First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.
No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.
This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.
So in your first post you criticize the parent for not doing anything.
I said, "The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it." The you referenced thereafter is not directed only at the OP.
Frankly, of the two of you, it sounds like Apple has the right to stand up and call people out for living in a democracy and not taking action. However, you don't.
You wholly misunderstand the concept of rights.
You sit there and preach about how you look up to Chomsky because he criticizes the government. Whoopty fuckin' do. Criticism is completely useless if action isn't taken as a result.
I'm sorry. Chomsky has written nearly 100 books, participated and given thousands of lectures, and been involved with direct action for at least forty years. I'm not sure why this isn't an accomplishment. Without Chomsky, we would not have the Propaganda Model. Many people in the world would be simply unaware of a whole host of current and historical issues and their true context.
As far as results, look at the difference. The President can't just carpet bomb random countries without congressional approval. He has to manipulate the media and commit serious resources to propaganda for a few months before he gets the CIA to manufacture evidence to invade. It's not much progress, but it's something. The Iraq War was protested before it even began. That's an historical first, unless you want to count pacifist movements in the thirties.
At least Apple is trying to take some action. For that I can respect him. You, sir, however, appear to be an intellectual dick.
You respect him but not me for doing the same thing. I have a sneaking suspicion it has nothing to do with the moral differences in our actions, but with your own personal opinions about me.
And yes, I am an intellectual dick. Large segments of the adult world are infantilized and have bought the idea that self-fulfillment is the only metric by which life can be assessed. I had a former friend tell me that he was "creating" and that the very nature of taste was "inclusive by nature." And what is he doing? Working for someone else, and spending his money on things he likes. If this is a new standard for moral courage, then we are all fucked.
Given, I am doing the same thing, but I am under no misapprehension that living this way is helping society at large. I am part of the machine, funded with my apathy and my taxes, just as most everyone is. The only good thing I have to say about myself is that I have not accepted the notion that having a job and living is revolutionary. It's the most basic form of servitude to the way things are.
The OP isn't really doing anything. I'm not really doing anything. This post itself is probably a total waste of time. One of us just isn't in denial about it.
Americans are not ready for change. They are still in denial about the realities of things much more important than ACTA. It's going to take a larger crisis to wake them from their apathy.
In a sense, this is just as much as you have done. Identify what you consider a problem, tell the people you know about it, and hope they listen. Of course some of us are more self righteous than others with their impotent opinions.
PS This is one of the reasons I look up to Chomsky. He has been a true critic of state abuses of power and the threat of multinational corporations since long before you or I were born.
As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.
Just one point: don't confuse bad governance with government. The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it. Yeah, the media is shilling for corporate interests. But you decided to play a video game instead of doing anything about it. Instead of organizing your government, you went shopping or watched another hour of tv.
Piss and moan all you want, but anyone living in a democracy needs only a mirror to see who to blame.
The article states that, overall, two thirds of corporations don't pay income taxes, meaning that large corporations are actually better at paying taxes than other corporations.
Those corporations barely make any money - they are created mostly for legal reasons. How are they going to pay taxes?
Claiming that large corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes and sheltering schemes is patently false.
That's a parroted statement from the conservative think tank mentioned in the article, which has every reason to continue the charade about "net losses." Take a look at a more recent article:
Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations -- including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery -- have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found.
American International Group, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are among the companies that are getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers while having subsidiaries in locations where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Of the 100 largest public companies, 83 do business in tax-haven hotspots like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, where they can move their income into tax-free accounts....The Treasury estimates that it loses $100 billion a year in tax revenue as a result of companies shipping their income off shore, and congressional leaders are vowing to introduce legislation forcing big companies to pay full freight.
The GAO did not independently review company transactions to see if the companies purposely created tax-haven businesses to avoid U.S. taxes. But it said that historically, offshore subsidiaries are used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view.
