the whole premise of free trade essentially requires that foreigners can own land, or own "something" in another country... Do you think the US should be allowed to write off the debt, never paying it back because they don't want another country to own so much of our country? In my view, that is stealing (what a government does best), and is immoral. It would also likely result in a huge war with china.
If China demanded all of their money back and collapsed the American economy, could we then write off the debt? If the American economy completely collapsed and China bought nearly all of our arable land, kicked out the agribusinesses that were running them, and then exported most of the food back to China, would you support nationalizing our farmland? We have done similar things to a dozen countries.
The premise here is that we never asked Cuba if they'd like to trade with us without showing them the gun in our other hand. We said, give us everything we want, or we will take everything that we want. We said, we are going take all the land that belongs to local farmers, kick them into the cities to drive down wages for manufacturing, and then turn the whole country into a profit center for sugar producers, and send all of the profits back to the US. That's not free trade. It's thinly veiled colonialism.
Stop jumping through mental hoops to protect your belief system. It's slightly pathetic at this point.
Cuba is small and within our sphere of influence. Therefore, it can be abused as much as we like, maligned, embargoed, scapegoated, and even invaded. After we tried to turn it into a puppet state, the local population revolted and threw us out. It continues to remain a symbol of successful resistance to American control. (Critics will point to it's economic failures, which have almost everything to do with the results of our desire to crush it.)
The West tried to the same intervention in China, and the result was the Boxer Rebellion. If China were smaller and closer to the United States, there would be no difference in the way they are treated. Now China has money and a manufacturing sector, so they are "worthy" of being dealt with. So much so that even the hardline nationalists don't dare to insult China and publicly restate their support of a "One China" policy, so when Beijing absorbs Taiwan, America will be able to save some face.
Decades later we are still somehow surprised by the ferocity of indigenous revolt to foreign rule. Though we can turn to romance when it's our ancestors who are doing the revolting.
Twas hard the woeful words to frame To break the ties that bound us But harder still to bear the shame Of foreign chains around us And so I said, "The mountain glen I'll seek at morning early And join the bold United Men While soft winds shake the barley"
You're right, it will be on Fox News. Remember, that's only from 9 am to 4 pm, and from 6 pm to 8 pm. The rest? Not even close to news. Just a bunch of washed up entertainers pretending like they're not pretending to be journalists.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But I do think we should be more responsible in letting people know the truth. I do think - in all fairness - you should correctly inform consumers of what they are consuming. If it said on the label that your video card was manufactured in a near forced labor camp in China that had multiple citations by human rights groups, I'll bet less people would buy it.
Similarly, since Fox News only broadcasts news for 9 hours a day, it should be called Fox Political Network There should be a warning before each show that the talking heads are not journalists, just entertainers. Slap the warning on any show on any network that doesn't claim journalistic integrity. I bet much of middle America would be surprised that the Daily Show and Fox and Friends have the same amount of credibility.
for NO GAIN OF OUR OWN (this includes both Iraq (the supposed "bad war") and Afghanistan (the supposed "good war" that people are now having second thoughts about). Your cluelessness on what constitutes a "good country" and a "bad country" is truly epic.
Germany and Japan were only built up as counterweights to the influence of Russia and China. South Korea was a counterweight to China. Vietnam, since the intelligence community at the time was so hilariously inept, was also a counterweight to the threat of communist China. (The Vietnamese have been fighting the Chinese for centuries). Iraq and Afghanistan are strategically important, due to their geography and their natural resources. If Iraq didn't have oil, we wouldn't care what Saddam was doing. And if Saddam had continued to play by the rules, we would have let him continue to murder and kill for decades more. This is why we sit and watch Rwanda and Darfur with detached interest.
This is beyond the fact that the "nation" of Iraq as it is today is a figment of British imagination, purposefully drawn to create a state that is both rich in natural resources and completely divided internally, so it will be dependent on foreign powers. Just as it is beyond the fact that Saudi Arabia has a human rights record just as bad as Iran, it's an Islamic monarchy that doesn't allow non-Muslims to testify in court, or anyone to even pretend to vote, but it receives no criticism because it is - for now - a faithful lapdog.
I doubt you know that we invaded and occupied Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines, with tens of thousands of Marines. Or that we sponsored murderous thugs throughout Central and South America, if those thugs provided profit opportunities for American businesses. This is how it begins - a trade war. If it continues, watch the men in charge unleash the media on the "leftist" government in Costa Rica.
