Well, except for the fact that MSFT, Google, Apple, and Amazon need the telcos more than the telcos need them. By a wide margin -- and especially true for Google and Amazon (and eBay).
Are you sure about that? If I am not offered services like google and amazon on the internet then why the hell am I going to pay for it? An internet with bland, AT&T search engines and Comcast online stores, and a Verizon music store? F that. I'd rather pay for AOL's $23 a month dial up.
I mean... It's human. Or it will be. And humans have this thing called hope and promise where even the hope or promise of having this thing turn out to be a person is enough to defend it. I don't know what to call it, compassion or what not, but I don't care if it ended up being a drug dealer, killer, murderer, or the next president of the UN or something. It's going to end up, if you don't stop it now, to be a person.
You're talking to the same guy who wrote on his blog (which I wont link to, don't want to promote his site on google, but its in dada21's profile) the words:
I should be president? I was talking with a new friend today, and he commented something I hear often -- "You should run for President." Sometimes its "You should be in politics" or something like that. I'm very convincing. I'd be a great informercial guy if I was more attractive on camera.
I have a feeling Google rather not employ their best algorithims in their censorship of what they do best: provide information to the masses... Because if they were to do so, then they'd truly be doing evil. So let's take it this way: they're trying their best to not do the worst.
What kind of planes are you speaking of British planes?
In America, we do things right. It'd take, what, two or three SUV Planes (most preferably Hummers, F350s or something else GM or Ford) to ship that many people.
Jeez, Europeans these days always downsizing everything from planes to mini coopers to bathing suits.
And we'd end up with a scientific community as diluted as our political community, filled with lots of people who are capable in other fields but determined to ruin the field that they just don't fit into.
Disney has been evil from the beginning, even when it was being run by Walt himself.
I was a bit in doubt of your statement, but then I went to wikipedia and looked up his biography and read this: Walt Disney is particularly noted for being a successful storyteller, a hands-on film producer, and a popular showman. He and his staff created a number of the world's most popular animated properties, including the one many consider Disney's alter ego, Mickey Mouse.
Anyone with an "alter ego" must be inherently evil.
Well according to this article: The death toll in the building of the first Great Wall was astounding: More than a million people died building this 3,000 mile section more than 300 people per mile.
Now, if more than a million died building some wall... How many more Chinese must die building the Great Sun of China? China's not exactly known for its valuing of individual's lives in the progress of economics...
Assuming that the 10% dies because of genetic weakness and an innate disposition towards the procedure, if we were to conduct this on entire populations many times over, the success rate would soon approach 100% because the 10% would always be dying and since their number dwindles, would no longer exist. Excellent idea US doctors.
Uncontaminated space dust from the tail of a comet? I think not. Even if you tried you wouldn't even be able to get a hold of that. And that is precisely why it cost Nasa $212 Million. The price is justified.
Mexico, although not well-known for its liberalism or up-to-dateness relative to the rest of the world, has had coins worth up to $100 Mexican Pesos (which is around $10 American) since 2004, and has had $50 Mexican Pesos ($5 American) since basically the creation of the "New Peso" around 1993. That isn't too much compared to Australia but it's a lot better than us Americans are doing with dollar bills being so widely produced, lost, destroyed, and wasted.
This: So if you're a gold farmer, hanging around with your gold farming buddies at the gold farming office, wouldn't you just team up with them instead of trying to solicit groups with American players, who are likely to just slow you down?
And this: As a result, players are asking anyone who wants to join a group to type one or two sentences in English. If the sentences contain spelling or grammar mistakes, the player is rejected. Since you have to join groups to complete certain quests in WOW, this is presenting many Chinese players with a serious problem.
Sound like the same problem. What it all boils down to is that a foriegn gold smuggling player needs to join a group in order to do best in gold smuggling, and if potential partners at a gold smuggling office won't accept him, then he has to resort to teaming up with foriegners in order to start his credibility. Once he has some credibility, perhaps the office workers might let him in, but until then, he is stuck wishing someone would team up with him.
Well, many of those points you raise are valid, but they all come with a precondition:
This player, Chinese or not, knows how to speak English well and well enough to construct a few sentences in English in order to join a group to complete the quests they wish to complete.
In other words, if they have friends in America, or want to play in an American server because they like how Americans role play, they probably know English, and knowing English would be able to defend themselves from being accused of gold farming.
Well, it's more like playing a board game. If the rules of the game change, then you have to adapt yourself to those rules in order to win. This is what, although I cannot exactly agree, Microsoft is doing. They've adapted themselves to the rules of China's playing field in order to be more successful there than other foreign companies are there. Now, to put on two faces is just like putting on a poker face. They put it on to win, in their current situation and where they are located. They want to win, and they're doing what they can to do so. This isn't so much a question of right or wrong as much as doing business.
