With half of US voters not bothering to turn up, and the other half voting for the 2-party system, I think the entrance of static electricity to the mix would be a breath of fresh air.
You want to charge to messages sent to your SMTP server? Okay, you go first.
Obviously this would require ISPs to get onboard and implement it. But considering that they're the ones choking under spam, I think they'd see the point. I know for a fact that some of the largest ISPs in Australia are experiencing serious interruptions to their smtp services because of spam.
You'd have to either arrange payment details for every communicating pair of SMTP servers
We already have a list of smtp servers the email has traveled through in the email headers. It's not hard to use this information to charge the associated party. As for the clearing-house approach, you're right - this is not the way to go ( conflict of interest ).
Keep in mind that people don't press the "spam" button.
This will change when they can make $1 per click.
Also, it doesn't address botnets. In fact, it further exacerbates that problem.
No, it helps solve the problem. That's like saying that prosecuting people for leaving firearms lying around only exacerbates the problem. If your PC is infected, then you're a part of the problem. Simple as that. If people want to take the issue up with Microsoft, then I encourage them to do this. But the buck must stop somewhere, and at the moment, it's stopping at me, because I have to pay to download spam ( over a mobile internet account, this is actually quite expensive ). My way, it will stop at the point that sent the spam, which is at least better if not perfect.
Now, instead of a user's computer being hijacked to send spam, it's hijacked to send spam and drain the user's bank account
OK. So people can nominate an smtp 'limit' on their account, or pay for smtp traffic in advance. So you can't 'accidentally' go over your nominated X number of messages, or X credit.
Maybe, maybe, consider header a saying 'This is for real, cryptographically-signed ClearingHouse: "I'm [foo@example.com]-0x54afafa and I guarantee this message is not spam. If it is, I agree to pay you $10 minus clearing-house fees, cryptographically-signed SomeCompany"'
No. We don't need clearing-house, OR an explicit message stating that it is not spam. ALL messages carry the IMPLICIT guarantee that the message is not spam, and have already paid their $10 guarantee, which I will refund upon deciding if it is spam or not.
Interesting. As a socialist, I despise market-based approaches. In particular for bigger-picture type problem, such as social planning, provision of services, protecting the environment, etc, I think the market is the LAST mechanism that I'd want to use.
But for spam the situation is a little different. Spam is all about 'the market', and in particular, spam exists because free email creates a potentially unlimited market, with zero marketing costs ( for all intents and purposes - there are some nominal costs ). The one sure-fire way to eradicate spam is to introduce just a tiny little per-email charge. See my post below ( search for me ) for more details...
Yes there's a better solution. All smtp servers should all have mandatory per-email charges for RECEIVING, all the way to the email account-holder ( ie I charge my ISP for each email I receive ). Then each account holder would be responsible for refunding this charge when they have read the email, if they are satisfied that it's not spam. If it is spam, then I would of course not refund this amount. My ISP would in turn not refund their amount to the upstream smtp server, and so on, right up to the original sender, who would not get his charge refunded. This would make all legitimate email free, and would make spam too expensive to be worthwhile.
He didn't renew the license for a private TV station which openly advocated assassinating him and launching a coup. Frankly I think he showed massive restraint. If any media outlet here tried the same, they wouldn't just find it difficult to *renew* their license... they'd loose their license immediately.
Anyone who calls Dubya 'The Devil' can't be 100% insane. What interview(s) are you referring to? I've also checked out some stuff on Youtube and Chavez seems to be one of the most intelligent leaders I've seen in ages.
Settle down dude. We get far worse than that here in Australia. Chemical weapons, tasers, and generally beaten up. And I think the rubber bullets would be for controlling a riot-type situation...
Chavez funds Farc in Colombia
So? The US funded the Taliban. I think Chavez's support of Farc is far more defensible than the US's funding of the Taliban. Want an example closer to home? How about 9/11, 1973? Don't tell me you've 'forgotten' about that?