So, 83% of the Fortune 100 does a lot of business in "tax-haven hotspots.. historically used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view." Interested in evading US taxes through loopholes? You can even go shopping for holding companies: http://www.lowtax.net/
Kudos on reinforcing your biases through sheer repetition of lies. Oh, and the credulity! I'll bet you're never out of stock of that, eh?
Since you seem rather skeptical of corporations, riddle me this: when they magically "absorb" these increased burdens, do you think it's going to be due to some brilliant synergy discovered by an intrepid MBA, or do you think they just worked it into the next round of nickel and diming everyone on the bottom of the food chain?
There is nothing magic about it. If you have been selling your product for one price point - adjust for inflation, usually - and you have the choice between pricing yourself out of a certain volume or canceling the Catalina Wine Mixer, that's a choice you make. Either way, the taxes get paid.
Really? People don't have an inalienable right to the freedom of association?
No, a group of people who have formed a corporation that is insolvent do not have any constitutional rights to continue to be insolvent.
I have a serious question: have you ever read anything that doesn't cater to your own preconceptions about business?
Muslims read and recite the whole Qu'ran with great interest and study. Say what you want about Evangelicals, but at least they have the good sense to ignore the bible and sing meaningless pop songs about prosperity instead. It makes America a much nicer place to live.
Did you miss the first day of economics? There's always downward pressure on prices. Any increased costs may be passed on to the consumer, but not always. The business that finds ways to absorb the tax increase without passing it on is the one that will probably sell more product.
But since a quarter of large corporations - $50m in sales or $250m in assets - don't pay any income taxes at all due to loopholes and offshore sheltering schemes, you're right: if they ever started to pay taxes, prices might go up.
And if corporations had to pay taxes for the infrastructure that enables them to be in business, I don't think that would be unfair. And if a business can't afford the burden of the infrastructure, guess what: they shouldn't be in business unless they serve to lower costs of vital services for the rest of the economy. And even then, since they exist entirely at the grace of tax payers, they should have no right to any amount of privacy.
Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’, and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is...
And later in the same e-mail thread:
Microsoft had (has) every right to enforce whatever rules for their platform they want. If people don’t like it, they can write for another platform, which some did. Or they can buy another platform, which some did.
As for us, we’re just doing what we can to try and make (and preserve) the user experience we envision. You can disagree with us, but our motives are pure.
Hmm. Purity. "Freedom" from using your devices however you want. Sounds like a philosophy with only one possible outcome. And the sad thing is, people will line up around the block to lose the right to administer their own computer. And pay a 30% on top of that for the logo that adorns their shiny new chains.
Historically, Iraqi women and girls have enjoyed relatively more rights than many of their counterparts in the Middle East. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly. Women and girls were disproportionately affected by the economic consequences of the U.N. sanctions, and lacked access to food, health care, and education. These effects were compounded by changes in the law that restricted women's mobility and access to the formal sector in an effort to ensure jobs to men and appease conservative religious and tribal groups...
The primary legal underpinning of women's equality is contained in the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, which was drafted by the Ba'ath party in 1970. Article 19 declares all citizens equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion. In January 1971, Iraq also ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provide equal protection under international law to all...
I will feel sorry for the people on the other side of the planet just as soon as they start hunting down and killing the people on their side of the planet that are sending people to this side, to this country, to kill us.
The US and Britain have had a constant military presence in the middle east since the end of WWI. That's about 90 years. How many middle eastern nations have a military presence in the United States or UK?
I will feel sorry for them when they stop supporting people who say I should die because I don't believe in their religion of murder and conversion at the point of a sword, or barrel of a gun if you prefer.
And they will feel sorry for you when you stop sending armies over to kill them and take control of their oil resources. Especially when you stop supporting murderous local dictators and monarchs who conspire with Western powers to suppress democratic movements in exchange for piles of money.
