So is it a case of... a government skirting an international fair trade treaty?
I sure hope so. Enough violations and maybe we can just scrap the WTO and a bunch of "free trade" agreements.
P.S. Don't rebut this by citing a simple minded analysis like comparative advantage alone. Given how many things the simplistic application of that leaves out, it'd be more credible to cite a comic book.
No it's not. Forget the simple minded propaganda that copyrights are a form of property like physical property - they're a government granted and enforced monopoly that raises prices many fold by artificially restricting what would otherwise be almost cost free production of copies. That's nothing like petroleum or any other physical property. Moreover, unlike creative works, or even manufactured items or services, there is a fixed quantity of petroleum available. The situations are the exact opposite of each other.
Why stop someone from selling what they've legally worked for?
If you think BP produced the petroleum, you're a few hundred million years out of date. They extracted it, and performed some minimal refining, but what produced the product they extracted? Neither BP nor anyone else can produce the raw product, and there is a finite supply of it. Therefore the reason for a market - that higher prices provide an incentive to produce more of something - doesn't apply in the long run. The petroleum under the ground in the US is a national resource.
I'd be happy if they just enforced the American system of law. Does that mean no action in this case? Yes, until or unless the laws or changed. However, there are so many egregious violations of law by major corporations (*cough* Wall Street *cough*) that don't get investigated, let alone prosecuted, that I'd be thrilled if they enforced existing laws.
The problem is that there are -so many- weak links these days.
True, but so many of the big invasions, like the Target deal, use things that were securable, and that people (like their own security/IT people) said should be secured. Security is an endless software arms race, but the attackers usually take advantage of the defense's sloppiness or cost cutting. Even Stuxnet required some German engineer to unknowingly plant via a thumb drive.
Ada may be ugly, but it does offer provable security.
Ada has some definite advantages, like avoiding buffer overflows, but in and of itself can't guarantee security. I do agree though that using a language like that would be a big improvement.
Cheer up, it's back down to +2. The usual up/down mod games.
Russia is currently invading the Ukraine, which borders several NATO members
Yes, as many people pointed out at the time, it was clever to add NATO countries that made conflict with Russia more likely. At least somebody was planning ahead. They knew that Iraq and Afghanistan had to wind down eventually. This Russian thing is a wonderful complement to our "pivot to the Pacific". I always figure that was giving the navy a turn after the army and the air force had their wars, but now I see that all services will be given a chance.
I think our Cold War troubles are long from over
Oh good, that's a wonderful reason to avoid the proposed defense cutbacks. Maybe we'll even get an increase from it. The Cold War was very good for the job situation around here.
Why bother w/ espionage when we give it away. Applied Materials' solar research center is in China. GE has a joint venture to build jet engines in China (particularly interesting since engines are the last major impediment to building all Chinese military aircraft). What the heck, maybe they can get Electric Boat to help them with their sub designs.
That's what it takes to infiltrate well secured computers and networks. For the most part though infiltrators rely on badly secured stuff these days. The Target invasion was possible due to poor security practices - which Target's own IT/security people warned management about.
You think the US gives a damn about that? Only to the extent that this is a new justification for the NSA's spying. The terrorist thing was wearing thin, so let's go back to the tried and true enemy of the Cold War. The FSB - if you can't beat 'em, imitate 'em (or is it the other way around these days?).
Roman Catholics [not?] being allowed into government
The US Constitution forbade any religious test for office from the outset. Catholics weren't allowed into Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Moreover the House of Lords, which didn't really lose its power until the 20th century, includes bishops of the CoE.
Americans still hate the French
You think we hated our allies in the Revolution?
King George recognizing the Native Americans as equal subjects
You're kidding, right? As for trying to temporarily stop westward expansion, the UK's concern was money. It's expensive to keep armies in the field, and they were still paying off debts from the French and Indian War. Remember those taxes the colonists complained about - what did you think they were paying for?
As for George's oh so progressive attitude towards the Native Americans, it's odd that he would take that stance while simultaneously expanding the British Empire in India.
