"At first our site also had the support of the Sun-Times, including Catherine Lanucha, John Cary, Jack Barry and the company's webstaff, but budget cuts and layoffs at the paper eventually left us with no day-to-day resources but ourselves: the only two employees of RogerEbert.com, as we liked to joke."
They nuked the entire "Ask the Movie Answer Man" section, which was one of my favorite things on the site. Even the old archives are gone. A search turns up links, but they are all broken. :-(
>criminals simply don't use weapons on civilians (apart from high value targets, perhaps) because the penalties for doing so are so harsh. Criminals literally throw their guns away in a chase
If they don't use weapons, how do they have guns to throw away?
UK Criminals do use weapons, including knives, to hurt people, which is why you guys have started running anti-knife campaigns, as detailed here:
The main way in which these predictions were off the mark is that media distribution in Cronkite's 2001 is still a one-way street, from news organization to individual news consumer. His future world missed the extent to which arguably the most important content generation is done by the consumers themselves -- Twitter, YouTube, blogs, forums, etc. (Okay, there was no Twitter or YouTube in 2001. But you know what I mean.)
>To assume that your customer must be intelligent is the biggest mistake you can ever make.
It's not about customers being less intelligent than you; that's an arrogant stance to take in these kinds of situations. Lots of people are intelligent enough to understand how batteries work -- or how computer programs work -- if they should choose to spend the time and effort it would take to do so.
But they're not choosing to do so. They're not your R&D team. They're your customers, and they're paying you big money for something that will make their lives easier.
In this case, they're paying for a car that's going to get them from point A to point B with no hassles, so they can focus their intelligence on problems of their choosing, not on problems with your product.
Lost in the bashing of this professor who had the temerity not to want to pay higher taxes, is the fact that he had to invest lots of money to be able to earn his big salary. He probably has at least 7 years of higher education. His wife, as a medical doctor, probably has at least 8, if I understand correctly how med school and internships work. They sank a huge amount of money -- maybe close to $500,000 -- into investing in their careers, while most people in the lower income brackets have spent little, if anything, in that way. And the cost to the professor and his wife is even greater if you factor in the opportunity cost of not working high-paying jobs all those years they were in school. Call it a cool million sunk into their education and training, easily.
So it's hardly greedy of the guy to want to be able to at least pay back his wife's student loans before Obama hits him up even harder to help finance a new era of government expansion. There's a difference between revenue and profits, after all.
As for saying he shouldn't have bought a million-dollar house, that's hardly an unreasonable price for a couple with a combined annual income of roughly half that amount. As a multiple of their income, it's comparable to a couple who makes $125,000 a year buying a house worth $250,000. That doesn't sound so crazy, does it?
I think you're living in la-la land. If he had $500,000 to spend on education in the first place, then he started rich and just keeps getting richer. If he'd foregone the education and invested the $500k in something else, then he'd still be rich, and (presumably) he'd still feel hard done by.
From the original article, which you may not have actually read:
"My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too"
They made the investment in their education and future with borrowed funds, just as I (and many others) have. It's not like he broke $500K off some trust fund he was born with...
Kids tease other kids about ANYTHING. If it weren't about your name, it would be something else. Doesn't mean white society is conspiring to keep Chinese people down.
And that UNC Chapel Hill thing is just disgusting. Not sure someone who would do something like that is a good representative of the attitudes of white people in general.
If you read again, the person you're responding to mentioned being "honorary white". The notion of US whiteness evolves; take for example 19th century racism against the Irish. Blacks were called the "smoked Irish," and the Irish were "niggers turned inside-out". Now of course, Irish-Americans are just normal privileged white people, while African-Americans... well, they're obviously not doing as well. They're heavily imprisoned by the country with the world's highest jail rate.