The association of America and Democracy causes hatred and laughter across the region for a very good reason: we've been doing our best to destroy a nation's right to self determination for decades. Look at the Kurds for chrissake. One one side of the Iraq border, we give them monetary and military support in exchange for their political support inside Iraq. On the other side of the same border we supply the Turkish army with the weapons to kill Kurds and suppress Kurdish popular movements.
The reason you don't know any of this is because none of it is reported, but you just swallow the same bullshit lines over and over again. Yeah, a bunch of people halfway across the world just woke up one day and decided they hated freedom, so instead of attacking democracies on that side of the earth, they spent millions of dollars to attack the United States because they are "evil." But that's okay, we're "good" so in response to the murder of 3,000 of our citizens, let's start two wars and kill and maim a few hundred thousand Muslims on their home territory. Let's send the cradle of civilization back to the stone ages, since it's the only place in the region where women have something resembling equal rights. That should alleviate the tension between our two cultures!
This is Steve Jobs. I'd like to thank you for your support of our platform. We offer freedom from programs that steal your private data, unless we decide to use it for marketing. Freedom from programs that trash your battery, even if it's something you'd like to do, like multi-task. Freedom from porn, even if you enjoy porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin', and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is.
In the future, if we decide to spread the iOS to more platforms in order to preserve our user experience, we are glad you will be so ready to accept the terms and conditions under which you will be allowed to store and access your own data.
All the best, Steve Jobs
PS: Be careful about recommending the girl thing, even if you think you are sterile. The court battles can be expensive, even when you're a millionaire like me.
Thank you for letting us know what we can do with our computers! I cannot wait to see the choices you have made for me with this latest update. My favorite artists are now too profane for my equipment, but now I am the mayor of my local Starbucks!
Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort it brings. -Walter Lippmann
Religion effectively turns otherwise sane people into what I like to call supermaterialists. Suddenly, a rock or a cave or other geographic location becomes worth more than the resources it can provide. Suddenly a drawing of a religious figure is enough to kill over. Suddenly you think there's an invisible person who will "sort things out" if you decide to kill a bunch of women and children.
Religion introduces nothing but tools to conquer reason in order to get ignorant followers to go along with whatever plan it's leaders have cooked up. It's why the all the nations who have clung to fundamentalism are in last place in pretty much every metric you can think of, and why America is quickly headed in the same direction.
Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but good artists are much harder to find than programmers. Good production requires good set designers, lighting directors, casting directors. Not to mention that the AV equipment required and support staff to run it cost much more than a single computer and an internet connection.
I've watched about 10 minutes. So far, you have stilted dialogue, characters talking to each other about plot points received from phone calls, a DHS agent who claims to know 47 languages, and very, very bad acting on top of all of it.
The plot seems original at least, but this is again proof that the BBC has the best model for rewarding good ideas. Publicly funded organizations that pick up new writing talent and help them develop their ideas with professional experience.
I work in the audio field and this reminds me why the democratization of cheap AV gear has not led to better sounding records. No amount of cheap fidelity can replace decades of experience making things sound better. And it can't replace a good producer telling a room full of writers that their scene is a crock of shit.
When is the last time a Leninist country invaded the United States? When is the last time one of our old allies that we armed against Leninism attacked us or one of our allies?
I just love the fact that America treats democracy is exactly like bin Laden treats Wahhabi extremism. Choose our way, or die trying something else.
And, by the way, if Leninist socialism hadn't existed, our only European trading partner might be the German Empire. But I guess anything is preferable to having communism, right?
A number of theories have been advanced for the Soviet action. These interpretations of Soviet motives do not always agree – what is known for certain is that the decision was influenced by many factors – that in Leonid Brezhnev's words the decision to enter Afghanistan was truly "no simple decision." Two factors were certain to have figured heavily in Soviet calculations. The Soviet Union, interested in establishing a "cordon sanitaire" of friendly or neutral states on its frontiers, was increasingly alarmed at the unstable, unpredictable situation on its southern border. Perhaps as important, the Brezhnev doctrine declared that the Soviet Union had a "zone of responsibility" where it had to come to the assistance of an endangered fellow socialist country. Presumably Afghanistan was a friendly regime that could not survive against growing pressure from the Pakistan backed islamist resistance without direct assistance from the Soviet Union.
