Slashdot Mirror
French Fine Amazon For Free Shipping
strech writes "Ars Technica reports that France is fining Amazon for offering free shipping on some orders. A French high court ruled in December that the practice violated a law preventing discounting the price of a book more than 5% off of the publisher's recommended price. Amazon has decided to pay the fine, rather than drop free shipping. The fine currently stands at €1,000 per day but is automatically reconsidered after 30 days, after which it could be raised dramatically."
Yeah, I'm trolling because you disagree with me. Nice. Open discussion as long as you don't depart from the groupthink. I guess it really depends on who you listen to, and what you take away from the conversation. The official reason for going into Iraq was that they had WMDs. The rhetoric that was coming from Sadam at the time was certainly indicitive to me that he must have something because he was being so bold and obnoxious. If he really didn't have anything, why not let the inspectors in uninhibited? His stance was that they're a sovereign nation and did't have to. For years they broke their agreements with us after we gave them what they wanted. As part of the agreement that they signed with the UN they were obligated to do let the UN inspectors in, and they didn't. It wasn't just the US that thought they had WMDs. The whole world was in agreement that they probably did, but yet could not agree on what to do about it. Now you can say "They never found nuclear weapons", and you'd be correct they didn't. They did find chemical WMDs, and there's no guarantee that they didn't smuggle others out before we invaded. We may still be waiting for the sharp end of the stick to become apparent. Why would Sadam have acted that way unless he was trying to draw us into conflict? So to say that "the official arguments for going into Iraq were false" is not wholly accurate. My point is that France was a major detractor against the invasion not because they wanted to promote peace, but because they wanted to protect their own corrupt interests. Is that a point that ought to be ignored because it doesn't fit the world mantra that America is bad?
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
"I'll tell you why the Americans hate the French - it's because the French have history and culture, philosophy and art. They have a cuisine which is based on rather more than saturated fat and corn syrup. They don't roll over and beg whenever the US clicks its colonial fingers (how I wish the UK were the same). And the French themselves are attractive, intelligent, reliable, honourable people. That's why the Americans hate them."
I'll tell you why- the French hold themselves in such high esteem that while Russians were burning their own land rather than let the Nazi's have it, while the English were weathering nightly air raids on their capital, and while Americans sent troops for fight in yet another war started by European powers the French people rolled over like trained dogs for the Nazi's rather than let one window in Paris be broken..
They might not 'roll over' for uncle Sam but when Adlof came into town you all but gave him your daughters.
Honorable my foot..
Thats what happens when you surrender... DUH...
It had been defeated early in the war due to vastly superior German forces overwhelming a vastly inferior French army trying to defend an indefensible border.
You have to be kidding? The Germans defeated the bulk of the French army because France completely ignored everything except a *tiny* piece of their eastern border. Could france have successfully defeated the Germans as they entered Paris? probably not but there was no honor in throwing them a parade and giving up without a fight..
particularly regarding the Resistance before you go casting around smart little quotes you found in some third-grade 'show-and-tell' book.
The resistance was a small percentage of the population and are the exception to an otherwise iron clad surrender monkey rule..
I was hoping to get that kind of response about that. It was intentional, and, yes, I know the difference between England, and Brittan. I was stationed with a Scottish officer who was a liaison to my USAF unit, and I used to enjoy annoying him with such statements as well. That was just to see if anyone read this.
As for the Germans vs Normans, it was the Germans; Anglo-Saxons to be precise who took England after the Romans left, and then the Normans took power from them in 1066. How are the Germans in charge then? You might enjoy reading Ivanhoe, which I did recently for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed; written by a Scotsman.
Either way, my analysis is correct, our 3 countries have far more in common; if only from the regular and close contact, we've had for all of our collective histories. Besides, I read somewhere; Nature, Scientific American maybe, that genetically, neither the A/S nor the Normans have heavily imprinted their genes on the country. They said something to the effect of the fact that most of the people have most of their genes from the native population, and that neither invasion brought enough people to change the gene pool significantly.
Your comment about the Auld Alliance not withstanding, I'm still right. The reason is that you are talking politics, and I am talking culture. In politics, things are far more complex, and I would say that it's easier to find the differences between the 3 than the similarities.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
Yes I guess I should have specified that it was the moderator that I was referring to and not you personally.
Like I said previously it really depends on who you listen to and what you believe. If by reason with me you mean change my mind, well yes you're right you're not going to be able to do that any more than I will probably change yours. The point of having discussion is to find that there are many opinions on any given subject, and this happens to be mine. My feeling is that while yes Sadam's rhetoric was only words what he was saying was pretty threatening. Personally I'm glad we didn't wait until one of our cities was glowing before taking action. The countries that have joined to the UN are coming together under the guise of unity (hence why it's the United Nations). Whether or not they have met that objective is a completely separate discussion (I personally feel that it should be disbanded). However, we (as the US) are expected to live up to our end of the agreement when we sign a treaty under the guise of promoting global unity. If we didn't we would have no legitimacy with the rest of our partners. Iraq was clearly not interested in global unity choosing to pursue their own aggressive nationalistic goals (nuclear power, punking Isreal, etc.), which would have been bad for everyone around them. The UN refused to require Iraq to uphold their end of the agreements. Why should we sit by and let them obtain the means to distroy us? I happen to think we did the right thing over all. Time will tell.
While the WMDs were not in a usable state there are still a couple of things that bother me about that. For years he maintained that they didn't have any chemical weapons (he lied, big surprise there), so while they we're usable when we found them they certainly were at one time. What else did he have that we didn't find is what I'd like to know. Another thing that bothers me about that is those weapons could still be used in dirty bomb in a manor that would be effective. Hence, if they fell into the wrong hands they're not exactly benign.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Well, I would hope that you have kick-ass insurance, right? I suppose if you keep full coverage so that your risky behavior isn't paid for by society in emergency room visits or expensive end-of-life care, then your argument has merit. If your insurance runs out and you're still suffering from health issues due to over indulging in smoking or drinking, or car accidents, or repeated physical injuries due to physical hobbies, your behavior has cost society. I smoke and drink and drive fast, but I buy into a very well covered plan. Many people don't do this.
Blar.