Actually wealthy plantation slaveholders and their allies in the American colonies (Washington, Jefferson, even Franklin profited from slaves) broke away when it became obvious the British government was going to abolish slavery in the near future.
Obviously the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, since it started in Massachusetts, which banned slavery in 1783. That was the same year that the earliest serious anti-slavery movement even started in the UK, and 50 years before that movement had any serious effect (60 years before slavery was banned throughout the empire). That ban was also as motivated by a slave result in Jamaica as any serious abolitionist sentiment. Moreover, by the time that the UK seriously started to ban slavery in the empire, every single Northern state had already passed laws against it. Since your understanding of the American Revolution is let us say scant, I'll mention that those Northern states that banned slavery before the British Empire were the colonies that had the strongest Patriot (pro-revolution) sentiment.
I understand American history books take a different view but since they were written by the slaveholders, for the slaveholders that's not surprising.
American history books were written by slaveholders? I know some of them are out of date, but probably less than 149 years. If your point is that the victors write the history books, you should learn something about the American Civil War and its pivotal role in American history.
Their constant harping on the British crown and George III as the Bad Guy because he wanted to abolish slavery
Nobody harps about that, because it's a complete fantasy.
the Crown had possessed little or no political power in Britain since the mid-1600s when Parliament explained the facts of life to Charles I with the edge of an axe
You should read up on UK history. The English Civil War certainly put the crown on notice not to antagonize Parliament too much, and the Glorious Revolution established Parliament's power to select the successor to the crown (no Catholics please), but the crown still retained considerable power. It was hardly like today.
Why would it head south? If they wanted to be south, they could have moved already. Scotland will still be part of the EU, so who cares? One major question though is what currency they'd use.
There referendum will fail just like both Quebec's ones.
The difference is that while Scotland would probably be fine as an EU member, Quebec independence would have been economic suicide, and result in the loss of much of Quebec's territory. The Cree always made it clear that they had no intention of leaving Canada, and they control much of Northern Quebec. Goodbye Hydro-Quebec. Several of the southern most counties are primarily English speaking. The Canadian government made it clear that they would retain any part of Quebec that didn't vote for independence, which is quite reasonable.
America fought to stop being oppressed colonies of the English crown (stuff the facade of being a united kingdom). You raise a good point though. In hindsight we should have allied with Scotland, which was a fellow oppressed colony. A two front war would have been a good strategy. It would also have taken advantage of the Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance - which is still in effect.
more recent and relevant education on new technology... one old codger who can't handle change
There must be some fancy Latin phrase for "reasoning by stereotype". In legalese it's "assumes facts not in evidence". In plain English it's called spouting bullshit.
Laws don't apply to major campaign contributors and other puppeteers. If they did, half of Wall St. would have traded bespoke suits for orange jumpsuits.
You're taking an overly simplified lesson from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
1) It was beyond extreme. It raised the average tariff to 60%. Nobody is talking about anything near that. Even before Smoot-Hawley we had average tariffs of 40%, which is way beyond what anyone is seriously talking about nowadays.
2) Even as devout of a free trader as Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had only a minor effect on the Great Depression. It's significance has been greatly exagerrated.
3) If tariffs are necessarily a bad idea, then why did the US prosper so much for so long with high tariffs that started when Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury? (see Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures").
4) The US at the time Smoot-Hawley was passed was in the opposite situation as today. It was a net exporter, so retaliatory tariffs had a greater effect than our tariffs, and reduced demand for US products. Today the US is a net importer, which means the effect would be reversed, and increase demand.
Slashdot Mirror
So is it a case of ... a government skirting an international fair trade treaty?
I sure hope so. Enough violations and maybe we can just scrap the WTO and a bunch of "free trade" agreements.
P.S. Don't rebut this by citing a simple minded analysis like comparative advantage alone. Given how many things the simplistic application of that leaves out, it'd be more credible to cite a comic book.
It's the same thing people.
