Now I know what it feels like to be a Microsoft Employee
-
After reading all of the replies to the US/China standoff discussion, I finally know what it is feels like to be a Microsoft employee. :)
-
After reading all of the replies to the US/China standoff discussion, I finally know what it is feels like to be a Microsoft employee. :)
I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. This "god" like complex gives them a feeling that they can run around and do whatever they like without worries. When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :)
-
How come Microsoft got involved in US/China standoff discussion? Visual Basic programmer. -------------------------------------------------- Share your thoughts..
-
I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. This "god" like complex gives them a feeling that they can run around and do whatever they like without worries. When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :)
Superiority is not something that is unique to the United States. Ask any frenchman about Brits, Ask any Brit about Australians, Ask any German about... well.. any non-german (Note: I'm german in ethnicity so I can say that ;) What it boils down to is this: What's important to you may not be what's important to others. In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have 50+% tax rates or little in the way of freedom to own firearms. We, probably rightfully, consider ourselves to be the technology incubator of the world. More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. Please don't take that as saying that other countries don't develop technology, they do. But per capita, we have a much stronger R&D ethic than most other countries. Our country was founded on the idea that if you work hard and use your brain, you can become successful. Most other countries appear (to us) to be about the status quo. As long as things stay the same, nobody cares. I have some canadian friends and I laughingly joke around with them that Candadians will sit idly by while their government does just about anything to them, unless you threaten to take away their health care. In the US, we freak out taxes or interest get raised a fraction of a percent, and bitch endlessly because our President fooled around. Hell, stuff like that doesn't even make the tabloids in the UK for their government members. Anyways. What this boils down to is that whatever country you live in, you have your own set of priorities which likely conflict with people from another country. Thus, you'll view them as ignorant and/or egotistical simply because you don't agree with their views.
-
Superiority is not something that is unique to the United States. Ask any frenchman about Brits, Ask any Brit about Australians, Ask any German about... well.. any non-german (Note: I'm german in ethnicity so I can say that ;) What it boils down to is this: What's important to you may not be what's important to others. In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have 50+% tax rates or little in the way of freedom to own firearms. We, probably rightfully, consider ourselves to be the technology incubator of the world. More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. Please don't take that as saying that other countries don't develop technology, they do. But per capita, we have a much stronger R&D ethic than most other countries. Our country was founded on the idea that if you work hard and use your brain, you can become successful. Most other countries appear (to us) to be about the status quo. As long as things stay the same, nobody cares. I have some canadian friends and I laughingly joke around with them that Candadians will sit idly by while their government does just about anything to them, unless you threaten to take away their health care. In the US, we freak out taxes or interest get raised a fraction of a percent, and bitch endlessly because our President fooled around. Hell, stuff like that doesn't even make the tabloids in the UK for their government members. Anyways. What this boils down to is that whatever country you live in, you have your own set of priorities which likely conflict with people from another country. Thus, you'll view them as ignorant and/or egotistical simply because you don't agree with their views.
"More technology is developed here than any other country in the world." Not only more technology is developed in your country, more pollution is also produced too. But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Ammar
-
Superiority is not something that is unique to the United States. Ask any frenchman about Brits, Ask any Brit about Australians, Ask any German about... well.. any non-german (Note: I'm german in ethnicity so I can say that ;) What it boils down to is this: What's important to you may not be what's important to others. In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have 50+% tax rates or little in the way of freedom to own firearms. We, probably rightfully, consider ourselves to be the technology incubator of the world. More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. Please don't take that as saying that other countries don't develop technology, they do. But per capita, we have a much stronger R&D ethic than most other countries. Our country was founded on the idea that if you work hard and use your brain, you can become successful. Most other countries appear (to us) to be about the status quo. As long as things stay the same, nobody cares. I have some canadian friends and I laughingly joke around with them that Candadians will sit idly by while their government does just about anything to them, unless you threaten to take away their health care. In the US, we freak out taxes or interest get raised a fraction of a percent, and bitch endlessly because our President fooled around. Hell, stuff like that doesn't even make the tabloids in the UK for their government members. Anyways. What this boils down to is that whatever country you live in, you have your own set of priorities which likely conflict with people from another country. Thus, you'll view them as ignorant and/or egotistical simply because you don't agree with their views.
