AOL Tech

Mekhong Kurt

Member since: Mar 30th, 2009

Mekhong Kurt's Latest Comments

Blog Activity
Blog# of Comments
Slashfood1 Comment
BloggingStocks1 Comment
Autoblog Green1 Comment
Switched1 Comment
Politics Daily1 Comment
WalletPop3 Comments
AOL Jobs1 Comment
Daily Finance3 Comments
AOL Small Business1 Comment

Recent Comments:

Light Bulbs Advertised as 'Green' Contain Arsenic and Lead: Study (WalletPop)

Feb 19th 2011 6:55PM Do people think Gore runs the universe? Quit blaming him for eve3ry little thing you dislike. He hasn't held public office since exiting the Vice-Presidency. And though you don't say so, many who dislike him drag his name into comments about articles covering subjects such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences making some deicision or another regarding the environment -- drag it in as if the Communist Chinese leap to obey Gore's utterances as commands.

In short, that's unrealistic. He *isn't* "The Bos."

The World's Most Ridiculous Frozen Foods (Slashfood)

Jan 29th 2011 3:40AM I got quite a smile out of this, even when I thought one of the foods -- or the idea of it, if not maybe the specific product -- is good. Take the chili spaghetti, for instance. I'm a Texan, so Tex-Mex chili has always been a big deal for me, and I routinely eat chili con carne on spaghetti noodles. I also make chili macaroni, which is basically the same thing. I don't see that as significantly different from putting an Italian meat sauce on spaghetti.

Anyway -- ;^)

Jobs in Singapore: THE Best Place to Work in Asia (AOL Jobs)

Jan 12th 2011 3:10AM The high cost of living merits prominent mention, since it eats up a considerable amount of the higher salaries available in Singapore compared to places such as Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Bangkok, etc.

Adfter all, if I can live equally well in comparable living quarters in Singapore and, say, Bangkok, but I end up with appreciably more money in my pocket after paying my living expenses in Bangkok than I do in Singapore, I'm going to at least conhsider Bangkok -- even if the salary is lower than in Singapore.

Of course, there are many other considerations. Singapore's squeaky -clean government is one; it's superb physical environment is another.

20 most annoying things at the grocery store (WalletPop)

Aug 7th 2010 1:21AM I had to smile at the guy (I suppose it was a guy anyway) who wrote he offered his store's manager a 5% premium if he would open the store once a week for a time when women were forbidden to enter.

I realize that not everyone can do what I do: I try to do major shopping really, really late at night or very early in the morning. I'm talking in the dead of night, like midnight-5:00 A.M. Going just about anytime during the day -- on weekdays, especially during school hours -- is practically asking for irritations right, left, and center. As a single guy, and pretty much a night person, this is easy for me to do. My Sister adopted a variant of my idea while she still had children at home. She lives right outside a very small town that has one supermarket that's open until 10:00 P.M. She'll make her list, and because she knows the store very, very well, she estimates how long it will take her. If it's an hour, she goes at about 9:00 o'clock. And she likes doing that. One weekends, even now, with the kids grown and gone, she'll drive into the county seat at 3:00 A.M. to the Walmart superstore, partly just for the heck of it, but partly because she likes the peace and quiet.

There are other things a person can do. If you have to go at busy times, maybe you can break up shopping into several "sessions," especially if the store is either very near or if you pass it in your usual daily travels. That is, go to the vegetable section today, the meat section tomorrow, and so on. I normally detest being in a supermarket for 2-3 hours, so even though that means I go more often, it's worth that for the shorter "irritant exposure."

Finally, something that's a little sappy, but it has worked for me for many years: I try to be pleasant to everyone else. For instance, if I'm in line and someone comes up behind me with a single item but I've got a basketful, I'll tell the person to go ahead of me. The delay is virtually zero, and the gesture invariably gets at least a smile from the other person. Often, the cashier and/or other people in line will also smile at me, and a few even remark on it, themselves smiling. So -- I get to feel good about me, and everyone else got to see what they think is a nice gesture so they feel better, too.

I enjoyed this article quite a lot.

20 most annoying things at the grocery store (WalletPop)

Aug 7th 2010 1:01AM Chris, by that logic, your wife should have been glad in the USSR she had a line to get into. (O assume you mean in a store.) In some places, people not only have no stores to go to, they don't have enough food at all.

To complain in this context about this article is the same as a homeless person complaining about an article focused on people in the U.S. losing their homes by griping "At least they had a home to lose! Why even write this article???" Well, because people unable to pay their mortgages and subsequently lose their homes are one real problem in the U.S., just as homeless people are another real problem.

If you want Chinese, don't go to a steak house.

Huggies Offers Money to Aspiring Mompreneurs (AOL Small Business)

May 22nd 2010 3:15AM Discrimination based on gender in awarding grants? While I think this is a GREAT idea, I'll be positively amazed if it doesn't get knocked down.

Americans Optimistic About the Future, but Less Content with the Present (Politics Daily)

Jan 5th 2010 2:06PM nitrohawk2, took a look at the TheeAmericanPride page on YouTube you recommended. Clearly, a thoughtful, well-reasoned resource taking a balanced view. About as reliable as the American Communist Party on Republicans: zero. I may not like Obama, but I'll base it on logic, not hate and propaganda. Ditto my view of Republicans; I ignore the Looney Left.

