It's not just George W Bush, though he is a very good example. Your government has been making end runs around the constitution for a long time. Prohibition is one good example, took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, yet did not for quite a few other things. Prohibition has also been used for political purposes quite a bit and involving felonies it strips quite a few rights from people caught up in it. No more voting, no ownership of firearms (a basic right in your bill of rights) and awfully hard to get a good job. The FBI under their former leader, Hoover, were quite blatant about doing things that GWB only fantasizes about as well. Also look at what happened to citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, most of their rights stripped away based on their race.
And the boobies. In most of the 1st world and I believe in the USA women have the same rights as men. If in the States the public can remove those rights that easily it stands to reason that they can also remove the rights to things like free speech, being imprisoned without a trial, unlawful searches etc etc.
The truth is that both our countries (and probably all the rest) have at times problems respecting peoples basic natural rights and we should all do our best to keep our glorious leaders on the right track.
Really the important thing is what the Supreme Court says. Much like the States where your President says that the constitution is a piece of paper and he is above the law. And here we have more freedom to say whatever we want on the radio including words like shit and fuck or show boobies on the TV. Anyways it's much like the States where different people have different ideas about what rights people have and really it comes down to what the Supreme Court says. The one negative is the not-withstanding clause that allows a province to override the bill of rights (only used by Quebec so far to force their sign laws into law) but at least it is out in the open instead of hidden like in the States.
Wasn't the DMCA passed by a Republican Congress? Also I can't help but remember that the politicians that have come out of Hollywood have all been Republicans, though you do have a point that lots of the employees of Hollywood are Democrats.
I tried it with my 1994 version of WebExplorer (shipped with OS/2 ver 3) and the page displayed fine and clicking on the image would take you to the various links. Strange though without any hints from the mouse pointer, just an arrow no matter where pointed.
Well it seems that America's military exists to protect the rich peoples interests and it is quite expensive. For this reason alone the rich should pay the vast majority of taxes.
We've noticed that the freer we are, the better off we are. Yes, but what about everyone else? You just have to look at the golden age of libertarianism and for a large percentage of the people things were terrible and the only reason it wasn't much worse was so many people were still rural, living of the land to a large degree and didn't need much money to have a good quality of life. I'd suggest investigating how life was for the average person between 300 yrs and a 100 yrs ago when the libertarians were in charge.
That the free-market plan has had more practical success is important to note, especially for people believe quality of life is more important than social justice.
Huh? The quality of life was terrible when the free-market and Laissez Faire Capitalism was the norm. The only saving grace was that so much of the population still had a rural existence and could mostly get by without money. This was why most of the advanced countries rejected pure Laissez Faire Capitalism in the first part of the 20th century though as so often happens the pendulum swung to far in the other direction and was just as bad if not worse. Now it seems that the countries where the majority of people have good quality of life and quite a few freedoms are a cross between capitalism and socialism. Even the USA is quite socialist though they do it in a weird way, take from the middle, give to the rich and count on it trickling down to the poor.
And this is without government regulation or anything. I could of sworn there has been antitrust cases over MS and IE. Both in the USA and EU. I'd say the antitrust case, even though just a slap on the wrist, did slow MS down and that is one of the reasons that the internet has improved.
Didn't they sell there share in Corel after making sure that Corel killed their Linux distribution? Which by the way was an excellent distribution at the time, even included WP 8.
The thing with windows is that I've been basically forced to buy it on several occasions. Short of buying parts and assembling your own computer it was unavoidable. To do things on the internet (in the past) we pretty well had to have windows and their browser installed. Even today it is very hard to use any non-ms word processor due to how hard it is to read doc files without their word processor. In all cases this was not due to windows being good (think about ver 3.1 and 9x. They were crap and yet ended up with 98%+ marketshare) Even today it is very hard to find anything besides windows in the computer store and for people like me who are stuck with a 26.6 connection windows is pretty well the only choice if I want to upgrade. With MP3 players, we have 2 in the household. Just went to a store and bought them. Getting music for them is as simple as going to a store, buying a CD, putting it in the computer opening a folder and dragging the music to the mp3 player. I have never even seen an ipod (though I do see lots of accessories for them). If it was a monopoly I'm sure I would have seen one and have a hard time avoiding it when it came time to buy a mp3 player.
