The technical triangle

[3v0]

It would be fun to join in the cross cultural word play, maybe figure out which American took Nigel's candy. (last time I checked Canadians were Americans too)

The use of outsourcing as a solution is over used in the table. Having the money does not auto-magically mean that you can hire out the project and get satisfactory results. There is more to it then that.

 

[Hank Fletcher]

...last time I checked Canadians were Americans too...

We're not. "America" and "Americans" are the self-adopted, unofficial names of the U.S.A. and its citizens. For example:
https://www.colbertnation.com/?p=1091

Don't lump Canadians or Mexicans in with your ambiguity, just because your nation's too lazy to come up with its own name.

 

[dknguyen]

Crazy. You can spell it as analyse, criticise, encyclopaedia, or mediaeval!

**broken link removed**

America, the Americas, and North America aren't the same thing. After typing it so much I realzed that America is a really REALLY strange word. Like zoo. Zoo. Say it to yourself a few times.

 

[phil7890]

The use of outsourcing as a solution is over used in the table. Having the money does not auto-magically mean that you can hire out the project and get satisfactory results. There is more to it then that.

That is actually true. I think we have to pick subcontractors that have more skills, high standards, more experiences and capabilities than we do as they can be effective, can expedite the project, and make it a success. After we meet the subcontractors, tour their facilities and learn about their work/project experiences, we can already sense what's going to happen. Also I feel it is important we do not pick a subcontractor with less skill than what we already have... if we do the project ourselves in-house and struggle, and the less-desirable subcontractor do it and also struggles - then we should just do this ourselves in-house so that we have less people struggling in this world! Anyways, I think the idea of having subcontractors is having partners that can communicate and provide effective solutions and services, and not the ones that will drag us down while we feed them money (then they become just an overhead that we didn't want to have in the first place).

 

[3v0]

At times words and the meaning/emotion associated with them can be quite interesting. American is one of these interesting words.

American may mean:

• A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere
• A person or attribute of the United States of America
• A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of the Americas

I said (last time I checked Canadians were Americans too) so as not to be exclusive. Look what it got me!

About 30 years ago Canadians got very upset if people from the US used the term American and excluded them. We live on this continent too.
It seems Canadians have changed their minds

In regards to the link. We do not have an exclusive on this sort of stupidity. In a large population you are bound to have crackpots.

Recall Peter Wardley's thread I love being Canadian. It is not untypical of how Canadians feel about the US.

I am so incredibly happy to live in my nice safe country of Canada right now!

Amongst all this coverage on Virginia tech I am so happy I live in Canada.

Right now, as I type this, CNN is covering a live man hunt for a potiential California gunmen.. all schools are in lock down!

America is so volatile right now!
....
Blame Canada?

no,

Blame America .
_______________

After 5 pages of postings Peter wrote

Upon reviewing this list, I retract my decision to post this thread:
...
Turns out Canada is just as unsafe as anywhere else

He was wrong.

We're not. "America" and "Americans" are the self-adopted, unofficial names of the U.S.A. and its citizens. For example:
https://www.colbertnation.com/?p=1091

Don't lump Canadians or Mexicans in with your ambiguity, just because your nation's too lazy to come up with its own name.

I see this as an over reaction.

The US makes a good target for any Canadian who needs a scapegoat. That colors the water.

 

[quixotron]

You say ZEE, COLOR, CENTER, HUH?
We say ZED, COLOUR, CENTRE, EH?

Sacre' blu!!!!!

 

[phalanx]

Line vs. queue? Where did this one go wrong?

 

[dknguyen]

DOes anyone use a "line" to refer to a list of requests being made to a processor?

THen again, does anyone use a queue to refer to a line of people waiting for something?

"No budding! Back of the queue!"

 

[quixotron]

DOes anyone use a "line" to refer to a list of requests being made to a processor?

THen again, does anyone use a queue to refer to a line of people waiting for something?

"No budding! Back of the queue!"

I haven't the faintest clue! I went into the electromagnetics and optics program. ASICS and vhdl isnt my forte.

 

[Hank Fletcher]

The US makes a good target for any Canadian who needs a scapegoat. That colors the water.

Is this an invitation?
p.s.: You spelt colours incorrectly.

