I assume they're also aware of how much animosity this stunt creates outside of their friends and neighbors, though.
It's the usual "us against them" argument that lets those governments deflect blame and distract from their very real problems. The people don't take it out on them as much if they can just blame Israel (somehow) and the US's support for all their ills.
Moreover, the US rationale for this was always the perception of the superior morality of the American way, not some logical, scientific argument. Why are you complaining when other countries notice what yours does, and try to do the same?
You appear to inhabit a different dimension to mine, for in mine, first to invent seems to most benefit big, rich corporations. Are you arguing that the current system is NOT broken? Are you arguing that 'first to file' as used everywhere else in the world is better than 'first to invent'? The evidence for this is?
I think he was arguing (at least I would argue) that the current system is broken, and the changes that will be implemented will have the effect of making it far MORE broken. So it's not like it works fine now, just that it can (and will) get worse.
Hey, at least under first-to-invent, a smaller company that invented has first-to-invent as a defense if it is sued. At least you could bring up prior art. Now there is nothing, nothing stopping the big corporations from getting everything they want, all the time.
In addition to the AC's comment of: "and I cut them off by reminding them that for every Albert Einstein who never made it out of the womb, we've probably spared ourselves a dozen Charlie Mansons."
If a woman who needs an abortion can't get one, the resulting child is far more likely to be be born into a bad home and raised wrong than in homes where the parents never thought of getting one.
Personally, I welcome anti-smoking campaigns, as I'm pretty sure anyone with a tobacco allergy or asthma welcomes them, even if the smoke is merely a residue on your clothing or hair which you bring back inside with you after smoking outside.
If your allergy is so profound that just that sort of residue gives you serious problems, then perhaps going out of your house and meeting people is just not for you.
Yeah, I said their were positive and negative associations to listing it as a hobby
If you put it on your resume, it will certainly require clarification. Like, there's no reason to list the specific game title, saying you serve as the point person and leader for a collaborative team of 25-35 people to play online games on the weekend.
And being a raid leader seems as useful as being "head of the X team" in high school that people like to keep mentioning
That's not a bad analogy. Though the heads of the X teams often have more resources and less responsibility.:D
Back in the old days on my server, if you killed Tyrande, Alliance would howl on the forums "Why did you not kill Staghelm instead?? You would have had folks cheering you on!"
These days it's clear that Garrosh is being led to the villain role (it could be something Sha-like, but I'm hoping it points to the return of the Burning Legion) when even the opening sequence to the new expansion goes as: General: Garrosh, we've discovered a new continent. It's full of pandas and.. Garrosh: WHAT?? Why have you not already burned it to the ground? Why is it not crushed beneath my boots? RRRAWARRRRR!!!
A bit of a stark contrast to the Hellscream of old!
And listing WOW as a hobby would be fine (there are positive and negative associations so you proabbly want to consider the audience), but that wasn't the claim. The claim was listing it as a "SKILL".
Playing WOW isn't that much of a skill. But being, say, a raid leader in WOW requires quite a few marketable skills: * Flattery. * Begging while retaining a measure of pride. * Wrangling schedules. * Recruitment. * Research. * Maths (sometimes). * Dealing with interpersonal conflicts. * Telling someone they suck but crafting it in a way that they come out of it thinking it was a positive experience and a desire to improve. * Dealing with the stress as you sit late at night thinking of the raid the next day, wondering "how the fuck am I going to make this work?"
The link doesn't mention one statistic that I think is important: debt relief. When one country offers another a loan, then for various reasons (either at the time or years later) says "You don't have to pay it back," does that count as either charity or foreign aid? I'll hear about the US forgiving debt in return for other agreements often, but I never hear about the reverse (and it's not like the US doesn't have debts..) Some of that might be media bias, but I doubt all of it does.
The index penalizes arms sales, but what about if you send humanitarian supplies to an area controlled by a warlord? The dirty little secret about African aid is that many aid supplies are captured because a warlord controls an area firmly, and uses and withholds food as a way of keeping populations in line. Many of those areas deal with "food shortages" not because there's a real lack of food, but because that food is controlled by an authority that knows the control is key to its power. That's hardly limited to Africa either. On that note, what about, say, grain shipments to countries that puts their farmers out of business and leaves them dependent on foreign imports? (farmers usually can't compete with free food) Would that count as charity?
There are so many grey areas and unresolved questions it seems tricky to put everything into an easy index, as much as we'd love to just be able to rank one country against another.
When has the USA ever censored international domains?
.com is an international domain. It may not have started that way, it certainly wasn't originally intended to be that way, but in practice that's what it has ended up becoming.
So if the US seizes a.com domain for violating US law when the foreign-hosted site has not violated the laws of its own country, that would be censorship of an international domain. It may even be legal censorship under the excuse that those international domains are registered to the US, and that's why there are occasional movements to have.com come under international jurisdiction.
The solutions would be to either leave things how they are, ensure that the.com does not host non-US company sites (and in the age of multinational companies, how do you do that?), or prohibit the seizure of.com sites in general.
But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is, not to one-up them because you know more obscure words than they do.