What you're referring to is prejudice, or prejudgement. Racism, as defined on wikipedia, is: Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race". Primarily, it refers to an assumption that the human species can meaningfully be divided into races, together with hostility to people of certain races or a belief, conscious or unconscious, that people of different races differ in value. Some people whose thinking about others uses racial categories believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale.
While prejudice on the other hand is: Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and politically popular views are not necessarily free of prejudice. When applied to social groups, prejudice generally refers to existing biases toward the members of such groups, often based on social stereotypes; and at its most extreme, results in groups being denied benefits and rights unjustly or, conversely, unfairly showing unwarranted favor towards others.
There was a good Frontline on PBS awhile back which was mainly about Wal-Mart but also contrasted Rubbermaid with Wal-Mart: Is Wal-Mart Good For America?
The point was made in the difference between taking the high road, which relied on innovation and high profit margins but low sales, and the low road, which relied on the exact opposite. Now, Dell seems to be taking the low road and Apple taking the high road. But in the specific confrontation between Rubbermaid, which was mentioned in the show as one of the leading companies in the 90s (was named #1 American company by Fortune, not in value but in business and leadership, etc), and Wal-Mart (named #1 American company exactly 10 years later). Of course Wal-Mart won and Rubbermaid no longer exists (were bought out).
I really hope Apple wins out on this one. I mean, Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart weren't direct competitors but since Rubbermaid supplied Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart forced them out of business by requiring lower and lower prices, and eventually not even putting them on the shelves in Wal-Marts. And after that well, Rubbermaid was doomed. But still, it is a comparison of the high and low roads. I really, for reasons unknown, root for the high road more.
It's funny that Americans have this "we've gotta do it first" mentality, that's been around since right after World War II and is still continuing to this day. I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't mind being the first to settle on the moon, but are we going to spend billions of dollars on Chinese electronic equipment to get there first? That'll only help them all the more, and further dig us into the hole of falling world status and power, primarily economically, that we don't seem to know how to get out of.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone outside the US already knows this.
And who said that people in the US didn't know this?
Hey Haiku 4 U
Do you always write comments
As haiku poems?
Well, except for the fact that MSFT, Google, Apple, and Amazon need the telcos more than the telcos need them. By a wide margin -- and especially true for Google and Amazon (and eBay).
Are you sure about that? If I am not offered services like google and amazon on the internet then why the hell am I going to pay for it? An internet with bland, AT&T search engines and Comcast online stores, and a Verizon music store? F that. I'd rather pay for AOL's $23 a month dial up.
Hey I'm a non-rich republican and I wasn't sweet talked into anything--
Wait, hold on a minute now...
Isn't it quite simple?
I mean... It's human. Or it will be. And humans have this thing called hope and promise where even the hope or promise of having this thing turn out to be a person is enough to defend it. I don't know what to call it, compassion or what not, but I don't care if it ended up being a drug dealer, killer, murderer, or the next president of the UN or something. It's going to end up, if you don't stop it now, to be a person.
Simple, right?
You're talking to the same guy who wrote on his blog (which I wont link to, don't want to promote his site on google, but its in dada21's profile) the words:
I should be president? I was talking with a new friend today, and he commented something I hear often -- "You should run for President." Sometimes its "You should be in politics" or something like that. I'm very convincing. I'd be a great informercial guy if I was more attractive on camera.
Since when was rate, as far as developing technologies are concerned, linear? Even with Microsoft, there is a such thing as acceleration...
I have a feeling Google rather not employ their best algorithims in their censorship of what they do best: provide information to the masses... Because if they were to do so, then they'd truly be doing evil. So let's take it this way: they're trying their best to not do the worst.
If I'm going down, I'm going to bring everyone else down as well!
Believing in God isn't that bad a thing.
What kind of planes are you speaking of British planes?
In America, we do things right. It'd take, what, two or three SUV Planes (most preferably Hummers, F350s or something else GM or Ford) to ship that many people.
Jeez, Europeans these days always downsizing everything from planes to mini coopers to bathing suits.
You're obviously an idealist in a world filled with dumb people.
And we'd end up with a scientific community as diluted as our political community, filled with lots of people who are capable in other fields but determined to ruin the field that they just don't fit into.
Disney has been evil from the beginning, even when it was being run by Walt himself.
I was a bit in doubt of your statement, but then I went to wikipedia and looked up his biography and read this: Walt Disney is particularly noted for being a successful storyteller, a hands-on film producer, and a popular showman. He and his staff created a number of the world's most popular animated properties, including the one many consider Disney's alter ego, Mickey Mouse.
Anyone with an "alter ego" must be inherently evil.
How sarcastic are you being when you say these things?