No it's not. Forget the simple minded propaganda that copyrights are a form of property like physical property - they're a government granted and enforced monopoly that raises prices many fold by artificially restricting what would otherwise be almost cost free production of copies. That's nothing like petroleum or any other physical property. Moreover, unlike creative works, or even manufactured items or services, there is a fixed quantity of petroleum available. The situations are the exact opposite of each other.
Why stop someone from selling what they've legally worked for?
If you think BP produced the petroleum, you're a few hundred million years out of date. They extracted it, and performed some minimal refining, but what produced the product they extracted? Neither BP nor anyone else can produce the raw product, and there is a finite supply of it. Therefore the reason for a market - that higher prices provide an incentive to produce more of something - doesn't apply in the long run. The petroleum under the ground in the US is a national resource.
the Finnish system of law
I'd be happy if they just enforced the American system of law. Does that mean no action in this case? Yes, until or unless the laws or changed. However, there are so many egregious violations of law by major corporations (*cough* Wall Street *cough*) that don't get investigated, let alone prosecuted, that I'd be thrilled if they enforced existing laws.
We still have turntables and every band still releases vinyl.
Why?
What does legal tax practices have to do with what is morally correct.
Nothing. That was the GP's complaint.
The problem is that there are -so many- weak links these days.
True, but so many of the big invasions, like the Target deal, use things that were securable, and that people (like their own security/IT people) said should be secured. Security is an endless software arms race, but the attackers usually take advantage of the defense's sloppiness or cost cutting. Even Stuxnet required some German engineer to unknowingly plant via a thumb drive.
Ada may be ugly, but it does offer provable security.
Ada has some definite advantages, like avoiding buffer overflows, but in and of itself can't guarantee security. I do agree though that using a language like that would be a big improvement.
As long as we keep it a cold war, everybody should be happy. Plenty of defense pork and no one gets hurt.
How does this get +5 insightful?
Cheer up, it's back down to +2. The usual up/down mod games.
Russia is currently invading the Ukraine, which borders several NATO members
Yes, as many people pointed out at the time, it was clever to add NATO countries that made conflict with Russia more likely. At least somebody was planning ahead. They knew that Iraq and Afghanistan had to wind down eventually. This Russian thing is a wonderful complement to our "pivot to the Pacific". I always figure that was giving the navy a turn after the army and the air force had their wars, but now I see that all services will be given a chance.
I think our Cold War troubles are long from over
Oh good, that's a wonderful reason to avoid the proposed defense cutbacks. Maybe we'll even get an increase from it. The Cold War was very good for the job situation around here.
China is good at economic espionage.
Why bother w/ espionage when we give it away. Applied Materials' solar research center is in China. GE has a joint venture to build jet engines in China (particularly interesting since engines are the last major impediment to building all Chinese military aircraft). What the heck, maybe they can get Electric Boat to help them with their sub designs.
That's what it takes to infiltrate well secured computers and networks. For the most part though infiltrators rely on badly secured stuff these days. The Target invasion was possible due to poor security practices - which Target's own IT/security people warned management about.
You think the US gives a damn about that? Only to the extent that this is a new justification for the NSA's spying. The terrorist thing was wearing thin, so let's go back to the tried and true enemy of the Cold War. The FSB - if you can't beat 'em, imitate 'em (or is it the other way around these days?).
The team used an unmanned lander
Never send a man to do a robot's job - just like space exploration should be done.
Roman Catholics [not?] being allowed into government
The US Constitution forbade any religious test for office from the outset. Catholics weren't allowed into Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Moreover the House of Lords, which didn't really lose its power until the 20th century, includes bishops of the CoE.
Americans still hate the French
You think we hated our allies in the Revolution?
King George recognizing the Native Americans as equal subjects
You're kidding, right? As for trying to temporarily stop westward expansion, the UK's concern was money. It's expensive to keep armies in the field, and they were still paying off debts from the French and Indian War. Remember those taxes the colonists complained about - what did you think they were paying for?
As for George's oh so progressive attitude towards the Native Americans, it's odd that he would take that stance while simultaneously expanding the British Empire in India.