Colombia is taking a stand against the guerillas
Bullshit. Columbia has done exactly what the US has told it to do, and has done so with weapons the US has given them.
and Chavez does not want to have his people see prosperity in democracy when it is right next door
Are you fucking serious man? Prosperity? In Columbia? You're a fucking loony tune. Columbia is the definition of abject poverty. The reason so many people are in the drug trade in Columbia is that there are NO other options AT ALL. And what does the corrupt dictatorship do for in response? It doesn't help out these farmers. It sprays poisons on the crops and families. It assaults them with US-sourced Apache gunships. It kills and maims it's own people. And you have the audacity to talk about prosperity! WTF?
Go to both countries, and tell who is better off
Been there, done that. Venezuela is pumping LOTS of money from publicly owned assets back into infrastructure and social programs. This means Venezuela is constantly improving. Literacy rates are sky-rocketing. The poor are actually being lifted out of poverty. In Colombia, the poor are being poisened, bombed, shot at, etc. It's no comparison really.
1) As many have pointed out, most people will 'click-through' the 1st time they see a license, not reading it at all. Showing the license multiple times, maybe each startup, or maybe every 5 minutes, helps to ensure that users know their obligations as users, and don't infringe on Mozilla's God-given trademark.
2) What happens on internet Kiosks, libraries, schools, etc? You can't only show the EULA once, as the sys admin will be the only one to know of their obligations, and none of the real users will know.
3) With so much pop-up advertising in web CONTENT, is it really too much to ask for our web browser to start demanding some recognition as well?
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ALSO PISSED OFF AT MOZILLA'S USE OF ALL-CAPS IN THEIR LICENSE, BUT HONESTLY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT IF IT SLOWS DOWN READING A BIT AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR EULA, AS MOZILLA CLEARLY ARE?
I therefore argue for an EULA popup every 5 minutes.
Of course I myself will no longer be using Firefox. Back to konqueror I suppose. It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.
I've read a number of books which discuss in detail the fact that memory is stored non-locally, in a method similar to the way a hologram stores information non-locally. The book 'The Holographic Universe' is the most recent example that I've read. It's a fascinating book - well worth a read. In fact I've read it twice now. With respect to memory, it goes on to say that in experiments with mice, researchers said they were incapable of destroying a memory of how to complete a maze by surgically removing brain tissue. The more they removed, the more foggy the memory appeared, but it never disappeared. This strongly backs the holographic storage method that the book postulates.
If these scientists think they've seen an individual brain cell recall a memory, then I think they're horribly mistaken.
This is already quite widespread. Here in Sydney, Australia, I talked to an ASIO officer who openly admitted he was 'gathering data on activists'. He was walking around at a demo, with a digital video player and a notebook & pen, and interviewing people ( not telling them who he was ). I've also seen evidence that this data was then used to target individuals.
To those who mindlessly parrot the old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about", I have 2 responses ( well I have more, but 2 will do for now )
1) The individuals targeted ( who were friends and comrades ) were violently attacked by riot police at a subsequent demonstration. They were arrested, roughed up, and released without charge. One was so shaken up by the experience that she pulled out of activism ( for 6 months anyway ).
2) There's a difference between what's "wrong" and what's technically against the law. There are such things as bad laws. Here in Australia, we have some VERY bad laws. There are a group of a hundred or so builders who are facing losing their homes for not being able to pay fines imposed because they had the 'audacity' to protest over unsafe working conditions, and the high number of deaths in their industry. Sounds like a valid reason to be protesting to me... but illegal.
Try come visit Caracas sometime, I'll show where the revolution has gone.
I honestly would love to visit South America. If I do manage to, I'll Personal Message you. But note: we've had a handful of members visiting Caracas on & off for the past couple of years, sending back reports, talking to activists, etc. We also brought some trade union leaders to Australia to talk about the state of the Bolivarian revolution, Chavez's limitations, etc. I would like to think my sources are very close to the action. But I gladly accept any more non-corporate-sponsored sources.
obviously the Chinese workers already think the wages are fair, otherwise they wouldn't be working there
And you were calling me naive! That statement shows you have absolutely no idea.
Instead, what China will do is put a big freakin' tax on US imports
I hate to break it to you, but China doesn't import anything from the US, other than raw materials, and there would be no point them taxing them.
So if you want to force China to force Nike to pay the Chinese workers what you think they deserve, then do your own research and come up with a plan that actually has a glimmering hope in hell of working.
Done it.