There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did.
The Internet grew and blossomed in the way that it did for two reasons: 1) It was under the radar of most world governments and regulatory agencies. 2) It was not under the radar for the tech sector.
Again, what benefit did the US get from the Second World War? It wasn't on the losing side, but that's not a benefit of war.
I'm a week late!
The US got a number of benefits from WWII, probably the biggest being that Europe was in ruins at the end of it, while the continental US was untouched.
I suppose it's "reusing" the raw materials. Those things hit the ground pretty hard when they come down, causing deformation and other damage. The shuttle is the thing we'd think of when one says reusable. For a rocket to truly be reusable, it'd need to come back to earth in a more orderly manner, possibly through a powered descent.
All it takes is the will to learn something new. It's no different than learning to work on cars. Do you think auto-mechanics have these same discussions? No. They're more emotionally stable, apparently, than the average developer.
Are you serious? Do you really think they don't roll their eyes or snicker afterwards at the guy who comes in with a somewhat smokey engine and you find he's never replaced his oil? Or got the tires rotated? Or any other standard maintenance?
Public sector unions are different from private sector unions in that the tax payers back all promises made to workers. So, while a private company goes out of business if it strikes a bad deal with the union, and the unions understand that, in the public sector politicians just make politically convenient promises and leave the tax payer with the bill. Usually, that bill comes due long after the people responsible for the deal are out of office (so you can't punish them with your vote), and since it's government services, you can't choose not to do business with them anymore either
I'm not so sure about this. Yes, that certainly was the status quo, but we're starting to see a new phenomenon: cities and counties declaring bankruptcy to clear debt (mostly excessive pensions). It doesn't seem to be a same as a private company filing for Chapter 11, and it remains to be seen how this ends up working in the long term, but it's an interesting development.
Unions are supposed to protect the worker from the evil robber barons.
There is no such thing in the public sector
Sure there is. There's the city council. The state legislature. The mayor. The governor. Any board that decides wages and benefits (whichever ones are applicable depends on which government body the worker is employed at).
Any situation where the worker has no control over hours, pay, or working conditions is one rife for unions.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume they're also aware of how much animosity this stunt creates outside of their friends and neighbors, though.
It's the usual "us against them" argument that lets those governments deflect blame and distract from their very real problems. The people don't take it out on them as much if they can just blame Israel (somehow) and the US's support for all their ills.
Moreover, the US rationale for this was always the perception of the superior morality of the American way, not some logical, scientific argument. Why are you complaining when other countries notice what yours does, and try to do the same?
Because the US's morality system is far superior?
In this day and age, a cartoon about someone having sex with a pig would probably be considered more SFW than "insults to Muhammad."
You are right, after seeing the other explanations, I retract my statement.
You appear to inhabit a different dimension to mine, for in mine, first to invent seems to most benefit big, rich corporations. Are you arguing that the current system is NOT broken? Are you arguing that 'first to file' as used everywhere else in the world is better than 'first to invent'? The evidence for this is?
I think he was arguing (at least I would argue) that the current system is broken, and the changes that will be implemented will have the effect of making it far MORE broken. So it's not like it works fine now, just that it can (and will) get worse.
Hey, at least under first-to-invent, a smaller company that invented has first-to-invent as a defense if it is sued. At least you could bring up prior art. Now there is nothing, nothing stopping the big corporations from getting everything they want, all the time.
In addition to the AC's comment of: "and I cut them off by reminding them that for every Albert Einstein who never made it out of the womb, we've probably spared ourselves a dozen Charlie Mansons."
If a woman who needs an abortion can't get one, the resulting child is far more likely to be be born into a bad home and raised wrong than in homes where the parents never thought of getting one.
Personally, I welcome anti-smoking campaigns, as I'm pretty sure anyone with a tobacco allergy or asthma welcomes them, even if the smoke is merely a residue on your clothing or hair which you bring back inside with you after smoking outside.
If your allergy is so profound that just that sort of residue gives you serious problems, then perhaps going out of your house and meeting people is just not for you.
(general 'your' of course)
Yeah, I said their were positive and negative associations to listing it as a hobby
If you put it on your resume, it will certainly require clarification. Like, there's no reason to list the specific game title, saying you serve as the point person and leader for a collaborative team of 25-35 people to play online games on the weekend.
And being a raid leader seems as useful as being "head of the X team" in high school that people like to keep mentioning
That's not a bad analogy. Though the heads of the X teams often have more resources and less responsibility. :D
Back in the old days on my server, if you killed Tyrande, Alliance would howl on the forums "Why did you not kill Staghelm instead?? You would have had folks cheering you on!"
These days it's clear that Garrosh is being led to the villain role (it could be something Sha-like, but I'm hoping it points to the return of the Burning Legion) when even the opening sequence to the new expansion goes as:
General: Garrosh, we've discovered a new continent. It's full of pandas and..
Garrosh: WHAT?? Why have you not already burned it to the ground? Why is it not crushed beneath my boots? RRRAWARRRRR!!!
A bit of a stark contrast to the Hellscream of old!
