Again, in my view, even one death of someone who was against the attacks/war on the US was a criminal offense.
In other words, if you ran a country one could attack it with impunity - as long as you couldn't pinpoint the attacker. I wouldn't want to live there...
Law enforcement can afford to avoid collateral damage, usually, because they have an overwhelming numerical and technological advantage over criminals. When you don't, innocent people die - either on your side or theirs.
How does nuking thousands of Japanese civilians un-nazi the world?
By the end of WWII the Japanese were ready to fight to the last Japanese. Not the last Japanese soldier, the last Japanese. The US was also ready to fight to the last Japanese. For example, they got so many purple hearts (the wounded soldier decoration) made, they still had supplied in 2000.
If it hadn't been for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese culture might have gone the way of the Sioux. A remnant would have survived, but only a remnant.
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
I don't know why you think that, but the rest of the world doesn't exactly have a good track record in keeping the peace. Look at Europe before the US started stationing soldiers there in 1941 - two world wars. Or look at the parts of the world the US isn't interested in, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?
Not if the government is smart enough to request enough blurs, with some of them being duds.
Besides, it's really hard to hide the existence of a facility in a densely populated area such as South England. The best you can hope for is to hide some of the internal details.
That's the thing that irks the snot out of me, it's a frigging SERVICE not a contract.
It only becomes a contract is you sign a paper to that effect, which most doctors' offices ask you to do. The contact is mostly so you'll be bound to pay your deductible and if the insurance denies them.
And if they didn't want to get labeled as a bunch of religious loonies, they could repeal their stoning laws, stop fomenting anti-semitic hatred, start respecting the rights of women, etc.
Good idea, but all the people who suggested this in Iran got stoned (and I don't mean the hashish kind). Now the sane Iranians just sit quietly and wait for things to get better.
They could use a few George Washington types, but the popular support isn't really there.
People in the Middle East often assume that Hollywood gives a good representation of US culture, and that the US is a completely irreligious country.
The fact is that parts the Middle East are socially 14th century, with a thin overlay of technology purchased from other places. But as with most 3rd world countries, there are westernized islands that can be every bit as high tech as anything we have.
My claim isn't that unions are useless. It is that they are not as vital to the economy as healthy companies. I realize some industries will only provide their employees decent conditions with a union - but if you're in one of those industries it's probably a good idea to investigate a career change.
Just outsource your sorry ass to cheap immigrant labour or to an outsourcing company in budapest.
And a union is going to protect me how? By making me more expensive to employ?
If you can find the cheaper workers in Budapest, then somebody will attempt to provide the service using those workers. It can be my current employer, or it can be somebody who competes with them. Either way, my job is at risk.
Sorry, but that's life. Customers want things to be cheap.
healthy unions are as vital to our economy as healthy companies.
No. Without a healthy union, companies still have to contend with labor supply and demand. If they abuse their employees, the more competent employees will flee to other jobs. Without healthy companies, we don't have an efficient way to coordinate large amounts of workers, so we lose a lot of economies of scale.
To make matters worse, there seems to be a reverse correlation between the health of the union and that of the company.
What I can tell you is that there is a huge gap between well read audio books, and the crap books that many authors decided to read themselves.
This is the critical point. Technology is going to take away the ability to sell cheaply read books. It is not going to take away the ability to sell competently done audio.
So authors are going to lose the ability to license an auxiliary product that does not have value added. Happens all the time, whenever there are changes. They are welcome to publish through publishers that don't support Kindle.
People who head advocacy organizations, such as the Authors Guild, have to have issues they can push so as to get members of their groups to pay dues. If there are no real issues, they need to invent them.
We sign a contract saying "I will do X, and it return you'll be me Y (every week, two weeks, etc.)". Isn't that selling? When you buy anything major, you usually have to sign a contract.
I don't like the employer having that much power over me either. But it's the other side of me being able to go to Wal*Mart or Target, and buy one of a number of options of almost everything.
The employee is the supplier. The employer is the customer. In most cases, customers can abuse the relationship a lot more than suppliers.
Having said that, I'm sure that employers who abuse their employees pay for it when times are good and good people find better places to work. Usually the people who leave are those who can find other jobs - which are precisely those you want to keep.
Just out of interest, how many (western) newspaper journalists were embedded in Falujah?
I don't know, but many people in the military blog. Of course, they're biased towards a US victory. And they won't blog until the fighting is done and they have spare time to do it.
It's like saying Texas has a larger audience than Oklahoma, so Oklahoman artists cannot compete. Canadian art can be target at both sides of the border, just as US art is.
Would Mister Rogers and Sesame Street have existed without American tax dollars?
Dora seems to be doing fine without any tax dollars. Why couldn't Sesame Street do the same? They certainly make a lot of money selling products (DVDs, licensed products, etc.).
When you are a country of ~30 million situated next to a neighbour ten times your size (and that neighbour has a penchant for economic and cultural imperialism), sometimes you have to take steps to prevent the trampling of your artistic community.
Or accept that if your populations' artistic ability is about the same you'll produce 10% the amount of great art as that neighbor. It's not like US TV channels and record companies will discriminate against Canadian artists if they could squeeze money out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, in my view, even one death of someone who was against the attacks/war on the US was a criminal offense.
In other words, if you ran a country one could attack it with impunity - as long as you couldn't pinpoint the attacker. I wouldn't want to live there...
Law enforcement can afford to avoid collateral damage, usually, because they have an overwhelming numerical and technological advantage over criminals. When you don't, innocent people die - either on your side or theirs.
How does nuking thousands of Japanese civilians un-nazi the world?
By the end of WWII the Japanese were ready to fight to the last Japanese. Not the last Japanese soldier, the last Japanese. The US was also ready to fight to the last Japanese. For example, they got so many purple hearts (the wounded soldier decoration) made, they still had supplied in 2000.