-
More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. You forgot to mention that it is also bigger than almost any country in the world.
"But per capita," ... Oops he missed that.... Its BIGGER!!! Wow, Not on any of my maps. And Population wise, definitely then some, but....?? We Rule... Go USA!!! No wait... Go who-ever rules at this juncture!! Cuz, I tend not to see any of us competing based on countries... Too global a market now.... Now if only "W" knew this... So Yeah, so we have an ignorant President.. The majority of the population voted for the other guy!! And now the majority are sitting back, shaking there heads at "W", hoping he doesnt screw everything up beyond all hope in his 4 years, and get him the hell out!! Im sure his dumbass will make it interesting though!! He's already started!!
-
Superiority is not something that is unique to the United States. Ask any frenchman about Brits, Ask any Brit about Australians, Ask any German about... well.. any non-german (Note: I'm german in ethnicity so I can say that ;) What it boils down to is this: What's important to you may not be what's important to others. In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have 50+% tax rates or little in the way of freedom to own firearms. We, probably rightfully, consider ourselves to be the technology incubator of the world. More technology is developed here than any other country in the world. Please don't take that as saying that other countries don't develop technology, they do. But per capita, we have a much stronger R&D ethic than most other countries. Our country was founded on the idea that if you work hard and use your brain, you can become successful. Most other countries appear (to us) to be about the status quo. As long as things stay the same, nobody cares. I have some canadian friends and I laughingly joke around with them that Candadians will sit idly by while their government does just about anything to them, unless you threaten to take away their health care. In the US, we freak out taxes or interest get raised a fraction of a percent, and bitch endlessly because our President fooled around. Hell, stuff like that doesn't even make the tabloids in the UK for their government members. Anyways. What this boils down to is that whatever country you live in, you have your own set of priorities which likely conflict with people from another country. Thus, you'll view them as ignorant and/or egotistical simply because you don't agree with their views.
In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have ... little in the way of freedom to own firearms. Bwhaahahahahahaahaha. I consider my standard of life greatly enhanced by the lack of freedom for bogans to own firearms. If I lived in the US, my children would be home schooled. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
"More technology is developed here than any other country in the world." Not only more technology is developed in your country, more pollution is also produced too. But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Ammar
To be honest, I can recall not so recently, before Mr. Howard started to fall in popularity because he is getting blamed for the world economy and the fall of our $$$, he did two things that might be seen in a similar light. First he refused to apologise to the so-called Aboriginals, who nowadays are mostly as black as my German mother, for things that happened 50 years ago, and which, while regrettable, ( and he has expressed his regret ), do not relate sufficiently with our society today to allow these people an opportunity to sue the country. Then, when the UN stepped in, he told them basically to get stuffed. I cannot tell you the degree to which I applauded both of these actions. Of course, this situation is a little different, but sometimes the actions of a head of state will reflect the interests of his country more than other interests. That is his job, afer all. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have ... little in the way of freedom to own firearms. Bwhaahahahahahaahaha. I consider my standard of life greatly enhanced by the lack of freedom for bogans to own firearms. If I lived in the US, my children would be home schooled. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
Hmmm - let me figure out how many ways a person can be killed without a firearm. A while ago there was a website that posted a webcam of a pistol (fully loaded) lying on a table. There was a clock that was timing how long it take that gun to jump up from the table and shoot somebody. The fact is that a firearm is a hunk of metal. It takes intent and human action to use that hunk of metal to cause bodily harm to another person. If you were being attacked with a machete, icepick, pipe, piece of wood, screwdriver, etc. (pick your weapon of choice) and I used a firearm to defend you and defeat your attacker, what would your reaction be? Phil Boyd MCP "I took the road less traveled..."
-
Hmmm - let me figure out how many ways a person can be killed without a firearm. A while ago there was a website that posted a webcam of a pistol (fully loaded) lying on a table. There was a clock that was timing how long it take that gun to jump up from the table and shoot somebody. The fact is that a firearm is a hunk of metal. It takes intent and human action to use that hunk of metal to cause bodily harm to another person. If you were being attacked with a machete, icepick, pipe, piece of wood, screwdriver, etc. (pick your weapon of choice) and I used a firearm to defend you and defeat your attacker, what would your reaction be? Phil Boyd MCP "I took the road less traveled..."