[TONGUEINCHEEK]Gnomes on the other hand, clearly are evil in the World of Warcraft universe.[/TONGUEINCHEEK]
They're not evil, just really fun to kick.
Actually over the years WoW went from the go-to MMORPG to a cause of massive eye rolling in geek circles.
It's still the go-to MMORPG, but MMORPGS themselves seem to be going out of style.
And listing WOW as a hobby would be fine (there are positive and negative associations so you proabbly want to consider the audience), but that wasn't the claim. The claim was listing it as a "SKILL".
Playing WOW isn't that much of a skill. But being, say, a raid leader in WOW requires quite a few marketable skills:
* Flattery.
* Begging while retaining a measure of pride.
* Wrangling schedules.
* Recruitment.
* Research.
* Maths (sometimes).
* Dealing with interpersonal conflicts.
* Telling someone they suck but crafting it in a way that they come out of it thinking it was a positive experience and a desire to improve.
* Dealing with the stress as you sit late at night thinking of the raid the next day, wondering "how the fuck am I going to make this work?"
The link doesn't mention one statistic that I think is important: debt relief. When one country offers another a loan, then for various reasons (either at the time or years later) says "You don't have to pay it back," does that count as either charity or foreign aid? I'll hear about the US forgiving debt in return for other agreements often, but I never hear about the reverse (and it's not like the US doesn't have debts..) Some of that might be media bias, but I doubt all of it does.
The index penalizes arms sales, but what about if you send humanitarian supplies to an area controlled by a warlord? The dirty little secret about African aid is that many aid supplies are captured because a warlord controls an area firmly, and uses and withholds food as a way of keeping populations in line. Many of those areas deal with "food shortages" not because there's a real lack of food, but because that food is controlled by an authority that knows the control is key to its power. That's hardly limited to Africa either. On that note, what about, say, grain shipments to countries that puts their farmers out of business and leaves them dependent on foreign imports? (farmers usually can't compete with free food) Would that count as charity?
There are so many grey areas and unresolved questions it seems tricky to put everything into an easy index, as much as we'd love to just be able to rank one country against another.
When has the USA ever censored international domains?
.com is an international domain. It may not have started that way, it certainly wasn't originally intended to be that way, but in practice that's what it has ended up becoming.
So if the US seizes a .com domain for violating US law when the foreign-hosted site has not violated the laws of its own country, that would be censorship of an international domain. It may even be legal censorship under the excuse that those international domains are registered to the US, and that's why there are occasional movements to have .com come under international jurisdiction.
The solutions would be to either leave things how they are, ensure that the .com does not host non-US company sites (and in the age of multinational companies, how do you do that?), or prohibit the seizure of .com sites in general.
But the entire point of language is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner to whomever your audience is, not to one-up them because you know more obscure words than they do.
There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did.
The Internet grew and blossomed in the way that it did for two reasons:
1) It was under the radar of most world governments and regulatory agencies.
2) It was not under the radar for the tech sector.
How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?
But then developing countries wouldn't get as much of the "revenue stream" (whatever that means) of the Internet, and that would be terrible.
Again, what benefit did the US get from the Second World War? It wasn't on the losing side, but that's not a benefit of war.
I'm a week late!
The US got a number of benefits from WWII, probably the biggest being that Europe was in ruins at the end of it, while the continental US was untouched.
That sounds a bit like I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.
I suppose it's "reusing" the raw materials. Those things hit the ground pretty hard when they come down, causing deformation and other damage. The shuttle is the thing we'd think of when one says reusable. For a rocket to truly be reusable, it'd need to come back to earth in a more orderly manner, possibly through a powered descent.
Picture link. Simple effective fun!
The result: The finished license.
All it takes is the will to learn something new. It's no different than learning to work on cars. Do you think auto-mechanics have these same discussions? No. They're more emotionally stable, apparently, than the average developer.
Are you serious? Do you really think they don't roll their eyes or snicker afterwards at the guy who comes in with a somewhat smokey engine and you find he's never replaced his oil? Or got the tires rotated? Or any other standard maintenance?
So we give up and race to the bottom?
Public sector unions are different from private sector unions in that the tax payers back all promises made to workers. So, while a private company goes out of business if it strikes a bad deal with the union, and the unions understand that, in the public sector politicians just make politically convenient promises and leave the tax payer with the bill. Usually, that bill comes due long after the people responsible for the deal are out of office (so you can't punish them with your vote), and since it's government services, you can't choose not to do business with them anymore either
I'm not so sure about this. Yes, that certainly was the status quo, but we're starting to see a new phenomenon: cities and counties declaring bankruptcy to clear debt (mostly excessive pensions). It doesn't seem to be a same as a private company filing for Chapter 11, and it remains to be seen how this ends up working in the long term, but it's an interesting development.
Unions are supposed to protect the worker from the evil robber barons.
There is no such thing in the public sector
Sure there is. There's the city council. The state legislature. The mayor. The governor. Any board that decides wages and benefits (whichever ones are applicable depends on which government body the worker is employed at).
Any situation where the worker has no control over hours, pay, or working conditions is one rife for unions.