"Crack pipe"? Why do you have to be such an ass about it?
Most of what China is building is new. It's easy to put in new technology where none already existed. OTOH, it is expensive to replace millions of existing systems with new ones. Sure, some countries might spend the money to do this. And we might spend the money to do this when it's feasible. Usually, however, it isn't.
The author of the article tried to argue that cheap labor didn't account for the existence of all the new technology. All I'm saying is that, comparatively speaking, it's way cheaper to do all of this in China precisely because of cheap labor.
I think what I'm saying makes plenty of sense. It's simple economics.
The rest don't really have anything to do with cheap labour.
Oh, really? Who is going to replace every traffic light with ones like those described? Who will set up more cell towers, even in rural areas? Who is going to build all those "adult playgrounds" spoken of? How many bank tellers are you going to hire to keep banks open longer hours -- even on holidays? Who is going to install all the roadside billboards showing available parking and the underlying systems to keep track of that information, and the people to maintain them, and count cars?
A LOT of that stuff can happen when you've got a HUGE labor force available that works for peanuts.
Cheap labor makes it cost-effective to do all these wonderful things, which all boil down to nothing more than convenience. Things were similar during the turn of the last century, when children worked in factories and even middle class families had servants. Perhaps this is China's "gilded age".
I am suggesting that leftists are less likely to be tolerant of any right-wing leanings, thus forcing friends, relatives and associates to lie about their true beliefs in order to stay "in the group."
On some issues, I am conservative. I do not voice these opinions when I'm around our left-leaning friends. There is no point in it, and I would like to be invited to the next party.
Yes, there are people who appear to be leftist, who voted for Bush in the election.
I don't think it was organized. It just happens. I have already explained the motivation. You are probably fortunate that you are in a situation where such things are incomprehensible. Not everyone is.
It isn't fanciful. I have lied about who I was going to vote for. Lots of people do it. There are a lot of closet conservatives who appear to be liberal and vice versa.
I think it's MORE fanciful to think that the exit polls are accurate, but the vote count isn't.
People lie in exit polls. There are people in certain ethnic groups, cliques, etc. who maintain one public persona, but who cast ballots a different way in the privacy of the voting booth. This is true of both sides, but particularly of the left.
Well, it's a republic, but I rarely indulge in that nitpick.
True. What I really meant to imply is that anyone who thinks their vote really counts is fooling themselves.
Gerrymandering would not work if the voters had functioning brain cells.
For that to happen, the typical American's attention span would have to grow beyond the size of a bumper sticker.
This election year I am especially amused by the insistence on both sides that THIS election is THE MOST VITALLY IMPORTANT ELECTION SINCE (fill in the blank).
I couldn't have said it better myself. Except for my part, I'm abstaining from voting for the president. I will NEVER understand why both parties insist on giving us such poor choices to vote for.
The only thing that will get me to the polls next week are a couple of state questions; though even my vote there is probably moot since the authorities with either choose not to enforce the law (if they pass), or they'll get overturned in court on some sort of dubious "constitutional" grounds.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a democracy is fooling themselves.
So since there's a lot of unsafe drivers out there, should be ban cars? I mean, these people aren't like me.
The discussion is not about whether cellphones should be banned, but whether their use should be curtailed in certain areas.
To properly compare them to automobiles: Just because a person owns a car doesn't mean they can park it anywhere they want, or drive it anywhere they want. You cannot argue "There might be an emergency, so I should be given a special dispensation to park here." There are private drives, no-parking zones, tow zones, etc. Cellphone jamming in a theater is the equivalent of a no-parking zone.
If we have to treat those people like children, then fine, ban THAT PERSON from carrying a phone into the theater...just don't punish me for something I didn't do.
Could you please explain to me exactly how me walking out of the theater and answering my phone "INTRUDES ON YOUR RIGHTS"?
The problem is not YOU. The problem is that the vast majority of cell phone users DON'T set their phones to vibrate; DON'T answer their phones outside of the theater; and DON'T limit their calls to emergencies. This is why we have to consider complete phone bans in places like theaters. If everyone were like you, there wouldn't be a problem, but they're NOT like you.
I used to use the same arguments about gun control (I'm safe with my guns; I don't use them to commit crimes; Why should I have to be persecuted?) But the fact is people DO get hurt with guns from time to time because they're idiots. So we have to have some goddamn laws covering their use. Same with cars. Same with cellphones. People cannot control themselves, so they have to be treated like children.
And, BTW, I do have a child, and until she was sixteen, we didn't even own a cellphone. Somehow we managed to get by without one. If I managed to raise my kid without having a cellphone I guarantee you can spend a couple of hours without yours.