Your statement also ignored the fact that these people have a right to choose their own destiny, since they are sovereign nations. Unless you'd like someone to invade America and choose our political system for us, I think you should reconsider your position and it's consequences.
Your understanding of history is truly pathetic. If it wasn't, however, it would be tough to convince me you were an American. I hope for your sake you never receive what you have wished upon others.
Fortunately for him he lives in a society where you can formulate political opinion from a variety of sources and not resort to a childish game of name calling and vague nonsensical grandstanding. In many parts of the world, you can call yourself a communist or a marxist or a socialist and then have a discussion about what that means.
Stateside, I bet many people would consider calling the police. But such is the state of our populace: hysterical cowards and uneducated drones, ready to plead fealty to whatever entity promises them the most convenience and security.
First of all, all of the numbers they have are pulled out of their ass. Second, there is no recognition of the fact that curiosity is not the same thing as a lost sale in the digital realm.
For me, I know that when I was younger I pirated all kinds of software, just because I wanted to see what it did. As I got older, I paid for it when I could afford it. This was the only option for those of us who didn't have an edu e-mail address to get the "taste" that the companies provide at ridiculously low prices.
I sincerely hope that Microsoft, Adobe, and Autodesk get together and create an unbreakable DRM scheme. Open source projects would immediately improve as the user base started to explode. Their marketshare would begin to reflect what everyone else already knows - that "piracy" is a vital part of their product cycle. It allows people to learn their software without burdening their support team, and hooks them into that workflow. When that person begins depending on the workflow, or begins work for a company, they are very likely to buy that product.
If they really wanted to see sales improve, they would charge according to the age of the user. If the price steadily increased from $50 to $1000 or whatever, with no upgrades unless you paid full price, and flattened once you hit age 30, there would be constant pressure to buy each year before your birthday. Companies would get thousands of curious new users every year to resell to, and they would get money, and the whippersnappers wouldn't have to worry about going to jail over the greed of some fat men feeding in Silicon Valley.
Unlike Haiti and Cuba, the politicians in the Dominican Republic have done exactly as instructed by Washington DC. This is the single metric by which nations are measured - democracy, free speech, genocide, totalitarianism, and fascism are all equally tolerable as long as you know who the boss is.
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.
In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act’s biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtz’s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.
Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster. A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.
People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.
And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point? I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.
If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.
1% of Americans owned about 35% of the stock market in 2004. If one includes them in the top 10% of Americans, they owned 80% of the stock market. That leaves 20% of the stock market for the other 90% of the population.
But don't let reality get in the way of your preconceived notions and anecdotes. Common sense is, after all, "the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
The reason Haiti is in the shithole is because it's been occupied and abused by foreign powers. We've been involved since the end of the 19th Century, when legendary Marine Smedley Butler, in his own words, "was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism... I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in."
Haiti was occupied by the United States from 1915-1934. Since then, marines have been sent to Haiti numerous times. The CIA played both sides of Duvalier while his paramilitary force, the Tonton Macoute, assassinated dissidents and anyone who dared oppose Papa Doc. In a final embarrassment to the Haitian people and to the very idea of democracy itself, the Bush Administration sent the Marines to help finalize the coup in 2004 by kidnapping Aristide and sending him to Africa, once again throwing the nation into chaos.
It's good that the US Government is assisting the Haitian people during the disaster, and I never discount the generosity of the American public. Just don't be surprised if they don't treat us like friends.
A new book on the subject, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment by Peter Hallward, scrupulously documents the events leading up to February 29, 2004, and concludes that what occurred during the "rebellion" was in fact a modern coup d'état, financed and orchestrated by forces allied with the US government. Hallward provides extensive documentation for his claims in interviews he has given on the subject. -Wikipedia
1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)
Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.
2. a nation
They've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall. They've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products. As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things, you're not going to hear about the problems, and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.
3. a global community of nations (UN)
They'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries. They'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq, and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.
The morality of the market Is easily reflected in Google's stock price. I think this is why Google is still privately controlled instead of at the whim of the shareholders, or as I like to call them, the greedy ancient Court of Douchebags.