The problem that people who don't think typically have is that they only listen to one side - never both. Hence the 'not thinking' part. You've obviously listened to the capitalist defense of globalisation. Well the left has a coherent response, and it involves the policies I've already outlined. Stomping your feet and demanding that we 'go and research' only proves that you're either too lazy or too stupid to consider the consensus opinion coming from the organised left - a movement which has an incredible wealth of intellectual resources. So stick your head in the sand, but don't bother calling other people naive.
Sounds like sour grapes from a member of the ruling class on his way out. Interesting enough, a large majority of Venezuelans not only keep voting for Chavez, but strongly support his social and welfare reforms ( funded largely by nationalising industries ). Also an enormous number of people put their lives on the line the last time the CIA tried to topple him. So he's a pretty popular guy really. Corrupt despots don't generally enjoy this kind of popularity.
our country is still poor and underdeveloped, thanks to Chavez' hate for free enterprise
What a stupid thing to say! As mentioned above, Chavez has instigated widespread welfare reforms that have seen massive improvements in quality of life, education and health for Venezuala's poor. This is the very reason he's so popular. In fact these reforms weren't even his idea to begin with; Venezuala's working class have mobilised to the extent that Chavez has had to deliver them. As for his 'hate of free enterprise', this is a pretty stupid statement as well. He's been treading very lightly. He's nationalised a handful of companies, but left the rest of the economy untouched. It's still capitalism, but with some serious social security, funded by Venezuala's natural resources. I think if most people in the US actually knew what kind of reforms were taking place in Venezuala, they'd vote for Chavez over Obama any day.
Actually, it's what the man says that I don't like
Such as? He called Emperor Dubya the Devil. Plenty of people have done that. More have thought it. He told US energy companies to get their greedy fucking hands off his people's assets. Nothing wrong there. He told a privately-owned media outlet that OPENLY CAMPAIGNED FOR HIS ASSASSINATION that they wouldn't be able to renew their license next time. Amazing restraint. Imagine if CBS ran advertisements inciting people to assassinate Dubya! So what was it again that you didn't like? Or are you not sure?
You're conveniently forgetting what I've already made quite clear. People opposed to globalisation do so on a couple of uncontroversial grounds.
Most simply, we demand and END to trade with countries that allow slave labour. So in your example with Nike, we would ban the import of those goods.
This demand seems hugely popular based on my own research. Talking to people about working conditions, rights, and pay in 3rd world countries, the response is almost always along the lines of "Yes I know it's wrong to buy goods manufactured with slave labour, but there are no locally produced alternatives. If there were, I'd buy them." The only other reason given is that they know that buying slave-labour products is wrong, but there's too much cost difference ( which can be addressed by boosting the local manufacturing industry, by banning slave-labour products ). Now the reason that there are no locally produced alternatives is that they've been driven out of the market by so-called 'free market' competition. What people must do to overcome this is to organise collectively, and demand and end to all slave-labour products, and re-establishment of local industries.
The US government doesn't place any restrictions on them that make it unprofitable to do it. So what are you demanding?
Well first, it's not just ME demanding this - it's workers all over the world. And second, what we're demanding is quite simple. Your comment just here makes it obvious what could be done. Tax imported products to the extent that locally produced products can be sold at the same cost. This supports workers locally AND in 3rd-world countries, by providing an incentive for businesses to pay a fair wage ( otherwise they can't sell their product, as there is no longer any cost difference, and people know it's produced by slave labour, so it's not very desirable at all ).
Are you demanding that China not allow foreign investment?
That's a different topic - related, but different. Firstly, China doesn't need investment. China invests heavily in the US. A more relevant question is whether this investment is desirable. What China needs is taxation for local businesses, to fund health, education, and public services. It needs fair wages for a day's work. I suppose foreign investment only to the extent that it helps achieve these goals. I also point out that this has been one of the leading arguments of globalisation apologists - ie claiming that a 'rising tide lifts all boats' or some such bullshit. Clearly this has not happened. Another issue that foreign investment raises is environmental destruction. China shut down major industry and half their cars to please the IOC while the Olymics was on. Why? Are our Olympians so much more important than Chinese workers that must live in these conditions every day.
Further, what effect does foreign investment have in such an anti-democratic country? Is this desirable?
