*Sigh* nothing like selective reading. You simply extrapolated on something I mentioned so that I was not writing a thesis, and pretended that I did not mention it. Remember that the cost of a PC is not just in capital, but a support structure

Most apartments in China are not the variety you are mentioning that are former Government apartments.

Maybe so, but there is still a stigma attached to minivans. They say, "I now live a boring suburban lifestyle". A friend of mine said as much when he bought his Honda Odyssey. He loves the Odyssey, but he knew he was no longer cool. And, to be fair, once he and his wife had kids they became just as staid and boring as their minivan suggested.

It's cool; they're happy with their lives and love their kids and home life. But it reminded me of why I'm still single and childless. That life is unattractive to me.

Partial truth, but nobody has mentioned the most obvious reason for this to be true in China. Money! PCs in the US and Europe are pretty cheap, but not in China. Remember that the cost of a PC is not just in capital, but a support structure. Houses in China are rare, apartments dominate the landscape so the few that can afford them may not have a place to put them. Remember that these are not large apartments. If you have very little disposable income, you are going to purchase _either_ a phone phone or a PC. Not both. You also need to pay for support for the hardware, operating system, and purchase applications (rare in China I agree, but the Government there does have some rules it can choose to enforce). This is why computer boutiques are common in all over Asia, not just China. PCs are expensive, phones are cheap.

I agreed in part because phones are the future landscape for Internet use by consumers. In fact that "future" is already prevalent. In business, absolutely not with current technology. Anyone actually working in IT today requires fast processing and multiple displays. Tablets are not powerful enough for a developer today, which pushes phones further out. If phones are ever developed enough to take over business space, they won't be considered phones any longer. Angry birds works fine on a Phone, running a large mysql query and working with the data not so much (let alone trying to compile a client that does this, or running a mysql server for more than a few clients).

The reason math helps a whole lot in programming is that it teaches essential critical thinking skills. Some people are good at critical thinking skills without taking math. The _majority_ ,however, require some type of education to help mold their methods of thinking. Many, even with a whole lot of training do poorly with critical thinking skills.

Claiming that you have never used math in programming simply demonstrates that you are not programming for scientific purposes (writing a GUI for a CAD program is not the same as writing the underlying math structures). That's fine, and most surely is not intended as an insult. As with above, you are not everyone, and math has many benefits.

I say this as a person who has a degree in Math, and took everything possible in College for math (hated statistical math, but diff-eq was great). I don't sit and run differential equations all day, but do very well helping Engineers and Scientists that _do_ run heavy mathematical models. Hell, when I was in college the only way to learn computers was by being in a math program.

yeah yeah, get off my lawn!

First, you use the same "most" claim without any proof. Second, "most" can be proven by reading court transcripts. Sampling studies have been done, so "most" is surely provable. "Is it worth the time and effort required to go through all court data?" is a valid question, but something you need to ask since you used the same terminology based on some anecdotal information. Lastly, the propagandists are easy to find. Look at who funds particular groups and you will find answers. Their information is also easy to find, read articles submitted to nearly every source, listen to interviews on mass media, etc... This is not rocket science, you refusing to do any work at all.

So you claim that I can't back up my statement of most, then agree with me using the same exact terminology. Hmmm.. You do realize that based on your statement mens rea is not met and is not a crime right? This is precisely why it's not illegal unless you are asked to stop.

"You look nice today." is not an affront on someone's sexuality or position, it is a complement regarding appearance. Yet, this same phrase is repeated by propagandists as an example of sexual harassment.

When you have 5,000 of these trying to get court time, the 1 person that actually said "if you don't you won't get promoted" gets drowned out in the noise.

Most "sexual harassment" today results from a person saying that someone looks nice, not the other way around. This mentality has been pushed past the point of insanity.

When a guy walks up to a woman and says "Hello" and she claims to a Radio Host "A guy comes up and rapes me today." you begin to understand the depth of the problem. I can't find the quote, but this was on Talk 910AM in SF a few months ago. Perhaps you will have better luck looking for transcripts of the Gill Gross show than I did.