The government of Babrak Karmal faced several challenges. Strong connection to the Soviets prevented popular acceptance of the legitimacy of his government. Even though the Parchamis, themselves, had been among the groups most viciously persecuted by the Khalqis, their identification with 'Anti-Islam' Marxism and Soviet 'infidels' was not forgiven. Indeed, the decimation of their members forced the Soviets to insist on reconciliation between the two factions. The purging of Parchamis had left the military forces so dominated by Khalqis that the Soviets had no choice but to rely upon Khalqi officers to rebuild the army.
Soviet miscalculation of what was required to crush Afghan resistance further aggravated the government's situation. The Afghan army was expected to carry the burden of suppressing opposition, which was to be done quickly with Soviet support. As the war of pacification dragged on for years, the Babrak Karmal government was further weakened by the poor performance of its army.
I see no credible evidence of what you suggested. Looks like a country decide to try Leninist socialism, and once again, the US assumed Soviet interference was cause enough in order to intervene with military force. If you really believe the Soviet Union had no right to interfere with a country on it's own border, then I can't imagine what you believe about the United States and it's various adventures around the globe.
PS: Large foreign military force carrying the banner of freedom and trying to reduce the influence of militants based in Pakistan sounds awfully fucking familiar, doesn't it?
Don't get me wrong, I fully think the Soviets are to blame for spoiling a hundred years of hard work by the Afghanis.
The USSR was fighting radical Islamic extremism. The more secular Marxist government of Afghanistan requested Soviet help to fend off attacks by radical Muslims. This has been further advanced by the declassification of many internal Soviet era documents.
The CIA, with several hundred billion dollars of US Taxpayer and Saudi money, radicalized the "freedom fighters" -- now called "insurgents" -- and armed a good number of jihadists from around the globe. Internally this was described as "giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam."
As soon as the last Russian soldier left, so did we. The radical muslims who were left fought over the scraps, and eventually the Taliban became the dominant force. Even though they imposed a disgraceful form of violent religious intolerance, it was welcomed in the vacuum of decades of warlords trying to destroy each other.
Almost all of the misery in the middle east can be directly traced to Western powers attempting to divide and control and conquer the region to exploit their geographical importance and natural resources. Making Iraq a country nearly equal in land controlled by Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis was not a mistake. Supporting murderous thugs and dictators who could control their populations was also not a mistake. Arming violent madmen who wanted to rid the world of Godless Atheists was also not a mistake.
All of those decisions, however, do carry consequences. And consequences that the Average Joe seems incapable of understanding, let alone accepting. The real lesson is this: leave sovereign nations alone. If you have made yourself dependent on their resources, then you have only yourself to blame. Get rid of the need, or play by their rules. Otherwise you are just another nation-state wallowing in moral hypocrisy.
Slashdot is here to provide tepidly intellectual nerds some dick grabbing space so they can pretend to be more knowledgeable than Harvard professors on topics outside of their expertise.
Pinker... graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, after which he became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
Agents in the case being anyone they could pay. Paying someone to bring you criminals is a really bad idea, since any judge would immediately consider the conflict of interest as a cause to have reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
I'm sure that paragraph could include a massive amount of legal terms if written by a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.
Yeah man, this is America. Pay up.
No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.
This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.
Pay up.
That is all.
So in your first post you criticize the parent for not doing anything.
I said, "The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it." The you referenced thereafter is not directed only at the OP.
Frankly, of the two of you, it sounds like Apple has the right to stand up and call people out for living in a democracy and not taking action. However, you don't.
You wholly misunderstand the concept of rights.
You sit there and preach about how you look up to Chomsky because he criticizes the government. Whoopty fuckin' do. Criticism is completely useless if action isn't taken as a result.