TARP saved us, but banks aren't lending -- and we're not getting our money back (Daily Finance)

Sep 29th 2009 6:40AM Mr. Burrows:

It would be helpful were you to define what you mean by "debt."

I mention this because, to give but one example, I've lost count of the number of times I've read or heard people saying we "gave" Detroit that mountain of money. "Gave," however, is not the correct word: "lent" fits the situation.

A loan a debit is not -- until and unless the borrower fails to repay the loan.

The logic behind mislabeling a loan as a debt is not to be taken lightly. After all, through such logic, a bank could make a mortgage loan (though precious few would today, granted) -- and since, under this flawed logic, a "loan" = a "debt," the bank could, with some justification, extend the logic and label the loan a "loss" -- immediately. And write it off. (Costing the taxpayer, I might add.)

Please define your terms, for clarity's sake (even if you entirely agree with me anyway).

Thomas Friedman: Red China? No, Green China (BloggingStocks)

Sep 29th 2009 6:29AM First, to Mr. Dunlap: having lived in China a sumber of years (though not currently), I can attest to your observation that China is a communist country -- partly, these days. There is private ownership were there was none before, for example. That means there are privately-employed workers as well, instead of every person having an "iron rice bowl." And yes, their economy is protectionist, there is heavy subsidization for both public and private entities, the legal system -- such as it is -- in often stacked against foreigners, including foreign investors, etc.

Regarding protectionism in particular, aren't we -- I assume you're American, too, as I am? -- protectionist as well? Exhibit A: agricultural subsidies. Whether those subsidies are "good" or "bad" is another question; my only point is that we, too, engage in protectionist practices. Another example is the "Buy American" provision of the stimulus package. That provision, as you undoubtedly know, does have an escape valve in that if a buyer can find what's need for more than 25% less abroad, then he can buy abroad. Yet that is, in effect, a protectionist tariff for American manufacturers.

Again, that may be good or it may be bad; it certainly has generated plenty of heat.

As for the jobs that have been sent abroad, yes, of course that's happened. However, there's one point I can't recall ever hearing from a single person complaining about this historical (and ongoing) fact: that is, *American* managers are making *deliberate* decisions for the sake of the bottom line to drop Americans from the employment rolls. Foreign countries are delighted with this, of course, but they can't very well *force* Americans to fire Americans then hire, say, Chinese or Indians; they can only hope. So if blame is to be assigned, then let's assign some of it to our fellow Americans.

But should we blame them? That's less clear. If, say, a publicly-traded company boosts its bottom line through such strategies, then its investors -- stockholders -- benefit financially. And if they have more money in their pocket, then somewhere along the line, they'll spend more money. Even if they buy an imported product, in buying it in America, they are supporting the American sales clerk and stocker, the truck driver who delivered it, and so on -- a ripple effect. So, while we may conclude, glumly, that jobs are fleeing offshore, as they are, it's also true that other jobs are at least preserved and perhaps even added. (I'm speaking of normal times, not the present darkly-clouded economic setting.)

But now to get to the point of this article. It's analyzing and, ultimately, agreeing with Friedman's contention that unless we fast-track green development, we run a great risk of eating China's dust on the green front.

It's not about China being communist and protectionist.

It's not about American jobs being relocated outside the U.S.

Now, this article is subject to criticism, as is Friedman himself (whom I admire greatly, by the way), but not because China is communist and protectionist nor because American jobs have been sent abroad. If other articles I've read are true, as recently as yesterday, then there's another side to China's "Green Revolution" or, more properly speaking, a dark underbelly: China will also have to build more coal-powered plants pell-mell to have *any* hope of keeping up with its energy demands -- thereby negating some of whatever progress it makes on the green front. That's a criticism based on the article's thesis.

The points you raise, Mr. Dunlap, are perfectly valid ones, ones not merely worthy of reasoned discussion and debate, but demanding such. Just not in the context of this particular article.

Plans for solar power from outer space move forward (Daily Finance)

Sep 28th 2009 8:48AM Well, yes, as the first poster says, launching rockets is expensive, though I'm not sure the numbers cited are in the correct range.

I do notice that writer doesn't say how we're supposed to transfer energy from places such as the Sahara and Australia's outback to where it's actually needed.

Nice little self-boost in that post, too!

I like the 24/7 nature of SSP, and the ability to redirect the beam to anywhere that has a need and an antenna.

Any land-based system is subject to two factors, one we can't control at all, the other only uncertainly: weather and terrorism. Yes, any space-based system is vulnerable to non-meteorological dangers, most notably meteors, though statistically the odds of a meteor large enough to wipe out the system isn't are pretty low. In any case, such a system is entirely safe from events such as tornados and hurricanes. Not to mention earthquakes, where those present a consideration.

As for terrorists, I suppose there may be a day some may be able to get their hands on a missile with the reach to take out a platform in geosynchronous orbit -- but that's not likely anytime soon. And even if they got one tomorrow, where will they launch it from?