You should really brush up on your history. The gunpowder plot was in 1605. In 1689, after the glorious revolution kicked James II out the bill of rights of 1689, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 included the Subjects right to bear arms for self defence. It also included most of the other rights that were adopted into the American Bill of rights, at least the first 8 amendments.
Well being forced to stand and watch while the tar was brought up to boiling temperature (about 180 F) knowing that you are going to be painted with it, therefore creating 3rd degree burns and quite likely kill you seems like a terrorizing experience.
Moderators: Even if you don't agree, this guy makes good points, and represents a legitimate viewpoint that a lot of people hold. So why -1?
I've been seeing a lot of AC posts at -1, often -1 interesting or -1 informative. Generally all these posts have been good, good in the sense that I couldn't imagine modding them down and some I'd mod up. I don't know what is happening but it seems some group has an agenda to mark every AC post as overrated.
Corporations are legally obligated to consider their bottom line before all other considerations. Any corporation you see that is doing something charitable is doing that because they have a plausible theory that it will help their bottom line. There are no exceptions, because if you see exceptions they quickly go away due to a shareholder lawsuit or SEC smackdown.
This is only true for corporations that incorporated with one goal, to make money. It is quite possible for a corporation to have other goals. Think of charitable corporations as one example. Really it all depends on the charter they used when incorporating. As one example someone else posted this link further down, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise.
I think you are getting mixed up between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy has been invented to explain why the expansion of the Universe is speeding up. Dark matter is to explain why galaxies stay together without having enough observable mass.
Pumped hydro is insane. I can't imagine what your power loss is on taking water that you've run downhill and running it uphill again. Almost certainly in excess of 100%. If not, you have a perpetual motion machine on your hands. Go forth! You don't use hydro to pump the water. In this thread the talk is about tidal power. Tidal power runs all night so you store the power for peak times by pumping water uphill. Wind is sorta the same, doesn't happen when you want it always so when it does get windy you store the power behind a dam for peak need.
True that it is the Governor-General who appoints the PM but almost always (s)he appoints whoever has the confidence of Parliament which is usually the party with the most seats. I believe there has been a couple of exceptions. Once when the PM had the support of 2 parties who out numbered the leading party and IIRC in the same parliament when the government lost a vote of confidence the Governor-General invited the leader of the opposition to form a government. This pissed of quite a few people at the time and IIRC he couldn't get the confidence of parliament and an election was called the next week. Ok according to wikipedia I remember correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair
Actually it is questions like is a football field 100 yds or 110 yds. Do you play with 11 or 12 players, how many downs and is a touchdown worth 6 or 7 points. Of course most important is whether the cup is grey or gray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_football
The thing is if a business gets a tax break they still charge the consumers as if they were paying the tax. Remove corporate taxes completely and prices would stay the same. Just profit margins would go up.
Actually I'm pretty sure that only monetary bills ( or motions of confidence) can bring down the government. If every minor vote could bring down the government they would fall a lot more often. Here is an article about the last government refusing to call an election after losing a vote. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-vote050510.html Right now I think what is happening is that all sides want to blame the other side for causing yet another election. Historically the voters get pissed of at any party that causes to many elections and kick them out.
While true lately, mostly due to the minority governments, often the government doesn't listen at all. The best example I remember was Mulroney's government pushing through NAFTA and the GST. Unluckily a majority government isn't much different then a dictatorship excepting having to call an election sometime in the next 5 yrs.
Actually we don't elect anyone leader. We elect our local MP and whichever party has the most MP's usually appoints the PM. The PM doesn't even have to be elected at all though traditionally he is.