I'm sorry. Chomsky has written nearly 100 books, participated and given thousands of lectures, and been involved with direct action for at least forty years. I'm not sure why this isn't an accomplishment. Without Chomsky, we would not have the Propaganda Model. Many people in the world would be simply unaware of a whole host of current and historical issues and their true context.
As far as results, look at the difference. The President can't just carpet bomb random countries without congressional approval. He has to manipulate the media and commit serious resources to propaganda for a few months before he gets the CIA to manufacture evidence to invade. It's not much progress, but it's something. The Iraq War was protested before it even began. That's an historical first, unless you want to count pacifist movements in the thirties.
At least Apple is trying to take some action. For that I can respect him. You, sir, however, appear to be an intellectual dick.
You respect him but not me for doing the same thing. I have a sneaking suspicion it has nothing to do with the moral differences in our actions, but with your own personal opinions about me.
And yes, I am an intellectual dick. Large segments of the adult world are infantilized and have bought the idea that self-fulfillment is the only metric by which life can be assessed. I had a former friend tell me that he was "creating" and that the very nature of taste was "inclusive by nature." And what is he doing? Working for someone else, and spending his money on things he likes. If this is a new standard for moral courage, then we are all fucked.
Given, I am doing the same thing, but I am under no misapprehension that living this way is helping society at large. I am part of the machine, funded with my apathy and my taxes, just as most everyone is. The only good thing I have to say about myself is that I have not accepted the notion that having a job and living is revolutionary. It's the most basic form of servitude to the way things are.
The OP isn't really doing anything. I'm not really doing anything. This post itself is probably a total waste of time. One of us just isn't in denial about it.
Americans are not ready for change. They are still in denial about the realities of things much more important than ACTA. It's going to take a larger crisis to wake them from their apathy.
In a sense, this is just as much as you have done. Identify what you consider a problem, tell the people you know about it, and hope they listen. Of course some of us are more self righteous than others with their impotent opinions.
PS This is one of the reasons I look up to Chomsky. He has been a true critic of state abuses of power and the threat of multinational corporations since long before you or I were born.
As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.
Just one point: don't confuse bad governance with government. The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it. Yeah, the media is shilling for corporate interests. But you decided to play a video game instead of doing anything about it. Instead of organizing your government, you went shopping or watched another hour of tv.
Piss and moan all you want, but anyone living in a democracy needs only a mirror to see who to blame.
The article states that, overall, two thirds of corporations don't pay income taxes, meaning that large corporations are actually better at paying taxes than other corporations.
Those corporations barely make any money - they are created mostly for legal reasons. How are they going to pay taxes?
Claiming that large corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes and sheltering schemes is patently false.
That's a parroted statement from the conservative think tank mentioned in the article, which has every reason to continue the charade about "net losses." Take a look at a more recent article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011602602.html
Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations -- including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery -- have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found.
American International Group, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are among the companies that are getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers while having subsidiaries in locations where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Of the 100 largest public companies, 83 do business in tax-haven hotspots like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, where they can move their income into tax-free accounts. ...The Treasury estimates that it loses $100 billion a year in tax revenue as a result of companies shipping their income off shore, and congressional leaders are vowing to introduce legislation forcing big companies to pay full freight.
The GAO did not independently review company transactions to see if the companies purposely created tax-haven businesses to avoid U.S. taxes. But it said that historically, offshore subsidiaries are used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view.
So, 83% of the Fortune 100 does a lot of business in "tax-haven hotspots.. historically used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view." Interested in evading US taxes through loopholes? You can even go shopping for holding companies: http://www.lowtax.net/
Kudos on reinforcing your biases through sheer repetition of lies. Oh, and the credulity! I'll bet you're never out of stock of that, eh?
I suspect they figured no one would bother to use to try and make a phone call.
Since you seem rather skeptical of corporations, riddle me this: when they magically "absorb" these increased burdens, do you think it's going to be due to some brilliant synergy discovered by an intrepid MBA, or do you think they just worked it into the next round of nickel and diming everyone on the bottom of the food chain?