 

[3v0]

Is this an invitation?
p.s.: You spelt colours incorrectly.

Canadians has never waited on an invite to blame their problems on the US.

We have a number of friends and relatives in the Great White North, not a bad place to visit.

PS: SO want to know if you have your toque on too tight?

 

[Hank Fletcher]

Canadians has never waited on an invite to blame their problems on the US.

You still haven't qualified whether or not you believe Canadians are in error to blame the U.S. for problems facing Canadians, or rather that Canadians have correctly identified the U.S. as the source of problems facing Canadians. Interesting...

I've liked every American (that is, each citizen of the U.S.) I've ever met, even though I've disagreed with some of them on some issues from time to time. It's just when you collectively start doing things in the name of "America" that you start freaking me, and I daresay most of the rest of the world, out. Outwardly, your nation looks like it's in a perpetual state of barely-contained anarchy.

If I had to identify one trait as being the quality that brought down the U.S., it'd have to be the gross reluctance for that nation, and the individuals of that nation, towards comparative introspection. I think the advent of, for instance, international technologies that permit individuals from various nations to communicate and hence begin to empathize with one another, has effectively begun to counteract the traditional barriers (e.g. xenophobia) that have inhibited the U.S. from circumventing this shortcoming.

I expect, for many reasons, that you'll find this year's U.S. presidential election more closely followed by both young people and people of other nations than it has in the past. More than anything in U.S. history, the Iraq invasion was and is held to the most immediate and international criticism. Moreover, U.S. citizens have been able to verify for themselves (through such means as I've described earlier) the criticism, and the details of that criticism, effectively eliminated their gullibility in terms of confusing propaganda.

What this means is, the U.S. and its individual citizens are beginning to see the virtue in criticizing themselves: why not do it yourself first, since it's inevitable that others will in your stead if you decline? That's both the value and virtue of shows such as The Colbert Report, as well as an explanation of the international popularity of such an introspectively American show.

The Colbert Report isn't popular because other countries enjoy laughing at Americans. It's popular because it represents a willingness and capability of Americans to self-scrutinize. That's what makes the show enjoyable: it's reassuring, it's comforting to know that one of the world's most powerful nations is capable of the sensitivity and respect for ndividuality that each person needs. To not have and protect that is to submit to a bulldozer of dystopian dictatorship akin to 1984.

 

[Hero999]

Is this an invitation?
p.s.: You spelt colours incorrectly.

No he didn't, he spelt colours correctly.

 

[3v0]

You still haven't qualified whether or not you believe Canadians are in error to blame the U.S. for problems facing Canadians, or rather that Canadians have correctly identified the U.S. as the source of problems facing Canadians. Interesting...

Difficult to do without a list of what problems Canadians are blaming on the US. Even with a list I doubt that I have enough time to figure out which claims are in error. My point was that when things go wrong for you, we are a very convenient (and popular) scape goat. We could spend a lot of time gathering info and debating this. In my experience many people would rather not hear the truth, and choose to ignore it when presented with it. A waste of time.

It has been a few decades since I lived next door but I do recall this one.

The Souris or Mouse is a small river that runs from Canada into the US and back. The US caught grief because the river was polluted when it returned to Canada. In reality the river was being polluted in Canada prior to entering the US.
​

I've liked every American (that is, each citizen of the U.S.) I've ever met, even though I've disagreed with some of them on some issues from time to time. It's just when you collectively start doing things in the name of "America" that you start freaking me, and I daresay most of the rest of the world, out. Outwardly, your nation looks like it's in a perpetual state of barely-contained anarchy.

I have said this in the past and I will say it again. The major actions of the US government are driven by corporations, mostly multi-national corporations. The voters have little control over what the government does. That may sound like a cop-out but it is a simple fact. It takes so much money to become elected to any position of importance that it is impossible for an honest man to win. For the most part any position of real power is bought and paid for by people with vested interested. At the national level the multi-national corps put up the money, at the city and county level it is often developers who want to pull the strings. Canada is bit further back but on the same path. Take a look at what your candidates are spending.​

If I had to identify one trait as being the quality that brought down the U.S.,
it'd have to be the gross reluctance for that nation, and the individuals of that nation, towards comparative introspection. I think the advent of, for instance, international technologies that permit individuals from various nations to communicate and hence begin to empathize with one another, has effectively begun to counteract the traditional barriers (e.g. xenophobia) that have inhibited the U.S. from circumventing this shortcoming.