If it hadn't been for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese culture might have gone the way of the Sioux. A remnant would have survived, but only a remnant.
And people wonder why I think the best way to secure peace is to get rid of the US...
I don't know why you think that, but the rest of the world doesn't exactly have a good track record in keeping the peace. Look at Europe before the US started stationing soldiers there in 1941 - two world wars. Or look at the parts of the world the US isn't interested in, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?
Not if the government is smart enough to request enough blurs, with some of them being duds.
Besides, it's really hard to hide the existence of a facility in a densely populated area such as South England. The best you can hope for is to hide some of the internal details.
That's the thing that irks the snot out of me, it's a frigging SERVICE not a contract.
It only becomes a contract is you sign a paper to that effect, which most doctors' offices ask you to do. The contact is mostly so you'll be bound to pay your deductible and if the insurance denies them.
work, as in labor. And only paid once.
The problem is that in most cases nobody knows how valuable the work is going to be. Therefore, it is hard to price the work until you see how many people will pay to read it.
Should writers be paid at all for their work?
Not for out of copyright works. If you've been dead for seventy years you can do without the money.
Not for discussing Google as a monopoly provider of out of copyright works anybody is allowed to copy either, for that matter.
In point of fact the non-union auto-workers make more (counting benefits) than UAW workers.
So the UAW is working against the interests of auto workers?
Or is it that managers are non-union, and they tend to get paid more than assembly line workers?
And how many contributors have actually gotten jobs in this recession and subsequent layoffs?
Probably very few. But it's still a better bet than if you don't have anything to show.
And if they didn't want to get labeled as a bunch of religious loonies, they could repeal their stoning laws, stop fomenting anti-semitic hatred, start respecting the rights of women, etc.
Good idea, but all the people who suggested this in Iran got stoned (and I don't mean the hashish kind). Now the sane Iranians just sit quietly and wait for things to get better.
They could use a few George Washington types, but the popular support isn't really there.
People in the Middle East often assume that Hollywood gives a good representation of US culture, and that the US is a completely irreligious country.
The fact is that parts the Middle East are socially 14th century, with a thin overlay of technology purchased from other places. But as with most 3rd world countries, there are westernized islands that can be every bit as high tech as anything we have.
Have you ever been in a country with no unions?
No, I worked in industries where unions were extremely rare but I've never been in a country where trade unions were illegal. Were you?
Actually unions and small business as why I believe we should ahve national health care.
Maybe. But most military veterans I read about this were opposed - and they have experience with government provided health care.
My claim isn't that unions are useless. It is that they are not as vital to the economy as healthy companies. I realize some industries will only provide their employees decent conditions with a union - but if you're in one of those industries it's probably a good idea to investigate a career change.
Just outsource your sorry ass to cheap immigrant labour or to an outsourcing company in budapest.
And a union is going to protect me how? By making me more expensive to employ?
If you can find the cheaper workers in Budapest, then somebody will attempt to provide the service using those workers. It can be my current employer, or it can be somebody who competes with them. Either way, my job is at risk.
Sorry, but that's life. Customers want things to be cheap.
True. Back in 1937 there weren't as many other jobs available.
healthy unions are as vital to our economy as healthy companies.
No. Without a healthy union, companies still have to contend with labor supply and demand. If they abuse their employees, the more competent employees will flee to other jobs. Without healthy companies, we don't have an efficient way to coordinate large amounts of workers, so we lose a lot of economies of scale.
To make matters worse, there seems to be a reverse correlation between the health of the union and that of the company.
What I can tell you is that there is a huge gap between well read audio books, and the crap books that many authors decided to read themselves.
This is the critical point. Technology is going to take away the ability to sell cheaply read books. It is not going to take away the ability to sell competently done audio.
So authors are going to lose the ability to license an auxiliary product that does not have value added. Happens all the time, whenever there are changes. They are welcome to publish through publishers that don't support Kindle.
People who head advocacy organizations, such as the Authors Guild, have to have issues they can push so as to get members of their groups to pay dues. If there are no real issues, they need to invent them.
We sign a contract saying "I will do X, and it return you'll be me Y (every week, two weeks, etc.)". Isn't that selling? When you buy anything major, you usually have to sign a contract.
I don't like the employer having that much power over me either. But it's the other side of me being able to go to Wal*Mart or Target, and buy one of a number of options of almost everything.
The employee is the supplier. The employer is the customer. In most cases, customers can abuse the relationship a lot more than suppliers.
Having said that, I'm sure that employers who abuse their employees pay for it when times are good and good people find better places to work. Usually the people who leave are those who can find other jobs - which are precisely those you want to keep.
Just out of interest, how many (western) newspaper journalists were embedded in Falujah?
I don't know, but many people in the military blog. Of course, they're biased towards a US victory. And they won't blog until the fighting is done and they have spare time to do it.
It's like saying Texas has a larger audience than Oklahoma, so Oklahoman artists cannot compete. Canadian art can be target at both sides of the border, just as US art is.
So a 9% niche market is too small to bother with? There are plenty of smaller niche markets in the US, which are served by by own artists.
Would Mister Rogers and Sesame Street have existed without American tax dollars?
Dora seems to be doing fine without any tax dollars. Why couldn't Sesame Street do the same? They certainly make a lot of money selling products (DVDs, licensed products, etc.).
When you are a country of ~30 million situated next to a neighbour ten times your size (and that neighbour has a penchant for economic and cultural imperialism), sometimes you have to take steps to prevent the trampling of your artistic community.
Or accept that if your populations' artistic ability is about the same you'll produce 10% the amount of great art as that neighbor. It's not like US TV channels and record companies will discriminate against Canadian artists if they could squeeze money out of them.