Believe it or not, some slashdotters actually live in the UK!
Yes, and it's bad they live under such rules. I hope they'll be able to use the democratic process to change them, or the immigration process to make them inapplicable to them.
But my point is that it is not a global threat to Web free speech as the article said. Of course, UK law can hurt UK residents, just as US law can hurt US residents. That's part of the cost of living in a country, and the reason I switched.
Not being able to visit the UK would be a problem for me. It's a nice place, and I have friends and family there. But I don't think a civil court order would be enough to get me arrested if I visit there as a tourist.
I'm not a British citizen. I have no assets in the UK anybody could seize.
Why should I care if you sue me in a UK court? You could get a court order entitling you to a million pound. How would you collect? Ask me to send you a cheque from the US?
Issue with making every order coming from CEO is - that it will never happen...
Not every order - that will kill corporations, and kill the economy. Just orders that are likely to be illegal.
If my boss tells me to add a few topics to a course, I don't need written orders. I don't expect that to be a crime. But if he tells me to write a DRM module that takes over a computer, I think I should protect myself.
So line managers will have to decide between risking their jobs and risking jail time. It sucks for them, but it will reduce the chance of corporations performing crimes.
The problem appears to be that corporations being imaginary beings and not physical are rather hard to put in a jail.
Put the highest level manager who cannot produce written proof this was ordered by somebody higher up the chain in jail. Next time, the CYA chain will go all the way to the CEO.
NPR is national, so it is relatively easy to keep tabs on and has to cater to a large and diverse audience to keep in the donations.
A local newspaper is a lot smaller, and will only attract donations from rich people in that town - so it has a much more pronounced bias in its donors.
The newspapers are not making money now, so having their advertising and subscription revenues tax exempt won't matter. The big difference would be they'd be able to get tax deductible donations.
Why do you think soliciting donations will make the media more balanced? As the mayor of Corruptville, I of course realize that we need balanced reporting in our fair town. I will even donate some of my embezzled funds towards that end - as long as the newspaper doesn't tell anybody about my embezzlement.
If you are older, people will expect you to be experienced and thus fulfill a more architectural or managerial role.
He's likely to get a managerial role relatively quickly anyway. Unless he spent the last ten years in a coma, he should have more mature people skills. It's not something that you can easily shortcut.
As you mentioned, this system is available in 3rd world countries. Those third world countries are also different from western culture in other ways, such as respect for the rule of law, individual rights(1), etc.
(1) "Individual rights" in the sense of not being interfered with. You can argue that having people help you, for example, by paying for your medical care is an individual right too. But the US obviously does not respect those.
Don't you think western civilization is general would be stronger if we tried multiple approaches in parallel and saw which worked best?
Paying higher taxes for more government service is good, people can move from the US to Europe or Canada. If you prefer to pay less taxes and get less, you can move from Europe or Canada to the US.
There are bigger issues, but letting future company managers know they can:
1. Make their company more money in good times by taking economically unjustified risks.
2. Get the tax payer to bail out the company when the unjustified risks backfire.
and
3. Personally profit either way.
Is a really bad idea. To pick an extreme example, if the same managers knew that their companies will be bailed out, but that they personally would spend the rest of their lives in jail, they would take a lot less risks.
We need to motivate managers to be prudent in the future. Letting them reward themselves does not accomplish that.
Why do actors and actresses who pretend to be politicans and soldiers for tv and movies get more influence over "real world" politics like the UN than I do?
Because they look better than you. Seriously, a large part of politics is about PR - and actors are useful for that.
Does the US constitution even have a sovereignty clause that forbids allowing foreign sovereignty (for instance, by the UN), or is that just an interpretation?
The fact that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means that no treaty has the power to modify it.
From what I heard, being close to death from terminal cancer is painful. Therefore, if you believe life is about maximizing pleasure, the last weeks are probably of negative value. Might as well end it and get rid of them - it would be a better life overall.