Yes, there are surely sexual harassment issues just like there are surely racist issues. Is everything being counted as "sexual harassment" really that? Hell no, just like much of the racist reports are not racism.

Comments like yours and what studies like this report exacerbate problems. It becomes impossible to find the real problems in the massive piles of false claims, so people stop taking any claim seriously.

As a guess, you realize this and simply wish to propagate the nonsense to ensure that nothing can be done to fix the real problems. That guess is based on your post as an AC instead of a real person wishing to hold any type of real dialogue.

The whole promotion seems to resemble everything from IBM PureServers that were introduced about 2 years ago, but of course lacking any type of performance. At least the IBM servers allowed scaling, higher performance CPUs, integrated disks, etc..

When management and marketing design computers, this is what we get. HP has not really been a technical player for a long time, at least in terms of innovation. Superdome was okay, but Sun E class machines made them look like an old mainframe in terms of usability. Itanium flopped and they never put much into the PA RISC chips after that. Omniback and NNM were great, but required manpower and HP has despised T&M billing for as long as I've worked with them which goes back to HP-UX 9 and VUE days. (I contracted for them in Michigan, because they would not hire direct technical people).

This is my view. I believe that AGW is real, but I am not taking any extra measure to save energy in light of that understanding. It won't make a difference if I change my lifestyle. Society has to change its lifestyle. I support green energy initiatives and try to vote for people who seem to get it. I'm willing to pay more for energy if need be. But I'm driving my car just as much as I would otherwise. I'd love to drive an electric car, but mostly for the torque not the efficiency. My electric bill is already about $35 a month, so there is probably little to reduce there.

What we really need is for the powers that be to give up their dreams of petroleum riches and start society on the path to clean, sustainable energy. But a new energy economy is uncertain, while the oil, gas and coal in the ground are known quantities. Those reserves represent potential profit to the energy industry, and they want that money. So they baffle people with bullshit to keep the money train running, putting us all at risk. AGW is an issue that can't wait for oil to get expensive enough, or solar to get cheap enough. Therefore it is not a problem capitalism can solve. But capitalism is what runs the world; maybe over a cliff.

We already have laws to protect the innocent under most conditions. Slander, Libel, and defamation did not vanish when the Internet popped up. They are harder to enforce, sure, but they did not go away.

In the case of your 5% innocence (which is as useless as most other statistics in my opinion) any of those people could have sued the source for damages. If found guilty, sources are forced to change or amend content and generally issue public apology.

This "forget me" law does not do anything to address the root problem. How does someone in the US sue someone in German for libel, or visa-versa? They don't, or at least common people could never afford to do so.

The other point to mention is probably more important. This law was never described as a means for individuals to prune their personal history. The law was intended to prevent bad information from remaining prevalent on the Internet. Such as bad science that had been discounted (not just from conspiracy sites, but that was a large portion of the case "for" this law.

The way it has been implemented, it has a gaping loophole allowing abuse by individuals. Laws that suck should not be passed, but, people keep on believing the bullshit bureaucrats tell them.

Hmm, what to make of this one? Trolling? Naive? Paid shill? Pure sarcasm? It can be hard to tell these days!

And, as implied here, once we go cashless they've got us by the balls. People might not appreciate the value of easy, anonymous transactions until they're gone. Who are "they" you ask? Insert your favorite power structure. There is utility in being able to conduct private business without the need for any middle-man or money transfer service.

Remember what happened with Wikileaks donations and the credit card companies, when the latter started denying payment services for the former? Cash enables the average person to pay for or support things without permission. That's important if you want an empowered citizenry. I'll keep using cash, thanks.

I'm lost at your quote and your respective comment, what does your fallacy have to do with any of my statements?

That is plain old idiocy. If they want control they can impeach appointed officers, put criminal acts on trial, and remove funding from the departments.

It is not violating my principle, you are choosing to ignore the definition of "expect". Hint: "Do not expect" is not a refusal.