This is just plain stupid. 1/ Of *course* someone needs to *use* the gun in order to kill someone. Do you believe it necessary for me to provide hard data to prove that people with guns find it easier to kill other people than people with any of the instruments you mention ? You think in a country where people carry guns someone is going to come at you with a *screwdriver* ? 2/ Ask me how many school children in Australia were shot this year. Go on, ask me. Now ask me how many were stabbed, etc. The fact is guns make it EASY for a disenfrachised person to do a lot of damage, and find the 'courage' to act. 3/ If someone wants to come at me with a screwdriver/machete/icepick/etc., I'd be happy to take them on myself. ( Well, I'd prefer they didn't, but I don't feel unsafe because I don't have a gun ). 4/ Ultimately all of these arguments center on this - guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree. So take the guns away from the people, and we will not have a problem. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
In the US, we consider our standard of life to be quite good compared to countries that have ... little in the way of freedom to own firearms. Bwhaahahahahahaahaha. I consider my standard of life greatly enhanced by the lack of freedom for bogans to own firearms. If I lived in the US, my children would be home schooled. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly, even though you seem to have completely missed what the point was. I was not arguing for or against guns in that argument, merely saying that the point of view of our citizens are very different and what is important to one is not important to another.
-
This is just plain stupid. 1/ Of *course* someone needs to *use* the gun in order to kill someone. Do you believe it necessary for me to provide hard data to prove that people with guns find it easier to kill other people than people with any of the instruments you mention ? You think in a country where people carry guns someone is going to come at you with a *screwdriver* ? 2/ Ask me how many school children in Australia were shot this year. Go on, ask me. Now ask me how many were stabbed, etc. The fact is guns make it EASY for a disenfrachised person to do a lot of damage, and find the 'courage' to act. 3/ If someone wants to come at me with a screwdriver/machete/icepick/etc., I'd be happy to take them on myself. ( Well, I'd prefer they didn't, but I don't feel unsafe because I don't have a gun ). 4/ Ultimately all of these arguments center on this - guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree. So take the guns away from the people, and we will not have a problem. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
Where do you get your statistics from? Take for instance these statistics from Massachusettes between 1994 and 1996 http://www.state.ma.us/dph/bhsre/wrisp/wriss01.htm#fig1w.gif Of all violent injuries, stabbing injuries accounted for 3x as many as gunshot injuries. Gunshot related deaths account for 2x as many deaths as Stabbing deaths, but that's because gunshot wounds tend to be more fatal than stabbing wounds. This report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00036477.htm says that violent stabbing injuries outnumber violent gun related injuries by 2:1 (15 per 100,000 for gunshot, and 30 per 100,000 for stabbing). While yes, technically guns account for more deaths than screwdrivers or icepicks, it's not for lack of trying, or a lack of courage when holding a sharp instrument vs a gun.
-
Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly, even though you seem to have completely missed what the point was. I was not arguing for or against guns in that argument, merely saying that the point of view of our citizens are very different and what is important to one is not important to another.
I got that aspect of your pint, I was just amazed that anyone would revel in the thought that they are surrounded by people who are armed. I guess that just proves your point again - some people like to be safe, some find a false sense of safety in the machismo that comes from 'packing heat'. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
Where do you get your statistics from? Take for instance these statistics from Massachusettes between 1994 and 1996 http://www.state.ma.us/dph/bhsre/wrisp/wriss01.htm#fig1w.gif Of all violent injuries, stabbing injuries accounted for 3x as many as gunshot injuries. Gunshot related deaths account for 2x as many deaths as Stabbing deaths, but that's because gunshot wounds tend to be more fatal than stabbing wounds. This report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00036477.htm says that violent stabbing injuries outnumber violent gun related injuries by 2:1 (15 per 100,000 for gunshot, and 30 per 100,000 for stabbing). While yes, technically guns account for more deaths than screwdrivers or icepicks, it's not for lack of trying, or a lack of courage when holding a sharp instrument vs a gun.