I expect, for many reasons, that you'll find this year's U.S. presidential election more closely followed by both young people and people of other nations than it has in the past. More than anything in U.S. history, the Iraq invasion was and is held to the most immediate and international criticism. Moreover, U.S. citizens have been able to verify for themselves (through such means as I've described earlier) the criticism, and the details of that criticism, effectively eliminated their gullibility in terms of confusing propaganda.

For the reasons pointed out earlier the presidential election is of little interest to me. Regardless of who wins I lose. I can and do vote in the local elections where my vote is counted.

Had we not gone into Iraq there is a good chance you would be here talking about the US's failure to act. It is much easier to be a backseat driver or an armchair quarterback.

Try googing for "Canadian involvement in Iraq".

Prior to the invasion of Iraq I published an article about why it was a bad idea. I have not changed my mind. It would be (is/was) impossible to win and get out. An expensive holding action would be required because the nation is mostly a collection of warlords and bandits. You remove one and another takes their place.

Had the US spent money on energy R&D we would be ahead of the game. But that would not put money into the hands of the multi-nationals that wanted the war. It would have taken much of the oil money out of the hands of the terrorists.
​

What this means is, the U.S. and its individual citizens are beginning to see the virtue in criticizing themselves: why not do it yourself first, since it's inevitable that others will in your stead if you decline? That's both the value and virtue of shows such as The Colbert Report, as well as an explanation of the international popularity of such an introspectively American show.

The Colbert Report isn't popular because other countries enjoy laughing at Americans. It's popular because it represents a willingness and capability of Americans to self-scrutinize. That's what makes the show enjoyable: it's reassuring, it's comforting to know that one of the world's most powerful nations is capable of the sensitivity and respect for individuality that each person needs. To not have and protect that is to submit to a bulldozer of dystopian dictatorship akin to 1984.

With a few exceptions self criticism has been the norm. It is my hope that it will continue.

​

Text to keep posting gods happy.

 

[Hank Fletcher]

We could spend a lot of time gathering info and debating this. In my experience many people would rather not hear the truth, and choose to ignore it when presented with it. A waste of time.

So instead of searching for the truth, I should just presume you're right?

The major actions of the US government are driven by corporations, mostly multi-national corporations. The voters have little control over what the government does.

That sounds like a cry for help, or at least fair warning.

Had we not gone into Iraq there is a good chance you would be here talking about the US's failure to act.

That's definitely not true. I've been disgusted by the notion of the invasion of Iraq since before it began, and was vocal enough about it to be able to prove that.

An expensive holding action would be required because the nation is mostly a collection of warlords and bandits. You remove one and another takes their place.

Warlords and bandits... as opposed to the U.S? I think the best answer to solving the problem of removing an evil dictator is probably to not put him in power in the first place.

With a few exceptions self criticism has been the norm. It is my hope that it will continue.

You've only just begun. Fortunately, there will always be plenty of us out here to help you should you forget how.

 

[3v0]

So instead of searching for the truth, I should just presume you're right?

I never said that we had Lilly white hands. Only that we were easy targets. Do you want to drag up every issue we can think of, determine the magnitude of each issue, try to figure out if it is true, false, or shades of grey. We both have better things to do.

I am not ducking the search for truth, more like pointing out that it would be difficult to determine and tainted by the people who do the research. I do ask for you to understand that the US is not to blame each and every time a Canadian points a finger at us.​

That sounds like a cry for help, or at least fair warning.

You can take it as a warning. If you have a solution round up a few million and run for office.​

That's definitely not true. I've been disgusted by the notion of the invasion of Iraq since before it began, and was vocal enough about it to be able to prove that.

Perhaps not you, but I am will to bet that a large number of others would.​

Warlords and bandits... as opposed to the U.S? I think the best answer to solving the problem of removing an evil dictactor is probably to not put him in power in the first place.

When was the area not run by a dictator?
We are rebuilding their roads, schools, hospitals, and mosques. We are attempting to get the various religious groups to play nice. Quite the sorry bunch of bandits.​

Keep the posting gods happy!