There is nothing magic about it. If you have been selling your product for one price point - adjust for inflation, usually - and you have the choice between pricing yourself out of a certain volume or canceling the Catalina Wine Mixer, that's a choice you make. Either way, the taxes get paid.
Really? People don't have an inalienable right to the freedom of association?
No, a group of people who have formed a corporation that is insolvent do not have any constitutional rights to continue to be insolvent.
I have a serious question: have you ever read anything that doesn't cater to your own preconceptions about business?
Muslims read and recite the whole Qu'ran with great interest and study. Say what you want about Evangelicals, but at least they have the good sense to ignore the bible and sing meaningless pop songs about prosperity instead. It makes America a much nicer place to live.
Anyone know what the arabic phrase for "epic fail" is?
I believe it goes something like, "Welcome to college, miss. I hope you continue to receive a good education."
PS: This was also considered failure in the Old South.
Did you miss the first day of economics? There's always downward pressure on prices. Any increased costs may be passed on to the consumer, but not always. The business that finds ways to absorb the tax increase without passing it on is the one that will probably sell more product.
But since a quarter of large corporations - $50m in sales or $250m in assets - don't pay any income taxes at all due to loopholes and offshore sheltering schemes, you're right: if they ever started to pay taxes, prices might go up.
And if corporations had to pay taxes for the infrastructure that enables them to be in business, I don't think that would be unfair. And if a business can't afford the burden of the infrastructure, guess what: they shouldn't be in business unless they serve to lower costs of vital services for the rest of the economy. And even then, since they exist entirely at the grace of tax payers, they should have no right to any amount of privacy.
http://techie-buzz.com/apple/steve-jobs-the-times-they-are-a-changin.html
Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’, and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is...
And later in the same e-mail thread:
Microsoft had (has) every right to enforce whatever rules for their platform they want. If people don’t like it, they can write for another platform, which some did. Or they can buy another platform, which some did.
As for us, we’re just doing what we can to try and make (and preserve) the user experience we envision. You can disagree with us, but our motives are pure.
Hmm. Purity. "Freedom" from using your devices however you want. Sounds like a philosophy with only one possible outcome. And the sad thing is, people will line up around the block to lose the right to administer their own computer. And pay a 30% on top of that for the logo that adorns their shiny new chains.
You should perhaps read before you write.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
Historically, Iraqi women and girls have enjoyed relatively more rights than many of their counterparts in the Middle East. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly. Women and girls were disproportionately affected by the economic consequences of the U.N. sanctions, and lacked access to food, health care, and education. These effects were compounded by changes in the law that restricted women's mobility and access to the formal sector in an effort to ensure jobs to men and appease conservative religious and tribal groups...
The primary legal underpinning of women's equality is contained in the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, which was drafted by the Ba'ath party in 1970. Article 19 declares all citizens equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion. In January 1971, Iraq also ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provide equal protection under international law to all...
I will feel sorry for the people on the other side of the planet just as soon as they start hunting down and killing the people on their side of the planet that are sending people to this side, to this country, to kill us.
The US and Britain have had a constant military presence in the middle east since the end of WWI. That's about 90 years. How many middle eastern nations have a military presence in the United States or UK?
I will feel sorry for them when they stop supporting people who say I should die because I don't believe in their religion of murder and conversion at the point of a sword, or barrel of a gun if you prefer.
And they will feel sorry for you when you stop sending armies over to kill them and take control of their oil resources. Especially when you stop supporting murderous local dictators and monarchs who conspire with Western powers to suppress democratic movements in exchange for piles of money.
The association of America and Democracy causes hatred and laughter across the region for a very good reason: we've been doing our best to destroy a nation's right to self determination for decades. Look at the Kurds for chrissake. One one side of the Iraq border, we give them monetary and military support in exchange for their political support inside Iraq. On the other side of the same border we supply the Turkish army with the weapons to kill Kurds and suppress Kurdish popular movements.