Overly touchy? Just because I want to enjoy a movie or concert or play or whatever in peace?
Don't call me a luddite just because I don't want to hear about your aunt's boil right in the middle of a pivotal scene. Damn right, I'm in favor of banning all technology WHICH INTRUDES ON MY RIGHTS.
YOU're the one with the problem if you can't live without your damn cellphone for a couple of hours. You need professional help.
And just why the hell do people get so bent out of shape that my cell phone might vibrate a little bit when I get an incoming message?
Yeah, right. The problem is that asshats like you don't set your phones to vibrate. Instead it will be playing the hamster dance song at high volume. Then you will proceed to answer it and carry on a conversation in the middle of the movie.
Emergencies? What a load of crock. Good God, what did everyone with an emergency do all those decades when we didn't have cellphones?
If content was reviewed and edited by people with the requisite skills and attitudes prior to publication on Wikipedia, I'd be more inclined to trust it. Until that happens, I won't.
It has been my experience that everything I have submitted has been edited by others, within hours of the change. A submitter can also mark a page to be watched so that any changes to it or comments about it can be communicated. I think that inacurracies are much more likely on topics of a controversial nature (politics, religion, that sort of thing), but this problem will always rear its ugly head in these areas. Having said that, I am often surprised at how fair and objective articles are, given the nature of the Wiki.
Despite what you seem to think, I completely understand your problem about articles being published before they are reviewed. To that all I can say is that while it isn't perfect, it's the only way to do it. Otherwise, if the editing authority gets bogged down, or behind, or just plain bored, or gets hit by a bus, you don't have scores of writers submitting the same changes/additions over and over again.
I invite you to share some of your knowledge with the world via the Wikipedia. Why don't you pick a topic you know something about, but which there is not already an article, and write something. Start here.
You might find it educational and enjoyable.
Slashdot Mirror
"Crack pipe"? Why do you have to be such an ass about it?
Most of what China is building is new. It's easy to put in new technology where none already existed. OTOH, it is expensive to replace millions of existing systems with new ones. Sure, some countries might spend the money to do this. And we might spend the money to do this when it's feasible. Usually, however, it isn't.
The author of the article tried to argue that cheap labor didn't account for the existence of all the new technology. All I'm saying is that, comparatively speaking, it's way cheaper to do all of this in China precisely because of cheap labor.
I think what I'm saying makes plenty of sense. It's simple economics.
The rest don't really have anything to do with cheap labour.
Oh, really? Who is going to replace every traffic light with ones like those described? Who will set up more cell towers, even in rural areas? Who is going to build all those "adult playgrounds" spoken of? How many bank tellers are you going to hire to keep banks open longer hours -- even on holidays? Who is going to install all the roadside billboards showing available parking and the underlying systems to keep track of that information, and the people to maintain them, and count cars?
A LOT of that stuff can happen when you've got a HUGE labor force available that works for peanuts.
Cheap labor makes it cost-effective to do all these wonderful things, which all boil down to nothing more than convenience. Things were similar during the turn of the last century, when children worked in factories and even middle class families had servants. Perhaps this is China's "gilded age".
I am suggesting that leftists are less likely to be tolerant of any right-wing leanings, thus forcing friends, relatives and associates to lie about their true beliefs in order to stay "in the group."
On some issues, I am conservative. I do not voice these opinions when I'm around our left-leaning friends. There is no point in it, and I would like to be invited to the next party.
Yes, there are people who appear to be leftist, who voted for Bush in the election.
I don't think it was organized. It just happens. I have already explained the motivation. You are probably fortunate that you are in a situation where such things are incomprehensible. Not everyone is.
It isn't fanciful. I have lied about who I was going to vote for. Lots of people do it. There are a lot of closet conservatives who appear to be liberal and vice versa.
I think it's MORE fanciful to think that the exit polls are accurate, but the vote count isn't.
People lie in exit polls. There are people in certain ethnic groups, cliques, etc. who maintain one public persona, but who cast ballots a different way in the privacy of the voting booth. This is true of both sides, but particularly of the left.
You're in fine form today, Harvey.
I /. being /.'ed? Is it because of all the pointless political posting? It took me half a fucking hour to get any response.
Nothing is worst than a bunch of dangling cables inside your computer case.
Are you sure there aren't maybe at least a few things worst[sic] than a bunch of dangling cables? Fire? Flood? Prostate cancer?
Are dangling cables really such a travesty? Do we need to hold a telethon or something?
Someone was always after their Lucky Charms.
DOH!
The old saws still apply:
If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.
Well, it's a republic, but I rarely indulge in that nitpick.
True. What I really meant to imply is that anyone who thinks their vote really counts is fooling themselves.
