used to watch iPlayer. You have to be using the PC to watch television in real time ("to watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV"), for example using a TV card in your PC, to qualify for the tax.
In fact I think the whole iPlayer is just an excuse to make sure the BBC is on the net so there is no getting around paying for a licence. This is obviously not the case, hence why this issue of broadband tax is coming up. I'm a bit confused as to how you could think this anyway - don't you think having the BBC's content online is a good thing?
how much would the necessary bribe be, and who is corrupt enough in the EU Commission to push this through for MSFT? Why would Microsoft want to push it through? The issue is about "whether Microsoft can be excluded in the future from all advertisements of public jobs".
You're using a pretty ambiguous metaphor to get out of substantiating the term "world of open source".
Your metaphor implies that closed-source is supported by open source (the concrete vs the glass). Care to elaborate? Perhaps you're referring to the fact that Windows desktops (i.e. the glass) access Internet servers dominated by Linux?
Even if this is the case, I don't see how it equates to a world of open source, neither do I see how one can imply it supports closed source.
a world of open-source I don't see a world of open source. I see a world of closed source in which open source is making some small (but significant) strides.
I don't think [disk array manufacturers are] going to be forthright with giving people that data because it would reduce the opportunity for them to add value by 'interpreting' the numbers. By the same token, by acknowledging the realistic lifespan of their products, they could get customers to replace hard disks more often and therefore give them more business.
However, I strongly suspect that the problem lies in the fact that one manufacturer would have to be the first to change the documented lifespan of their products, and the danger is that unless their competitors follow, their products could be interpreted as inferior and they could lose a lot of business.
Why shouldn't I do that, if the copyright owners are being compensated properly?
Because it's not just users of their music who are compensating them, but anyone with a hard drive, iPod, CDR or tape, whether they store music or not. This means that people unaffected by this legal benefit of the tax have to pay it anyway.
Wouldn't taxing people for copyright violations they may commit be the best way to show them the door to illegal copying?
Never mind the fact that the taxes would apply to technology copyright holders rely on to push their content, notably digital audio players such as the iPod.
Isn't your bank the only institution able to transfer money out of your account? Don't you have to show your ID? Don't you have to sign some documents???
In the UK (I assume in the US as well), direct debits can be set up without needing to sign anything, so it can even be done over the Internet (that's how PayPal's bank transfer system works).
I remember a dream in which I was standing on a railway platform and as a train passed, I shot the driver with some kind of rifle. What was interesting is that this was only a very small part of the dream. The rest consisted of me going through some ridiculously realistic emotions, including guilt, fear and remorse. Even though the events themselves were completely abstract, it was like I went through an emotional simulation of killing someone.
I think you misunderstand how the phrase is used. People don't say "I have a steep learning curve" to mean they're stupid, they say "this requires a steep learning curve" or "this entails a steep learning curve" to mean that something is difficult and therefore requires people to be able to learn quickly.
While a quantum leap may represent a very small change in physics, the idiom "quantum leap" nonetheless means a large advance.
The only thing worse than language Nazis are the people who think they're qualified to be language Nazis, but are actually just pedants who are lost in misinterpretation and warped logic.
Your English is actually very good, it's not shitty at all. I'm surprised you're not a native speaker.
The jobs I was going for when I was a high school student were the typical student jobs - I was applying for things such as waiting jobs, till work, bar work, etc. It was employers needing these kind of jobs that seemed to be put off by my academic record.
Haha indeed. A client of the company's tech support service was asking whether a job tracking/accounts system could be made for them, and my boss asked me to come up with suggestions. I kept trying to push a compiled solution because that's where my real interest lies. Alas, for many reasons (including "it needs to be accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection"), the PHP option won.
I'm still determined to change the job title to C/C++ developer!
There are not too many occupations where it's really good to be dumb
Actually, many non-graduate jobs prefer people to be pretty dumb, academically at least. The jobs they offer only require a small amount of training which doesn't require much intelligence or academic ability, and doesn't offer much other than tedium. They don't want to employ someone who has academic prospects for fear that they might leave or just start not caring. This was a problem when I was a high school student - retailers didn't want me because of my straight As - they knew I'd be going to university, while the guy who failed three of his subjects would have much more potential as a long-term employee.
When you're 16 and you've just got As and A*s at GCSE and then you can't even get a summer job, it's pretty disheartening. I'm in my final year of university now and at the beginning of the year I got a part-time (and damn well-paid, for a student at least) job as a PHP developer, though, so I guess it has evened out!
Slashdot Mirror
That's my point: the term African American is used to describe people who are black, with no regard to true geo-ethnic background.
You miss the point: it's not about how people identify themselves, but how others identify them. You admit it in your post - "it's a stupid politically correct catch-phrase invented by whites" - the point being that it is widely used.
I'm saying this is indicative of deep-seated prejudice.
Besides, you miss the point: by classifying people in this way, we presume that they share commonalities (such as culture or "rules" as the GP puts it) when in fact these things are stereotypes.