If you believe that suffering can be good for you in some ways, then it is not necessarily of negative value. If you believe you have higher callings in life than to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, then again - those last weeks may be valuable. Those beliefs tend to be taught by religions.
I don't consider myself a narcissistic student, but I wonder, what's the point of going through years of education, if not to use it?
Universities are in the business of selling education to a market of prospective students who don't know what they'll need exactly. Usually they "up-sell" for a product that is a lot more than is actually needed.
We probably don't need 17 years of formal education (Kindergarten - 12th grade + 4 year degree) before somebody can do most technical jobs.
Has it solved the great depression? The US still had high unemployment when Pearl Harbor happened. Japan's economy didn't grow in the 90s.
The reason the Great Depression is called Great is that there were plenty of depressions earlier. They were a lot shorter. The Great Depression is the first time the government tried to intervene and fix things - and recovery took a lot longer.
Arguably WWII was a couple of regional conflicts until 1941 - one in the Pacific and another in Europe. With a few of the belligerents, such as the British Empire, active in both.
But do you really want to say that Hawaii was just a few small islands in the pacific? Or that the US wasn't threatened by an attack of a US territory, populated by US citizens?
My lord, are you actually suggesting that the reason there's been peace in Europe is US troops?
Given how many wars were fought in Europe in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, and how many in the second half of the 20th, something must have happened.
If it wasn't US troops, what was it? Why were the horrors of WWII enough to convince Europeans not to fight each other, when the horrors of WWI weren't?
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, some slashdotters actually live in the UK!
Yes, and it's bad they live under such rules. I hope they'll be able to use the democratic process to change them, or the immigration process to make them inapplicable to them.
But my point is that it is not a global threat to Web free speech as the article said. Of course, UK law can hurt UK residents, just as US law can hurt US residents. That's part of the cost of living in a country, and the reason I switched.
Not being able to visit the UK would be a problem for me. It's a nice place, and I have friends and family there. But I don't think a civil court order would be enough to get me arrested if I visit there as a tourist.
I'm not a British citizen. I have no assets in the UK anybody could seize.
Why should I care if you sue me in a UK court? You could get a court order entitling you to a million pound. How would you collect? Ask me to send you a cheque from the US?
Until it's voted on by the GA (general assembly), it's unimportant.
Even after it is voted on by the general assembly, it is still unimportant. General assembly resolutions are, by design, non binding.
On the other hand, I don't know of any reason why they can't "donate" to newspapers now
They can. It's just not tax deductible - just as political campaign contributions are not tax deductible.
Issue with making every order coming from CEO is - that it will never happen...
Not every order - that will kill corporations, and kill the economy. Just orders that are likely to be illegal.
If my boss tells me to add a few topics to a course, I don't need written orders. I don't expect that to be a crime. But if he tells me to write a DRM module that takes over a computer, I think I should protect myself.
So line managers will have to decide between risking their jobs and risking jail time. It sucks for them, but it will reduce the chance of corporations performing crimes.
The problem appears to be that corporations being imaginary beings and not physical are rather hard to put in a jail.
Put the highest level manager who cannot produce written proof this was ordered by somebody higher up the chain in jail. Next time, the CYA chain will go all the way to the CEO.
NPR is national, so it is relatively easy to keep tabs on and has to cater to a large and diverse audience to keep in the donations.
A local newspaper is a lot smaller, and will only attract donations from rich people in that town - so it has a much more pronounced bias in its donors.
The newspapers are not making money now, so having their advertising and subscription revenues tax exempt won't matter. The big difference would be they'd be able to get tax deductible donations.
Why do you think soliciting donations will make the media more balanced? As the mayor of Corruptville, I of course realize that we need balanced reporting in our fair town. I will even donate some of my embezzled funds towards that end - as long as the newspaper doesn't tell anybody about my embezzlement.
If you are older, people will expect you to be experienced and thus fulfill a more architectural or managerial role.
He's likely to get a managerial role relatively quickly anyway. Unless he spent the last ten years in a coma, he should have more mature people skills. It's not something that you can easily shortcut.