Are you demanding that the US impose importation duties on goods that Nike manufacturers in countries you don't like?
It's not about me and it's not about liking a country or not. Either you don't understand the issues at stake, or can't assemble a reasonable argument, so resort to twisting mine into some personal vendetta. You have to take a view seriously before you can seriously respond to it.
But anyway, yes, as detailed above, I am suggesting that taxation is a simple way to address the issues while keeping inside the constraints of capitalism. Sure, it's not inside the foaming-at-the-mouth neo-conservative model. But it's quite easy to implement, and has an instant effect on slave-labour shops and on stimulating local industry and employment. I don't know if you live in the US or not, but if you do, I believe you could use some employment right about now...
What is the anti-globalization movement actually *for*?
Clearly you haven't taken the time to ask us. We're for fair trade that respects the rights of people on all sides of the transaction. That means not trading with countries that allow slave labour, attack freedom of speech, outlaw trade unions, etc. That means you don't get cheap Nike crap any more. In fact you don't get a LOT of cheap crap any more. But you also don't entrench the problem.
Actually the joke here is on you, even though you're the one who made it. String theory is less of a theory than the theory of flying pigs, because this theory predicts that pigs fly, which is a statement that can be falsified. String theory makes no such statements that are falsifiable. It's hocus-pocus. It doesn't belong in the realm of science.
String theory is not a theory. It's a set of hopes and dreams that a theory actually exists, that has certain properties which are as yet unknown. String theory makes precisely no predictions that are falsifiable. So it really has nothing to say about how many universes there are.
SIS have always sucked. I'd be happy to see everyone pay a bit more and get decent quality hardware, especially when it's me that people call when their POS motherboard by SIS stops working.
I'm not talking about the alleged 'first' inhabitants. Of course the point in the past that you're using is arbitrary. There were people there before that. You're just not interested in them because they weren't Jewish. That's a fundamental problem with your outlook. When I say the Palestinians were there FIRST, I'm talking about people who are actually alive now, and were forcibly removed from their land, or who fled after witnessing violent fundamentalists butcher their families. Enough of the '3000 years ago' crap. Lets talk about people alive today - millions of refugees, for example.
You know nothing about Israel. Come visit sometime.
HA! The only reason I'd come would be to fight alongside the Palestinians. I'd consider making a documentary on the Apartheid Wall, or the bulldozing of Palestinians homes, etc. But to be completely frank, I'm not at all interested in living amongst Zionists - even for a short time.
Their descendants were also not born here, so by your logic have no right of return.
No. My logic includes a sliding scale of right to claim, that reduces with time and disconnection from the land. For 1st and 2nd generation descendants of Palestinians - particularly those living in refugee camps, they all have right of return. Fundamentalists who have no connection to the land other than fairy tales and bloodlust have no right of 'return'.
I fought alongside Palestinians, to reclaim their land and control their resources. Until they started blowing up buses full of people just like me.
You know what? I don't believe that. If you actually did, then you'd understand WHY this change in tactics has happened. The old 'until they started blowing things up' line has been warn out. History states that Israel is a state based on genocide, starting with Al Nakba. I could very well say that Palestinians treated Jews well, until the Jews murdered millions of them in horrific atrocities and drove them from their lands. You see, you have to keep everything in context. Simply crying about Palestinian tactics now without acknowledging the causes of these tactics will get you nowhere. You need to have a memory that goes back further than a couple of days. You've already demonstrated that you can refer to things that allegedly happened 3000 YEARS ago. So try 60 years.
There are millions of Israeli Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries in which they were born, but they have precisely zero right to return.
Oh come ON! Are you seriously telling me you don't know why this happened? If I was an Arab living in one of these countries, I'd probably have helped to chase the remaining Jews from my country too. Context please. Stop bitching about 'poor defenseless Jews who've done nothing wrong' and start critically appraising how you got yourself into this collective mess.
When the racist nations of Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Poland, Germany, Austria and the Czech republic would declare that any Jew who fled or was expelled can return and gain full citizenship - then we can talk.