Google Inc. (GOOG, $580.93, -$9.55, -1.62%) said it may leave China after an investigation found the company had been hit with major cyber attacks it believes originated from the country--a move that would amount to one of the highest-profile rebukes yet of China by a major U.S. firm. The talk tossed China's Internet economy into turmoil, and sent Chinese search company Baidu ($431.67, +$45.18, +11.69%) soaring. Deutsche Bank upgraded the company to buy from hold saying Google threat is likely a plus for Baidu no matter how it shakes out. Other Chinese Internet firms also rose, including Sohu.com Inc. (SOHU, $58.98, +$0.85, +1.46%) and Sina Corp. (SINA, $44.87, +$0.30, +0.67%).
Banks falsified mortgage documents, and resold their mortgages again and again until it turned the world financial system into a casino, and bet against their customers with credit default swaps. Major agribusinesses have successfully lobbied congress to subsidize cheap quality food that is leading to a diabetes epidemic that will probably bankrupt the United States. Arms manufacturers and subcontractors are profiting billions off of warfare and abusing human rights and not being punished for it. Unemployment is at 17% because corporations continue to offshore jobs to further enrich their shareholders and pay their board members tens of millions as a reward for putting Americans out of work and destroying the middle class. But the real fucking problem is that you can't download gigabytes of information for the price you want to pay? Or that comcast is advertising the fact that there will be caps?
There is no adversarial relationships between businesses and customers. They own you, because they are the government. Mussolini called this Fascism. And because you are only concerned about their actions when you think it inconveniences you. It's like bemoaning a thief for stealing your TV when he drove off with it in your car.
And after all the whining and bitching in this thread about something as meaningless as bandwidth caps - not censorship, or sharing data with Federal agencies, or providing evidence to the RIAA - makes me wonder if you don't deserve it for being so fucking short sighted.
You don't like Comcast? Fine. Don't use their service. Or upgrade to Business for unlimited access. Or go with a competitor if you can. Or maybe even do something like threaten your state representative with losing votes if he doesn't demand equal access for different providers. But I doubt anyone here has the will to even get off their chair, let alone do something besides bitch about a really meaningless problem. And the corporations know it to. You're pathetic. You're only concerned with the immediacy of your level of luxury. You deserve what you get when the best you can muster is stamping your feet, and saying life isn't fair.
The saddest irony of this entire situation is this fact: you would rather accept what Comcast is willing to give you than go without, to make any sort of sacrifice whatsoever. When this is the level of your slavery to your material life, why would you expect them to ever let go of the reins?
Thank god someone is standing up for the poor, downtrodden multibillion dollar corporations.
Does anyone wonder why big business feels they can treat consumers like crap with impunity?
Yes... major network providers allow the NSA to build NOCs inside their datacenters, but the problem is there may be an arbitrary cap for bandwidth usage.
The corporations are winning because you're more concerned about convenience than you are about your rights.
Fine print is a common business practice, only because people are so unreasonable sometimes. I ran a restaurant where we had all you can eat specials, and we had to put a little fine print to say you couldn't stay longer than two hours, since the first weekend a couple of people stayed for nearly four hours, and then tried to refuse to leave.
Or just watch a few HQ videos, participate in some [legit] torrents, etc. We easily go far past 250GB per month on our fiber connection (which is uncapped, unthrottled, etc.)
250GB is more than eight days of Netflix movies streaming, or two months of non-stop standard def Youtube watching, or downloading 64,000 songs. If you're hitting the upper limit, you probably don't mind spending another $30 for the "premium" no cap services, and if you're running a business from home, you'll need to pay for that kind of service.
I do not support a commercially owned last mile, but this is really a non issue for most people.
Then the article should read, "T-Mobile Charges ETF For Nexus One on top of Google's" but instead, it reads the other way around because Google is news and a cell carrier shafting their customer is not.
T-Mobile has decided to charge a fee for early termination of contract. I agree it's shady, but Google clearly is not making this decision for T-Mobile.
Google states that if you cancel the contract within the first four months, you have to pay them the for the rest of the phone. ($350 + $180 = $530)
The T-Mobile fine print says:
THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS: $200 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH MORE THAN 180 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; $100 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH 91 TO 180 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; $50 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH 31 TO 91 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; AND THE LESSER OF $50 OR YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGES (including any applicable taxes and fees) IF YOU TERMINATE IN THE LAST 30 DAYS OF YOUR TERM. The Early Termination Fee is part of our rates and is not a penalty.
How is Google double dipping by demanding no money if you cancel after 120 days?
Until what's-his-nuts cashes is in like a prime time cable news anchor (or even worse, Nancy Grace) on the suffering of others by retreading the same old bullshit ideas, then he won't hold a candle to the inferno of dumb that was, and sadly is, Jon Katz.