As you mentioned, this system is available in 3rd world countries. Those third world countries are also different from western culture in other ways, such as respect for the rule of law, individual rights(1), etc.
(1) "Individual rights" in the sense of not being interfered with. You can argue that having people help you, for example, by paying for your medical care is an individual right too. But the US obviously does not respect those.
Don't you think western civilization is general would be stronger if we tried multiple approaches in parallel and saw which worked best?
Paying higher taxes for more government service is good, people can move from the US to Europe or Canada. If you prefer to pay less taxes and get less, you can move from Europe or Canada to the US.
Worked during the Great Depression. Thats the only good data point we have.
No, it hasn't. The Great Depression got that name because in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the US was still in a depression.
There were plenty of depressions earlier, and they usually didn't last as long.
However, it has to be done to fix the economy.
Has it worked? Will it work, with any amount of dollars that won't trigger hyperinflation.
There are bigger issues, but letting future company managers know they can:
1. Make their company more money in good times by taking economically unjustified risks.
2. Get the tax payer to bail out the company when the unjustified risks backfire.
and
3. Personally profit either way.
Is a really bad idea. To pick an extreme example, if the same managers knew that their companies will be bailed out, but that they personally would spend the rest of their lives in jail, they would take a lot less risks.
We need to motivate managers to be prudent in the future. Letting them reward themselves does not accomplish that.
Why do actors and actresses who pretend to be politicans and soldiers for tv and movies get more influence over "real world" politics like the UN than I do?
Because they look better than you. Seriously, a large part of politics is about PR - and actors are useful for that.
Does the US constitution even have a sovereignty clause that forbids allowing foreign sovereignty (for instance, by the UN), or is that just an interpretation?
The fact that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means that no treaty has the power to modify it.
From what I heard, being close to death from terminal cancer is painful. Therefore, if you believe life is about maximizing pleasure, the last weeks are probably of negative value. Might as well end it and get rid of them - it would be a better life overall.
If you believe that suffering can be good for you in some ways, then it is not necessarily of negative value. If you believe you have higher callings in life than to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, then again - those last weeks may be valuable. Those beliefs tend to be taught by religions.
Paraphrased from something I read.
Walking on water is nice - but to really bring value you need to freeze it, so other people will be able to follow behind you.
The constitution still requires treaties to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. Quoting from article 2, section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Without Senate approval, any treaty is just a worthless piece of paper.
I don't consider myself a narcissistic student, but I wonder, what's the point of going through years of education, if not to use it?
Universities are in the business of selling education to a market of prospective students who don't know what they'll need exactly. Usually they "up-sell" for a product that is a lot more than is actually needed.
We probably don't need 17 years of formal education (Kindergarten - 12th grade + 4 year degree) before somebody can do most technical jobs.
Has it solved the great depression? The US still had high unemployment when Pearl Harbor happened. Japan's economy didn't grow in the 90s.
The reason the Great Depression is called Great is that there were plenty of depressions earlier. They were a lot shorter. The Great Depression is the first time the government tried to intervene and fix things - and recovery took a lot longer.
What do you mean Keynesian economics doesn't work? It kept FDR in power, didn't it? It justified a huge increase in government power, didn't it?
Keynesian economics are only a failure if you care about actual prosperity instead of duping people into letting you run the country.
Arguably WWII was a couple of regional conflicts until 1941 - one in the Pacific and another in Europe. With a few of the belligerents, such as the British Empire, active in both.
But do you really want to say that Hawaii was just a few small islands in the pacific? Or that the US wasn't threatened by an attack of a US territory, populated by US citizens?
My lord, are you actually suggesting that the reason there's been peace in Europe is US troops?
Given how many wars were fought in Europe in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, and how many in the second half of the 20th, something must have happened.
If it wasn't US troops, what was it? Why were the horrors of WWII enough to convince Europeans not to fight each other, when the horrors of WWI weren't?