You're forgetting that perhaps a third of the American population did not agree to the revolt and these people were terrorized into leaving the country or keeping their political beliefs very quiet. Otherwise at the minimum they had their possessions stolen from them and were often beaten or tar and feathered, a punishment that must of been quite terrorizing and often the burns would kill.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just George W Bush, though he is a very good example. Your government has been making end runs around the constitution for a long time.
Prohibition is one good example, took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, yet did not for quite a few other things.
Prohibition has also been used for political purposes quite a bit and involving felonies it strips quite a few rights from people caught up in it. No more voting, no ownership of firearms (a basic right in your bill of rights) and awfully hard to get a good job.
The FBI under their former leader, Hoover, were quite blatant about doing things that GWB only fantasizes about as well.
Also look at what happened to citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, most of their rights stripped away based on their race.
And the boobies. In most of the 1st world and I believe in the USA women have the same rights as men. If in the States the public can remove those rights that easily it stands to reason that they can also remove the rights to things like free speech, being imprisoned without a trial, unlawful searches etc etc.
The truth is that both our countries (and probably all the rest) have at times problems respecting peoples basic natural rights and we should all do our best to keep our glorious leaders on the right track.
Really the important thing is what the Supreme Court says. Much like the States where your President says that the constitution is a piece of paper and he is above the law.
And here we have more freedom to say whatever we want on the radio including words like shit and fuck or show boobies on the TV.
Anyways it's much like the States where different people have different ideas about what rights people have and really it comes down to what the Supreme Court says.
The one negative is the not-withstanding clause that allows a province to override the bill of rights (only used by Quebec so far to force their sign laws into law) but at least it is out in the open instead of hidden like in the States.
Wasn't the DMCA passed by a Republican Congress?
Also I can't help but remember that the politicians that have come out of Hollywood have all been Republicans, though you do have a point that lots of the employees of Hollywood are Democrats.
I tried it with my 1994 version of WebExplorer (shipped with OS/2 ver 3) and the page displayed fine and clicking on the image would take you to the various links. Strange though without any hints from the mouse pointer, just an arrow no matter where pointed.
Well it seems that America's military exists to protect the rich peoples interests and it is quite expensive. For this reason alone the rich should pay the vast majority of taxes.
I'd suggest investigating how life was for the average person between 300 yrs and a 100 yrs ago when the libertarians were in charge.
That the free-market plan has had more practical success is important to note, especially for people believe quality of life is more important than social justice.
Huh? The quality of life was terrible when the free-market and Laissez Faire Capitalism was the norm. The only saving grace was that so much of the population still had a rural existence and could mostly get by without money.
This was why most of the advanced countries rejected pure Laissez Faire Capitalism in the first part of the 20th century though as so often happens the pendulum swung to far in the other direction and was just as bad if not worse.
Now it seems that the countries where the majority of people have good quality of life and quite a few freedoms are a cross between capitalism and socialism. Even the USA is quite socialist though they do it in a weird way, take from the middle, give to the rich and count on it trickling down to the poor.
I'd say the antitrust case, even though just a slap on the wrist, did slow MS down and that is one of the reasons that the internet has improved.
Didn't they sell there share in Corel after making sure that Corel killed their Linux distribution? Which by the way was an excellent distribution at the time, even included WP 8.
The thing with windows is that I've been basically forced to buy it on several occasions. Short of buying parts and assembling your own computer it was unavoidable. To do things on the internet (in the past) we pretty well had to have windows and their browser installed. Even today it is very hard to use any non-ms word processor due to how hard it is to read doc files without their word processor.
In all cases this was not due to windows being good (think about ver 3.1 and 9x. They were crap and yet ended up with 98%+ marketshare)
Even today it is very hard to find anything besides windows in the computer store and for people like me who are stuck with a 26.6 connection windows is pretty well the only choice if I want to upgrade.