Until the FDA is publicly funded again, the pharmaceutical industry will continue to abuse the entire medical industry.
For the first 86 years of FDA's existence, from 1906-1992, all of FDA's funding came through the U.S. Treasury. In other words, everyone -- industry, people -- paid their taxes, and FDA got appropriations out of the budget.
Starting in 1992, unfortunately, a law was passed that said for a large proportion of the work done by the FDA on new drug applications, the money's going to come directly, quid pro quo, from the industry. If they want a drug reviewed, they pay directly to the FDA to have the drug reviewed.
-Sidney Wolfe, Director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group
Sorry I missed this, but what exactly are you saying that differs from what I said? Namely, that if a corporation has control over something you need, they will charge whatever you are willing to pay for it.
This is particular to corporations, since the decision making process is never on an individual moral level, but a collective desire for money by persons who are not affected by the actions they perform through the corporation.
This solutions to this are simple. This took me about a minute, not counting proof reading.
1) The charging device also has a small hard drive built into it that always syncs the data - just like iTunes already does if you have an iPhone.
2) The unique data - contact, calendars, documents - are constantly backed up to a server over the internet connection. Program data can easily be preloaded or reloaded onto a new phone.
3) As far as monetary risks are concerned, there is something called insurance. You may want to look into it.
The line between what a cell phone and a laptop and a computer mean intrinsically will continue to blur. Soon it will be simply the size of the interface. You'll have a mobile. Maybe the mobile will dock into a laptop or tablet style chassis to provide extra power and a full keyboard and larger screen - just like Lenovo just demonstrated at CES. The mobile can also be docked to your desktop system if you really need some extra horsepower or a fiber connection to the net. Meanwhile, your data is always with you. Doesn't sound so bad.
Slashdot Mirror
the whole premise of free trade essentially requires that foreigners can own land, or own "something" in another country... Do you think the US should be allowed to write off the debt, never paying it back because they don't want another country to own so much of our country? In my view, that is stealing (what a government does best), and is immoral. It would also likely result in a huge war with china.
If China demanded all of their money back and collapsed the American economy, could we then write off the debt? If the American economy completely collapsed and China bought nearly all of our arable land, kicked out the agribusinesses that were running them, and then exported most of the food back to China, would you support nationalizing our farmland? We have done similar things to a dozen countries.
The premise here is that we never asked Cuba if they'd like to trade with us without showing them the gun in our other hand. We said, give us everything we want, or we will take everything that we want. We said, we are going take all the land that belongs to local farmers, kick them into the cities to drive down wages for manufacturing, and then turn the whole country into a profit center for sugar producers, and send all of the profits back to the US. That's not free trade. It's thinly veiled colonialism.
Stop jumping through mental hoops to protect your belief system. It's slightly pathetic at this point.
Cuba is small and within our sphere of influence. Therefore, it can be abused as much as we like, maligned, embargoed, scapegoated, and even invaded. After we tried to turn it into a puppet state, the local population revolted and threw us out. It continues to remain a symbol of successful resistance to American control. (Critics will point to it's economic failures, which have almost everything to do with the results of our desire to crush it.)
The West tried to the same intervention in China, and the result was the Boxer Rebellion. If China were smaller and closer to the United States, there would be no difference in the way they are treated. Now China has money and a manufacturing sector, so they are "worthy" of being dealt with. So much so that even the hardline nationalists don't dare to insult China and publicly restate their support of a "One China" policy, so when Beijing absorbs Taiwan, America will be able to save some face.
Decades later we are still somehow surprised by the ferocity of indigenous revolt to foreign rule. Though we can turn to romance when it's our ancestors who are doing the revolting.
Twas hard the woeful words to frame
To break the ties that bound us
But harder still to bear the shame
Of foreign chains around us
And so I said, "The mountain glen
I'll seek at morning early
And join the bold United Men
While soft winds shake the barley"
You're right, it will be on Fox News. Remember, that's only from 9 am to 4 pm, and from 6 pm to 8 pm. The rest? Not even close to news. Just a bunch of washed up entertainers pretending like they're not pretending to be journalists.
After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.
Sincerely,
Your Fox Opinutainment Team
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But I do think we should be more responsible in letting people know the truth. I do think - in all fairness - you should correctly inform consumers of what they are consuming. If it said on the label that your video card was manufactured in a near forced labor camp in China that had multiple citations by human rights groups, I'll bet less people would buy it.