Put simply, why is an American with African heritage an African American, when a white American with European heritage is simply American?
Classifying people in such a way doesn't make sense. The only thing you can generalise about African Americans is that their skin is black. Grouping them into a sub-culture based on their ethnicity is really stupid, and a testament to the persisting prejudice that runs through the US. This is a perfect example of modern, widely practised, racism.
Both you and the GP are correct - the point being that once a customer has paid for their bandwidth, there should be no question of extra remuneration for the ISPs unless individuals start exceeding the bandwidth usage they've paid for.
I suppose the case the ISPs (particularly the budget ones) are making is that services like the iPlayer are causing a large proportion of their consumers to exceed their bandwidth limits. Now, it would be impractical, the ISPs argue, to go after the individual customers (many of whom have no idea that they're doing anything wrong) so they want the content providers to pay instead.
What the GP is saying is that these budget ISPs are feeling the brunt of this high demand for large-bandwidth content because they are operating on profit margins that are simply too small (hence the GP claiming "broadband is too cheap").
The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device to receive TV signals, must buy a licence. The iPlayer does not count as a TV signal any way you spin it.
And again, from the article you linked to: You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV. I don't see how you can be so confused over this, it's quite clear.
In fact I think the whole iPlayer is just an excuse to make sure the BBC is on the net so there is no getting around paying for a licence. This is obviously not the case, hence why this issue of broadband tax is coming up. I'm a bit confused as to how you could think this anyway - don't you think having the BBC's content online is a good thing?
You don't need to use Linux for it to render correctly.
Firefox
That's bad for Microsoft.
Say NO to the fundamentalist religious agenda. It is one of hatred, control and paranoia.
Take your propaganda elsewhere - it is not welcome here.
You're using a pretty ambiguous metaphor to get out of substantiating the term "world of open source".
Your metaphor implies that closed-source is supported by open source (the concrete vs the glass). Care to elaborate? Perhaps you're referring to the fact that Windows desktops (i.e. the glass) access Internet servers dominated by Linux?
Even if this is the case, I don't see how it equates to a world of open source, neither do I see how one can imply it supports closed source.
However, I strongly suspect that the problem lies in the fact that one manufacturer would have to be the first to change the documented lifespan of their products, and the danger is that unless their competitors follow, their products could be interpreted as inferior and they could lose a lot of business.
Gives a whole new meaning to "Fat Cat"...
Wouldn't taxing people for copyright violations they may commit be the best way to show them the door to illegal copying?
Never mind the fact that the taxes would apply to technology copyright holders rely on to push their content, notably digital audio players such as the iPod.
Tantrum? Real men throw chairs!
I remember a dream in which I was standing on a railway platform and as a train passed, I shot the driver with some kind of rifle. What was interesting is that this was only a very small part of the dream. The rest consisted of me going through some ridiculously realistic emotions, including guilt, fear and remorse. Even though the events themselves were completely abstract, it was like I went through an emotional simulation of killing someone.
I think you misunderstand how the phrase is used. People don't say "I have a steep learning curve" to mean they're stupid, they say "this requires a steep learning curve" or "this entails a steep learning curve" to mean that something is difficult and therefore requires people to be able to learn quickly.
While a quantum leap may represent a very small change in physics, the idiom "quantum leap" nonetheless means a large advance.
The only thing worse than language Nazis are the people who think they're qualified to be language Nazis, but are actually just pedants who are lost in misinterpretation and warped logic.
The synthesised soundtrack in Mass Effect is brilliant, and really stirs up a Blade Runner "feel".
Your English is actually very good, it's not shitty at all. I'm surprised you're not a native speaker.
The jobs I was going for when I was a high school student were the typical student jobs - I was applying for things such as waiting jobs, till work, bar work, etc. It was employers needing these kind of jobs that seemed to be put off by my academic record.
Haha indeed. A client of the company's tech support service was asking whether a job tracking/accounts system could be made for them, and my boss asked me to come up with suggestions. I kept trying to push a compiled solution because that's where my real interest lies. Alas, for many reasons (including "it needs to be accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection"), the PHP option won.
I'm still determined to change the job title to C/C++ developer!
Actually, many non-graduate jobs prefer people to be pretty dumb, academically at least. The jobs they offer only require a small amount of training which doesn't require much intelligence or academic ability, and doesn't offer much other than tedium. They don't want to employ someone who has academic prospects for fear that they might leave or just start not caring. This was a problem when I was a high school student - retailers didn't want me because of my straight As - they knew I'd be going to university, while the guy who failed three of his subjects would have much more potential as a long-term employee.
When you're 16 and you've just got As and A*s at GCSE and then you can't even get a summer job, it's pretty disheartening. I'm in my final year of university now and at the beginning of the year I got a part-time (and damn well-paid, for a student at least) job as a PHP developer, though, so I guess it has evened out!