Well according to this article: The death toll in the building of the first Great Wall was astounding: More than a million people died building this 3,000 mile section more than 300 people per mile.
Now, if more than a million died building some wall... How many more Chinese must die building the Great Sun of China? China's not exactly known for its valuing of individual's lives in the progress of economics...
Assuming that the 10% dies because of genetic weakness and an innate disposition towards the procedure, if we were to conduct this on entire populations many times over, the success rate would soon approach 100% because the 10% would always be dying and since their number dwindles, would no longer exist. Excellent idea US doctors.
I would sell NASA dust for $1 Million
Uncontaminated space dust from the tail of a comet? I think not. Even if you tried you wouldn't even be able to get a hold of that. And that is precisely why it cost Nasa $212 Million. The price is justified.
Mexico, although not well-known for its liberalism or up-to-dateness relative to the rest of the world, has had coins worth up to $100 Mexican Pesos (which is around $10 American) since 2004, and has had $50 Mexican Pesos ($5 American) since basically the creation of the "New Peso" around 1993. That isn't too much compared to Australia but it's a lot better than us Americans are doing with dollar bills being so widely produced, lost, destroyed, and wasted.
This: So if you're a gold farmer, hanging around with your gold farming buddies at the gold farming office, wouldn't you just team up with them instead of trying to solicit groups with American players, who are likely to just slow you down?
And this: As a result, players are asking anyone who wants to join a group to type one or two sentences in English. If the sentences contain spelling or grammar mistakes, the player is rejected. Since you have to join groups to complete certain quests in WOW, this is presenting many Chinese players with a serious problem.
Sound like the same problem. What it all boils down to is that a foriegn gold smuggling player needs to join a group in order to do best in gold smuggling, and if potential partners at a gold smuggling office won't accept him, then he has to resort to teaming up with foriegners in order to start his credibility. Once he has some credibility, perhaps the office workers might let him in, but until then, he is stuck wishing someone would team up with him.
Well, many of those points you raise are valid, but they all come with a precondition:
This player, Chinese or not, knows how to speak English well and well enough to construct a few sentences in English in order to join a group to complete the quests they wish to complete.
In other words, if they have friends in America, or want to play in an American server because they like how Americans role play, they probably know English, and knowing English would be able to defend themselves from being accused of gold farming.
Well, it's more like playing a board game. If the rules of the game change, then you have to adapt yourself to those rules in order to win. This is what, although I cannot exactly agree, Microsoft is doing. They've adapted themselves to the rules of China's playing field in order to be more successful there than other foreign companies are there. Now, to put on two faces is just like putting on a poker face. They put it on to win, in their current situation and where they are located. They want to win, and they're doing what they can to do so. This isn't so much a question of right or wrong as much as doing business.
What you're referring to is prejudice, or prejudgement. Racism, as defined on wikipedia, is: Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race". Primarily, it refers to an assumption that the human species can meaningfully be divided into races, together with hostility to people of certain races or a belief, conscious or unconscious, that people of different races differ in value. Some people whose thinking about others uses racial categories believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale.
While prejudice on the other hand is: Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and politically popular views are not necessarily free of prejudice. When applied to social groups, prejudice generally refers to existing biases toward the members of such groups, often based on social stereotypes; and at its most extreme, results in groups being denied benefits and rights unjustly or, conversely, unfairly showing unwarranted favor towards others.
There was a good Frontline on PBS awhile back which was mainly about Wal-Mart but also contrasted Rubbermaid with Wal-Mart: Is Wal-Mart Good For America?
The point was made in the difference between taking the high road, which relied on innovation and high profit margins but low sales, and the low road, which relied on the exact opposite. Now, Dell seems to be taking the low road and Apple taking the high road. But in the specific confrontation between Rubbermaid, which was mentioned in the show as one of the leading companies in the 90s (was named #1 American company by Fortune, not in value but in business and leadership, etc), and Wal-Mart (named #1 American company exactly 10 years later). Of course Wal-Mart won and Rubbermaid no longer exists (were bought out).
I really hope Apple wins out on this one. I mean, Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart weren't direct competitors but since Rubbermaid supplied Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart forced them out of business by requiring lower and lower prices, and eventually not even putting them on the shelves in Wal-Marts. And after that well, Rubbermaid was doomed. But still, it is a comparison of the high and low roads. I really, for reasons unknown, root for the high road more.
It's funny that Americans have this "we've gotta do it first" mentality, that's been around since right after World War II and is still continuing to this day. I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't mind being the first to settle on the moon, but are we going to spend billions of dollars on Chinese electronic equipment to get there first? That'll only help them all the more, and further dig us into the hole of falling world status and power, primarily economically, that we don't seem to know how to get out of.