Similarly, since Fox News only broadcasts news for 9 hours a day, it should be called Fox Political Network There should be a warning before each show that the talking heads are not journalists, just entertainers. Slap the warning on any show on any network that doesn't claim journalistic integrity. I bet much of middle America would be surprised that the Daily Show and Fox and Friends have the same amount of credibility.
for NO GAIN OF OUR OWN (this includes both Iraq (the supposed "bad war") and Afghanistan (the supposed "good war" that people are now having second thoughts about). Your cluelessness on what constitutes a "good country" and a "bad country" is truly epic.
Germany and Japan were only built up as counterweights to the influence of Russia and China. South Korea was a counterweight to China. Vietnam, since the intelligence community at the time was so hilariously inept, was also a counterweight to the threat of communist China. (The Vietnamese have been fighting the Chinese for centuries). Iraq and Afghanistan are strategically important, due to their geography and their natural resources. If Iraq didn't have oil, we wouldn't care what Saddam was doing. And if Saddam had continued to play by the rules, we would have let him continue to murder and kill for decades more. This is why we sit and watch Rwanda and Darfur with detached interest.
This is beyond the fact that the "nation" of Iraq as it is today is a figment of British imagination, purposefully drawn to create a state that is both rich in natural resources and completely divided internally, so it will be dependent on foreign powers. Just as it is beyond the fact that Saudi Arabia has a human rights record just as bad as Iran, it's an Islamic monarchy that doesn't allow non-Muslims to testify in court, or anyone to even pretend to vote, but it receives no criticism because it is - for now - a faithful lapdog.
I doubt you know that we invaded and occupied Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines, with tens of thousands of Marines. Or that we sponsored murderous thugs throughout Central and South America, if those thugs provided profit opportunities for American businesses. This is how it begins - a trade war. If it continues, watch the men in charge unleash the media on the "leftist" government in Costa Rica.
Your statement also ignored the fact that these people have a right to choose their own destiny, since they are sovereign nations. Unless you'd like someone to invade America and choose our political system for us, I think you should reconsider your position and it's consequences.
Your understanding of history is truly pathetic. If it wasn't, however, it would be tough to convince me you were an American. I hope for your sake you never receive what you have wished upon others.
But, Señor Llamazares is a Commie
Fortunately for him he lives in a society where you can formulate political opinion from a variety of sources and not resort to a childish game of name calling and vague nonsensical grandstanding. In many parts of the world, you can call yourself a communist or a marxist or a socialist and then have a discussion about what that means.
Stateside, I bet many people would consider calling the police. But such is the state of our populace: hysterical cowards and uneducated drones, ready to plead fealty to whatever entity promises them the most convenience and security.
First of all, all of the numbers they have are pulled out of their ass. Second, there is no recognition of the fact that curiosity is not the same thing as a lost sale in the digital realm.
For me, I know that when I was younger I pirated all kinds of software, just because I wanted to see what it did. As I got older, I paid for it when I could afford it. This was the only option for those of us who didn't have an edu e-mail address to get the "taste" that the companies provide at ridiculously low prices.
I sincerely hope that Microsoft, Adobe, and Autodesk get together and create an unbreakable DRM scheme. Open source projects would immediately improve as the user base started to explode. Their marketshare would begin to reflect what everyone else already knows - that "piracy" is a vital part of their product cycle. It allows people to learn their software without burdening their support team, and hooks them into that workflow. When that person begins depending on the workflow, or begins work for a company, they are very likely to buy that product.
If they really wanted to see sales improve, they would charge according to the age of the user. If the price steadily increased from $50 to $1000 or whatever, with no upgrades unless you paid full price, and flattened once you hit age 30, there would be constant pressure to buy each year before your birthday. Companies would get thousands of curious new users every year to resell to, and they would get money, and the whippersnappers wouldn't have to worry about going to jail over the greed of some fat men feeding in Silicon Valley.
Unlike Haiti and Cuba, the politicians in the Dominican Republic have done exactly as instructed by Washington DC. This is the single metric by which nations are measured - democracy, free speech, genocide, totalitarianism, and fascism are all equally tolerable as long as you know who the boss is.
Don't take my word for it - read about it for yourself.
ANY QUESTIONS?
Yes, just one. Have you been asleep since 2001?
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.
In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act’s biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtz’s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.
Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster. A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.
http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php
People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.
And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point? I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.
If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.
1% of Americans owned about 35% of the stock market in 2004. If one includes them in the top 10% of Americans, they owned 80% of the stock market. That leaves 20% of the stock market for the other 90% of the population.
But don't let reality get in the way of your preconceived notions and anecdotes. Common sense is, after all, "the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
The reason Haiti is in the shithole is because it's been occupied and abused by foreign powers. We've been involved since the end of the 19th Century, when legendary Marine Smedley Butler, in his own words, "was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism... I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in."
Haiti was occupied by the United States from 1915-1934. Since then, marines have been sent to Haiti numerous times. The CIA played both sides of Duvalier while his paramilitary force, the Tonton Macoute, assassinated dissidents and anyone who dared oppose Papa Doc. In a final embarrassment to the Haitian people and to the very idea of democracy itself, the Bush Administration sent the Marines to help finalize the coup in 2004 by kidnapping Aristide and sending him to Africa, once again throwing the nation into chaos.
It's good that the US Government is assisting the Haitian people during the disaster, and I never discount the generosity of the American public. Just don't be surprised if they don't treat us like friends.
A new book on the subject, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment by Peter Hallward, scrupulously documents the events leading up to February 29, 2004, and concludes that what occurred during the "rebellion" was in fact a modern coup d'état, financed and orchestrated by forces allied with the US government. Hallward provides extensive documentation for his claims in interviews he has given on the subject. -Wikipedia
1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)
Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.
2. a nation
They've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall. They've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products. As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things, you're not going to hear about the problems, and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.
3. a global community of nations (UN)
They'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries. They'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq, and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.
4. a cybercommunity
Learn Chinese and troll MSN Spaces?
The morality of the market Is easily reflected in Google's stock price. I think this is why Google is still privately controlled instead of at the whim of the shareholders, or as I like to call them, the greedy ancient Court of Douchebags.
Google Inc. (GOOG, $580.93, -$9.55, -1.62%) said it may leave China after an investigation found the company had been hit with major cyber attacks it believes originated from the country--a move that would amount to one of the highest-profile rebukes yet of China by a major U.S. firm. The talk tossed China's Internet economy into turmoil, and sent Chinese search company Baidu ($431.67, +$45.18, +11.69%) soaring. Deutsche Bank upgraded the company to buy from hold saying Google threat is likely a plus for Baidu no matter how it shakes out. Other Chinese Internet firms also rose, including Sohu.com Inc. (SOHU, $58.98, +$0.85, +1.46%) and Sina Corp. (SINA, $44.87, +$0.30, +0.67%).
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100113-708147.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesEurope
Banks falsified mortgage documents, and resold their mortgages again and again until it turned the world financial system into a casino, and bet against their customers with credit default swaps. Major agribusinesses have successfully lobbied congress to subsidize cheap quality food that is leading to a diabetes epidemic that will probably bankrupt the United States. Arms manufacturers and subcontractors are profiting billions off of warfare and abusing human rights and not being punished for it. Unemployment is at 17% because corporations continue to offshore jobs to further enrich their shareholders and pay their board members tens of millions as a reward for putting Americans out of work and destroying the middle class. But the real fucking problem is that you can't download gigabytes of information for the price you want to pay? Or that comcast is advertising the fact that there will be caps?
There is no adversarial relationships between businesses and customers. They own you, because they are the government. Mussolini called this Fascism. And because you are only concerned about their actions when you think it inconveniences you. It's like bemoaning a thief for stealing your TV when he drove off with it in your car.
And after all the whining and bitching in this thread about something as meaningless as bandwidth caps - not censorship, or sharing data with Federal agencies, or providing evidence to the RIAA - makes me wonder if you don't deserve it for being so fucking short sighted.
You don't like Comcast? Fine. Don't use their service. Or upgrade to Business for unlimited access. Or go with a competitor if you can. Or maybe even do something like threaten your state representative with losing votes if he doesn't demand equal access for different providers. But I doubt anyone here has the will to even get off their chair, let alone do something besides bitch about a really meaningless problem. And the corporations know it to. You're pathetic. You're only concerned with the immediacy of your level of luxury. You deserve what you get when the best you can muster is stamping your feet, and saying life isn't fair.
The saddest irony of this entire situation is this fact: you would rather accept what Comcast is willing to give you than go without, to make any sort of sacrifice whatsoever. When this is the level of your slavery to your material life, why would you expect them to ever let go of the reins?