Gerrymandering would not work if the voters had functioning brain cells.
For that to happen, the typical American's attention span would have to grow beyond the size of a bumper sticker.
This election year I am especially amused by the insistence on both sides that THIS election is THE MOST VITALLY IMPORTANT ELECTION SINCE (fill in the blank).
Yeah right.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Except for my part, I'm abstaining from voting for the president. I will NEVER understand why both parties insist on giving us such poor choices to vote for.
The only thing that will get me to the polls next week are a couple of state questions; though even my vote there is probably moot since the authorities with either choose not to enforce the law (if they pass), or they'll get overturned in court on some sort of dubious "constitutional" grounds.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is a democracy is fooling themselves.
He never claimed to invent the internet. He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention,
The funding he was talking about did not lead to the invention of the internet. It had already been invented.
So either way, what he said was stupid.
Sure, I like cats.
When they're properly cooked.
...Garage sales are full of $100 computers. Sometimes less!
"We cannot stick our heads in the bush and tell ourselves that everything is OK.
In every case where I've stuck my head in the bush things have turned out just fine (slurp).
So since there's a lot of unsafe drivers out there, should be ban cars? I mean, these people aren't like me.
The discussion is not about whether cellphones should be banned, but whether their use should be curtailed in certain areas.
To properly compare them to automobiles: Just because a person owns a car doesn't mean they can park it anywhere they want, or drive it anywhere they want. You cannot argue "There might be an emergency, so I should be given a special dispensation to park here." There are private drives, no-parking zones, tow zones, etc. Cellphone jamming in a theater is the equivalent of a no-parking zone.
If we have to treat those people like children, then fine, ban THAT PERSON from carrying a phone into the theater...just don't punish me for something I didn't do.
Nice concept, but totally impractical.
Could you please explain to me exactly how me walking out of the theater and answering my phone "INTRUDES ON YOUR RIGHTS"?
The problem is not YOU. The problem is that the vast majority of cell phone users DON'T set their phones to vibrate; DON'T answer their phones outside of the theater; and DON'T limit their calls to emergencies. This is why we have to consider complete phone bans in places like theaters. If everyone were like you, there wouldn't be a problem, but they're NOT like you.
I used to use the same arguments about gun control (I'm safe with my guns; I don't use them to commit crimes; Why should I have to be persecuted?) But the fact is people DO get hurt with guns from time to time because they're idiots. So we have to have some goddamn laws covering their use. Same with cars. Same with cellphones. People cannot control themselves, so they have to be treated like children.
And, BTW, I do have a child, and until she was sixteen, we didn't even own a cellphone. Somehow we managed to get by without one. If I managed to raise my kid without having a cellphone I guarantee you can spend a couple of hours without yours.
Overly touchy? Just because I want to enjoy a movie or concert or play or whatever in peace?
Don't call me a luddite just because I don't want to hear about your aunt's boil right in the middle of a pivotal scene. Damn right, I'm in favor of banning all technology WHICH INTRUDES ON MY RIGHTS.
YOU're the one with the problem if you can't live without your damn cellphone for a couple of hours. You need professional help.
If you had that job, and didn't return a call within an hour, you run the risk of getting fired.
That's not a job, that's slavery.
And just why the hell do people get so bent out of shape that my cell phone might vibrate a little bit when I get an incoming message?
Yeah, right. The problem is that asshats like you don't set your phones to vibrate. Instead it will be playing the hamster dance song at high volume. Then you will proceed to answer it and carry on a conversation in the middle of the movie.
Emergencies? What a load of crock. Good God, what did everyone with an emergency do all those decades when we didn't have cellphones?
If content was reviewed and edited by people with the requisite skills and attitudes prior to publication on Wikipedia, I'd be more inclined to trust it. Until that happens, I won't.
It has been my experience that everything I have submitted has been edited by others, within hours of the change. A submitter can also mark a page to be watched so that any changes to it or comments about it can be communicated. I think that inacurracies are much more likely on topics of a controversial nature (politics, religion, that sort of thing), but this problem will always rear its ugly head in these areas. Having said that, I am often surprised at how fair and objective articles are, given the nature of the Wiki.
Despite what you seem to think, I completely understand your problem about articles being published before they are reviewed. To that all I can say is that while it isn't perfect, it's the only way to do it. Otherwise, if the editing authority gets bogged down, or behind, or just plain bored, or gets hit by a bus, you don't have scores of writers submitting the same changes/additions over and over again.
I invite you to share some of your knowledge with the world via the Wikipedia. Why don't you pick a topic you know something about, but which there is not already an article, and write something. Start here.
You might find it educational and enjoyable.