Thank you for proving *my* point - that if people desire to harm me, they will have more likelyhood of success in a country that enshrines their right to have a gun with which to do it. I guess if you have lots more stabbing deaths than us as well, it probably goes deeper, and points, as you have suggested, to cultural differences. All I can say is that if this is the case, I'm glad I live in a country where people are less disposed to harming one another, regardless of the weapon of choice. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
Hmmm - let me figure out how many ways a person can be killed without a firearm. A while ago there was a website that posted a webcam of a pistol (fully loaded) lying on a table. There was a clock that was timing how long it take that gun to jump up from the table and shoot somebody. The fact is that a firearm is a hunk of metal. It takes intent and human action to use that hunk of metal to cause bodily harm to another person. If you were being attacked with a machete, icepick, pipe, piece of wood, screwdriver, etc. (pick your weapon of choice) and I used a firearm to defend you and defeat your attacker, what would your reaction be? Phil Boyd MCP "I took the road less traveled..."
There are many aspects of UK and US culture that are in agreement , but of those where we differ is gun ownership . I do not think that Americans can concieve of a culture that is virtually gun free, and therefore they do not seem to appreciate what that means . It is true that guns need people in order to kill , but when they do , they do so very efficiently. Just look at the seemingly endless scenes from schools accross the USA , when is it going to stop ? I have no problem with blasting the heck out of furry animals , especially if you then eat them , but why should a member of a civilised society feel the need to walk around armed ? Be it with a knife , club or gun ? The NRA seems to wrap it all up in the constitution , always glossing over that the right to bear arms was for the express purpose of raising a militia . You do not need the right to carry guns day to day in order to be in a position to partake in a militia . Rather than use arguments about self-protection , why not move towards a society where self-protection is not an issue at the front of everyones mind ?:confused:
-
There are many aspects of UK and US culture that are in agreement , but of those where we differ is gun ownership . I do not think that Americans can concieve of a culture that is virtually gun free, and therefore they do not seem to appreciate what that means . It is true that guns need people in order to kill , but when they do , they do so very efficiently. Just look at the seemingly endless scenes from schools accross the USA , when is it going to stop ? I have no problem with blasting the heck out of furry animals , especially if you then eat them , but why should a member of a civilised society feel the need to walk around armed ? Be it with a knife , club or gun ? The NRA seems to wrap it all up in the constitution , always glossing over that the right to bear arms was for the express purpose of raising a militia . You do not need the right to carry guns day to day in order to be in a position to partake in a militia . Rather than use arguments about self-protection , why not move towards a society where self-protection is not an issue at the front of everyones mind ?:confused:
One of the prime responsibilities of being a US citizen (one which most Americans have forgotten) is the responsibility of owning a gun. Americans should own guns for several reasons (and i own a nice burglar-killer), but the prime reason isn't just to take up arms as part of a militia, but also the final step of reform. Chariman Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. When you are gunless you are powerless, powerless against the encroachment of the police state. Here in the states we now use webcams to issue speeding tickets. The omnipresence of technology will seek, if not checked, to regiment society against the creative, disruptive, dissenting forces of change. Every day, the civil liberties that the US was founded upon are chiseled away by Religious DoGooder dumb*ucks that want to force others to live their way. The gun will be the final check to their meddling.
-
I got that aspect of your pint, I was just amazed that anyone would revel in the thought that they are surrounded by people who are armed. I guess that just proves your point again - some people like to be safe, some find a false sense of safety in the machismo that comes from 'packing heat'. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
The problem with school shootings goes so much deeper than just free access to guns. We, USA, have always had access to guns, so why now is it a problem? I do not have a solution, but taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Think about it, if the US decided tomorrow guns are banned, nobody can buy them, sell them, possess them, or think about them, criminals will still have them. If I was starting a country today, that might be one of the things I would try to stop. But in a country that was founded defending itself from its government, the right to bear arms is not going away. Granted, a 12 year old with a screwdriver isn't going to kill too many people, like the same kid with a gun. But this is the cost of freedom. I personally do not carry a gun, but do not have a problem with it. I live in Texas where a few years ago the legislature passed a bill where it would be legal to carry a concealed handgun if you have a license. Crimes with a gun have actually gone down. :eek: Wayne
-
"More technology is developed here than any other country in the world." Not only more technology is developed in your country, more pollution is also produced too. But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Ammar
But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. What did the prior president do about it? President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy. Throwing money around to other countries, like the prior president did, is not a solution. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Maybe, just maybe, it is irking the world because there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds. Wayne