The reason you don't know any of this is because none of it is reported, but you just swallow the same bullshit lines over and over again. Yeah, a bunch of people halfway across the world just woke up one day and decided they hated freedom, so instead of attacking democracies on that side of the earth, they spent millions of dollars to attack the United States because they are "evil." But that's okay, we're "good" so in response to the murder of 3,000 of our citizens, let's start two wars and kill and maim a few hundred thousand Muslims on their home territory. Let's send the cradle of civilization back to the stone ages, since it's the only place in the region where women have something resembling equal rights. That should alleviate the tension between our two cultures!
You fucking moron.
Dear webdog,
This is Steve Jobs. I'd like to thank you for your support of our platform. We offer freedom from programs that steal your private data, unless we decide to use it for marketing. Freedom from programs that trash your battery, even if it's something you'd like to do, like multi-task. Freedom from porn, even if you enjoy porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin', and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is.
In the future, if we decide to spread the iOS to more platforms in order to preserve our user experience, we are glad you will be so ready to accept the terms and conditions under which you will be allowed to store and access your own data.
All the best,
Steve Jobs
PS: Be careful about recommending the girl thing, even if you think you are sterile. The court battles can be expensive, even when you're a millionaire like me.
Dear Steve,
Thank you for letting us know what we can do with our computers! I cannot wait to see the choices you have made for me with this latest update. My favorite artists are now too profane for my equipment, but now I am the mayor of my local Starbucks!
Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort it brings. -Walter Lippmann
Religion effectively turns otherwise sane people into what I like to call supermaterialists. Suddenly, a rock or a cave or other geographic location becomes worth more than the resources it can provide. Suddenly a drawing of a religious figure is enough to kill over. Suddenly you think there's an invisible person who will "sort things out" if you decide to kill a bunch of women and children.
Religion introduces nothing but tools to conquer reason in order to get ignorant followers to go along with whatever plan it's leaders have cooked up. It's why the all the nations who have clung to fundamentalism are in last place in pretty much every metric you can think of, and why America is quickly headed in the same direction.
Are you saying there is less free talent available in the AV arts than in programming?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but good artists are much harder to find than programmers. Good production requires good set designers, lighting directors, casting directors. Not to mention that the AV equipment required and support staff to run it cost much more than a single computer and an internet connection.
I've watched about 10 minutes. So far, you have stilted dialogue, characters talking to each other about plot points received from phone calls, a DHS agent who claims to know 47 languages, and very, very bad acting on top of all of it.
The plot seems original at least, but this is again proof that the BBC has the best model for rewarding good ideas. Publicly funded organizations that pick up new writing talent and help them develop their ideas with professional experience.
I work in the audio field and this reminds me why the democratization of cheap AV gear has not led to better sounding records. No amount of cheap fidelity can replace decades of experience making things sound better. And it can't replace a good producer telling a room full of writers that their scene is a crock of shit.
When is the last time a Leninist country invaded the United States? When is the last time one of our old allies that we armed against Leninism attacked us or one of our allies?
I just love the fact that America treats democracy is exactly like bin Laden treats Wahhabi extremism. Choose our way, or die trying something else.
And, by the way, if Leninist socialism hadn't existed, our only European trading partner might be the German Empire. But I guess anything is preferable to having communism, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan
A number of theories have been advanced for the Soviet action. These interpretations of Soviet motives do not always agree – what is known for certain is that the decision was influenced by many factors – that in Leonid Brezhnev's words the decision to enter Afghanistan was truly "no simple decision." Two factors were certain to have figured heavily in Soviet calculations. The Soviet Union, interested in establishing a "cordon sanitaire" of friendly or neutral states on its frontiers, was increasingly alarmed at the unstable, unpredictable situation on its southern border. Perhaps as important, the Brezhnev doctrine declared that the Soviet Union had a "zone of responsibility" where it had to come to the assistance of an endangered fellow socialist country. Presumably Afghanistan was a friendly regime that could not survive against growing pressure from the Pakistan backed islamist resistance without direct assistance from the Soviet Union.