Thank god someone is standing up for the poor, downtrodden multibillion dollar corporations.
Does anyone wonder why big business feels they can treat consumers like crap with impunity?
Yes... major network providers allow the NSA to build NOCs inside their datacenters, but the problem is there may be an arbitrary cap for bandwidth usage.
The corporations are winning because you're more concerned about convenience than you are about your rights.
Fine print is a common business practice, only because people are so unreasonable sometimes. I ran a restaurant where we had all you can eat specials, and we had to put a little fine print to say you couldn't stay longer than two hours, since the first weekend a couple of people stayed for nearly four hours, and then tried to refuse to leave.
Or just watch a few HQ videos, participate in some [legit] torrents, etc. We easily go far past 250GB per month on our fiber connection (which is uncapped, unthrottled, etc.)
250GB is more than eight days of Netflix movies streaming, or two months of non-stop standard def Youtube watching, or downloading 64,000 songs. If you're hitting the upper limit, you probably don't mind spending another $30 for the "premium" no cap services, and if you're running a business from home, you'll need to pay for that kind of service.
I do not support a commercially owned last mile, but this is really a non issue for most people.
Then the article should read, "T-Mobile Charges ETF For Nexus One on top of Google's" but instead, it reads the other way around because Google is news and a cell carrier shafting their customer is not.
T-Mobile has decided to charge a fee for early termination of contract. I agree it's shady, but Google clearly is not making this decision for T-Mobile.
Google states that if you cancel the contract within the first four months, you have to pay them the for the rest of the phone. ($350 + $180 = $530)
The T-Mobile fine print says:
THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS: $200 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH MORE THAN 180 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; $100 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH 91 TO 180 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; $50 IF YOU TERMINATE WITH 31 TO 91 DAYS REMAINING ON YOUR TERM; AND THE LESSER OF $50 OR YOUR MONTHLY RECURRING CHARGES (including any applicable taxes and fees) IF YOU TERMINATE IN THE LAST 30 DAYS OF YOUR TERM. The Early Termination Fee is part of our rates and is not a penalty.
How is Google double dipping by demanding no money if you cancel after 120 days?
I don't think you remember how bad it was.
Until what's-his-nuts cashes is in like a prime time cable news anchor (or even worse, Nancy Grace) on the suffering of others by retreading the same old bullshit ideas, then he won't hold a candle to the inferno of dumb that was, and sadly is, Jon Katz.
Thankfully he had the sense to put himself out to pasture.
Until the FDA is publicly funded again, the pharmaceutical industry will continue to abuse the entire medical industry.
For the first 86 years of FDA's existence, from 1906-1992, all of FDA's funding came through the U.S. Treasury. In other words, everyone -- industry, people -- paid their taxes, and FDA got appropriations out of the budget.
Starting in 1992, unfortunately, a law was passed that said for a large proportion of the work done by the FDA on new drug applications, the money's going to come directly, quid pro quo, from the industry. If they want a drug reviewed, they pay directly to the FDA to have the drug reviewed.
-Sidney Wolfe, Director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group
source
Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
God: "Fucking idiot."
When I'm feeling down, I revel in the idea that maybe He just gave up a few hundred years ago.
Sorry I missed this, but what exactly are you saying that differs from what I said? Namely, that if a corporation has control over something you need, they will charge whatever you are willing to pay for it.
This is particular to corporations, since the decision making process is never on an individual moral level, but a collective desire for money by persons who are not affected by the actions they perform through the corporation.
This solutions to this are simple. This took me about a minute, not counting proof reading.
1) The charging device also has a small hard drive built into it that always syncs the data - just like iTunes already does if you have an iPhone.
2) The unique data - contact, calendars, documents - are constantly backed up to a server over the internet connection. Program data can easily be preloaded or reloaded onto a new phone.
3) As far as monetary risks are concerned, there is something called insurance. You may want to look into it.
The line between what a cell phone and a laptop and a computer mean intrinsically will continue to blur. Soon it will be simply the size of the interface. You'll have a mobile. Maybe the mobile will dock into a laptop or tablet style chassis to provide extra power and a full keyboard and larger screen - just like Lenovo just demonstrated at CES. The mobile can also be docked to your desktop system if you really need some extra horsepower or a fiber connection to the net. Meanwhile, your data is always with you. Doesn't sound so bad.