Actually wealthy plantation slaveholders and their allies in the American colonies (Washington, Jefferson, even Franklin profited from slaves) broke away when it became obvious the British government was going to abolish slavery in the near future.
Obviously the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, since it started in Massachusetts, which banned slavery in 1783. That was the same year that the earliest serious anti-slavery movement even started in the UK, and 50 years before that movement had any serious effect (60 years before slavery was banned throughout the empire). That ban was also as motivated by a slave result in Jamaica as any serious abolitionist sentiment. Moreover, by the time that the UK seriously started to ban slavery in the empire, every single Northern state had already passed laws against it. Since your understanding of the American Revolution is let us say scant, I'll mention that those Northern states that banned slavery before the British Empire were the colonies that had the strongest Patriot (pro-revolution) sentiment.
I understand American history books take a different view but since they were written by the slaveholders, for the slaveholders that's not surprising.
American history books were written by slaveholders? I know some of them are out of date, but probably less than 149 years. If your point is that the victors write the history books, you should learn something about the American Civil War and its pivotal role in American history.
Their constant harping on the British crown and George III as the Bad Guy because he wanted to abolish slavery
Nobody harps about that, because it's a complete fantasy.
the Crown had possessed little or no political power in Britain since the mid-1600s when Parliament explained the facts of life to Charles I with the edge of an axe
You should read up on UK history. The English Civil War certainly put the crown on notice not to antagonize Parliament too much, and the Glorious Revolution established Parliament's power to select the successor to the crown (no Catholics please), but the crown still retained considerable power. It was hardly like today.
Why would it head south? If they wanted to be south, they could have moved already. Scotland will still be part of the EU, so who cares? One major question though is what currency they'd use.
There referendum will fail just like both Quebec's ones.
The difference is that while Scotland would probably be fine as an EU member, Quebec independence would have been economic suicide, and result in the loss of much of Quebec's territory. The Cree always made it clear that they had no intention of leaving Canada, and they control much of Northern Quebec. Goodbye Hydro-Quebec. Several of the southern most counties are primarily English speaking. The Canadian government made it clear that they would retain any part of Quebec that didn't vote for independence, which is quite reasonable.
Find a global map where the UK isn't enlarged. Land mass doesn't translate to economic power and in turn power in the world.
You're living in the past - the empire is dead.
The only truly superior option is a globe.
America fought to stop being oppressed colonies of the English crown (stuff the facade of being a united kingdom). You raise a good point though. In hindsight we should have allied with Scotland, which was a fellow oppressed colony. A two front war would have been a good strategy. It would also have taken advantage of the Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance - which is still in effect.
This Scotland vs. England stuff is placid. Let's have some real fun around here and talk China vs. Taiwan.
more recent and relevant education on new technology ... one old codger who can't handle change
There must be some fancy Latin phrase for "reasoning by stereotype". In legalese it's "assumes facts not in evidence". In plain English it's called spouting bullshit.
Laws don't apply to major campaign contributors and other puppeteers. If they did, half of Wall St. would have traded bespoke suits for orange jumpsuits.
Try using a bit more logic before you start trash-talking.
People who live in glass houses ...
Your "open external hire positions as internal hire options" isn't what the OP was talking about - he specifically wrote retrain.
You're taking an overly simplified lesson from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
1) It was beyond extreme. It raised the average tariff to 60%. Nobody is talking about anything near that. Even before Smoot-Hawley we had average tariffs of 40%, which is way beyond what anyone is seriously talking about nowadays.
2) Even as devout of a free trader as Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had only a minor effect on the Great Depression. It's significance has been greatly exagerrated.
3) If tariffs are necessarily a bad idea, then why did the US prosper so much for so long with high tariffs that started when Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury? (see Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures").
4) The US at the time Smoot-Hawley was passed was in the opposite situation as today. It was a net exporter, so retaliatory tariffs had a greater effect than our tariffs, and reduced demand for US products. Today the US is a net importer, which means the effect would be reversed, and increase demand.