With MP3 players, we have 2 in the household. Just went to a store and bought them. Getting music for them is as simple as going to a store, buying a CD, putting it in the computer opening a folder and dragging the music to the mp3 player.
I have never even seen an ipod (though I do see lots of accessories for them). If it was a monopoly I'm sure I would have seen one and have a hard time avoiding it when it came time to buy a mp3 player.
You should really brush up on your history. The gunpowder plot was in 1605. In 1689, after the glorious revolution kicked James II out the bill of rights of 1689, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 included the Subjects right to bear arms for self defence. It also included most of the other rights that were adopted into the American Bill of rights, at least the first 8 amendments.
Well being forced to stand and watch while the tar was brought up to boiling temperature (about 180 F) knowing that you are going to be painted with it, therefore creating 3rd degree burns and quite likely kill you seems like a terrorizing experience.
Moderators: Even if you don't agree, this guy makes good points, and represents a legitimate viewpoint that a lot of people hold. So why -1?
I've been seeing a lot of AC posts at -1, often -1 interesting or -1 informative. Generally all these posts have been good, good in the sense that I couldn't imagine modding them down and some I'd mod up. I don't know what is happening but it seems some group has an agenda to mark every AC post as overrated.
Corporations are legally obligated to consider their bottom line before all other considerations. Any corporation you see that is doing something charitable is doing that because they have a plausible theory that it will help their bottom line. There are no exceptions, because if you see exceptions they quickly go away due to a shareholder lawsuit or SEC smackdown.
This is only true for corporations that incorporated with one goal, to make money.
It is quite possible for a corporation to have other goals. Think of charitable corporations as one example. Really it all depends on the charter they used when incorporating. As one example someone else posted this link further down, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise.
Lots of people didn't agree with ripping out the mail client, which is why we also have Seamonkey.
I think you are getting mixed up between dark matter and dark energy.
Dark energy has been invented to explain why the expansion of the Universe is speeding up.
Dark matter is to explain why galaxies stay together without having enough observable mass.
True that it is the Governor-General who appoints the PM but almost always (s)he appoints whoever has the confidence of Parliament which is usually the party with the most seats. I believe there has been a couple of exceptions. Once when the PM had the support of 2 parties who out numbered the leading party and IIRC in the same parliament when the government lost a vote of confidence the Governor-General invited the leader of the opposition to form a government. This pissed of quite a few people at the time and IIRC he couldn't get the confidence of parliament and an election was called the next week.
Ok according to wikipedia I remember correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair
Actually it is questions like is a football field 100 yds or 110 yds. Do you play with 11 or 12 players, how many downs and is a touchdown worth 6 or 7 points. Of course most important is whether the cup is grey or gray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_football
The thing is if a business gets a tax break they still charge the consumers as if they were paying the tax.
Remove corporate taxes completely and prices would stay the same. Just profit margins would go up.
Actually I'm pretty sure that only monetary bills ( or motions of confidence) can bring down the government. If every minor vote could bring down the government they would fall a lot more often.
Here is an article about the last government refusing to call an election after losing a vote. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-vote050510.html
Right now I think what is happening is that all sides want to blame the other side for causing yet another election. Historically the voters get pissed of at any party that causes to many elections and kick them out.
While true lately, mostly due to the minority governments, often the government doesn't listen at all. The best example I remember was Mulroney's government pushing through NAFTA and the GST.
Unluckily a majority government isn't much different then a dictatorship excepting having to call an election sometime in the next 5 yrs.
Actually we don't elect anyone leader. We elect our local MP and whichever party has the most MP's usually appoints the PM. The PM doesn't even have to be elected at all though traditionally he is.
And the day the governor-general refuses to sign a law without a very good reason is the day that we become a republic.
You're forgetting that perhaps a third of the American population did not agree to the revolt and these people were terrorized into leaving the country or keeping their political beliefs very quiet. Otherwise at the minimum they had their possessions stolen from them and were often beaten or tar and feathered, a punishment that must of been quite terrorizing and often the burns would kill.