The government of Babrak Karmal faced several challenges. Strong connection to the Soviets prevented popular acceptance of the legitimacy of his government. Even though the Parchamis, themselves, had been among the groups most viciously persecuted by the Khalqis, their identification with 'Anti-Islam' Marxism and Soviet 'infidels' was not forgiven. Indeed, the decimation of their members forced the Soviets to insist on reconciliation between the two factions. The purging of Parchamis had left the military forces so dominated by Khalqis that the Soviets had no choice but to rely upon Khalqi officers to rebuild the army.
Soviet miscalculation of what was required to crush Afghan resistance further aggravated the government's situation. The Afghan army was expected to carry the burden of suppressing opposition, which was to be done quickly with Soviet support. As the war of pacification dragged on for years, the Babrak Karmal government was further weakened by the poor performance of its army.
I see no credible evidence of what you suggested. Looks like a country decide to try Leninist socialism, and once again, the US assumed Soviet interference was cause enough in order to intervene with military force. If you really believe the Soviet Union had no right to interfere with a country on it's own border, then I can't imagine what you believe about the United States and it's various adventures around the globe.
PS: Large foreign military force carrying the banner of freedom and trying to reduce the influence of militants based in Pakistan sounds awfully fucking familiar, doesn't it?
Don't get me wrong, I fully think the Soviets are to blame for spoiling a hundred years of hard work by the Afghanis.
The USSR was fighting radical Islamic extremism. The more secular Marxist government of Afghanistan requested Soviet help to fend off attacks by radical Muslims. This has been further advanced by the declassification of many internal Soviet era documents.
The CIA, with several hundred billion dollars of US Taxpayer and Saudi money, radicalized the "freedom fighters" -- now called "insurgents" -- and armed a good number of jihadists from around the globe. Internally this was described as "giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam."
As soon as the last Russian soldier left, so did we. The radical muslims who were left fought over the scraps, and eventually the Taliban became the dominant force. Even though they imposed a disgraceful form of violent religious intolerance, it was welcomed in the vacuum of decades of warlords trying to destroy each other.
Almost all of the misery in the middle east can be directly traced to Western powers attempting to divide and control and conquer the region to exploit their geographical importance and natural resources. Making Iraq a country nearly equal in land controlled by Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis was not a mistake. Supporting murderous thugs and dictators who could control their populations was also not a mistake. Arming violent madmen who wanted to rid the world of Godless Atheists was also not a mistake.
All of those decisions, however, do carry consequences. And consequences that the Average Joe seems incapable of understanding, let alone accepting. The real lesson is this: leave sovereign nations alone. If you have made yourself dependent on their resources, then you have only yourself to blame. Get rid of the need, or play by their rules. Otherwise you are just another nation-state wallowing in moral hypocrisy.
Slashdot is here to provide tepidly intellectual nerds some dick grabbing space so they can pretend to be more knowledgeable than Harvard professors on topics outside of their expertise.
Here are Pinker's credentials:
Pinker... graduated from Montreal's Dawson College in 1973. He received a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University in 1976, and then went on to earn his doctorate in the same discipline at Harvard in 1979. He did research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a year, after which he became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University. From 1982 until 2003, Pinker taught at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. (Except for a one-year sabbatical at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1995-6.) As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
Where are yours?
Can we get back to a world where a person said something after they gathered information on it?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
Agents in the case being anyone they could pay. Paying someone to bring you criminals is a really bad idea, since any judge would immediately consider the conflict of interest as a cause to have reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
I'm sure that paragraph could include a massive amount of legal terms if written by a lawyer.
Nah, what was I thinking, we live in way to free of a society for that to ever happen. What a relief
Entrapment is illegal. Our failure to make sure law enforcement obeys the law is our fault.