It doesn't work like that. Everyone knows the type of fundamentalist living in Israel now has no intention of living peacefully amongst anyone else. And also, where do you get off calling these nations racist? They all have rich multicultural societies ( something Israel will never ever have ). There are Muslims, Christians, Hindus and atheists living in Iraq ( one of the richest and most tolerant societies for 2,000 years ). Iran is a far more tolerant nation than Israel. Even today polls are saying that 75% of people worldwide think that Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East, behind Iran at about 15%... and this is while the neo-cons beat the war d
I understand, therefore, that by "stop stealing their land" you mean "end the existence of Israel"
Correct. I have no problem with Jews who want to live peacefully with Palestinians remaining in Palestine, but the key point is that Palestinians have the 1st claim. Israel is a state based on murder, hate, fear and fundamentalism, and has no place in a civilized world.
What about yours? I assume you live in the US - on the land of what native tribe is your home located, and who gave you the right to steal it from them?
I'm Australian, and I recognize that I live on stolen land. I fight alongside Aboriginal activists to reclaim their land and control of their resources. A recent example of this is opposition to the 'NT Intervention', which is basically a small-scale version of exactly what Israel does - forces people off their traditional lands and into refugee camps etc. Our neo-conservative ex-prime-minister used this as a desperate final attempt to build support amongst his conservative base. We are now fighting to end the military occupation of northern Australia and allow Aboriginals to return back to their land without threat military intervention or 'welfare quarantining'.
on the land of what native tribe is your home located, and who gave you the right to steal it from them?
The Gattagal people of the great Eora nation are the traditional owners of this land. The Gattagal people inhabited the wider Sydney region. As for me stealing land, no, I didn't steal any land. You see, I was born here, and that gives me quite a powerful claim to be a valid resident. For better or worse, white Australians are here to stay, and the only solution looking forwards is to compensate the Aboriginal owners for past crimes, and strive for equality. In the case of Israel, there are still many Palestinians who were alive in '47 and are being prevented from the land that they were born on. This is a serious crime, and one that's at the heart of your racist nation. Only when you accept Palestinians in their own land will you have peace. And of course, accepting Palestinians in their own land basically means the destruction of Israel, as it's specifically founded on the basis of racist exclusion.
As I read the blurb, I immediately thought of a list of readings by extremely well-respected biologists on the nature of consciousness that would serve as an excellent starting point.
But should I help out DARPA? I don't think so. Someone else can help you kill people, poison the environment, and support the growing neo-con empire.
Slashdot Mirror
With half of US voters not bothering to turn up, and the other half voting for the 2-party system, I think the entrance of static electricity to the mix would be a breath of fresh air.
Obviously this would require ISPs to get onboard and implement it. But considering that they're the ones choking under spam, I think they'd see the point. I know for a fact that some of the largest ISPs in Australia are experiencing serious interruptions to their smtp services because of spam.
We already have a list of smtp servers the email has traveled through in the email headers. It's not hard to use this information to charge the associated party. As for the clearing-house approach, you're right - this is not the way to go ( conflict of interest ).
This will change when they can make $1 per click.
No, it helps solve the problem. That's like saying that prosecuting people for leaving firearms lying around only exacerbates the problem. If your PC is infected, then you're a part of the problem. Simple as that. If people want to take the issue up with Microsoft, then I encourage them to do this. But the buck must stop somewhere, and at the moment, it's stopping at me, because I have to pay to download spam ( over a mobile internet account, this is actually quite expensive ). My way, it will stop at the point that sent the spam, which is at least better if not perfect.
OK. So people can nominate an smtp 'limit' on their account, or pay for smtp traffic in advance. So you can't 'accidentally' go over your nominated X number of messages, or X credit.
No. We don't need clearing-house, OR an explicit message stating that it is not spam. ALL messages carry the IMPLICIT guarantee that the message is not spam, and have already paid their $10 guarantee, which I will refund upon deciding if it is spam or not.
Interesting. As a socialist, I despise market-based approaches. In particular for bigger-picture type problem, such as social planning, provision of services, protecting the environment, etc, I think the market is the LAST mechanism that I'd want to use.
But for spam the situation is a little different. Spam is all about 'the market', and in particular, spam exists because free email creates a potentially unlimited market, with zero marketing costs ( for all intents and purposes - there are some nominal costs ). The one sure-fire way to eradicate spam is to introduce just a tiny little per-email charge. See my post below ( search for me ) for more details ...
Yes there's a better solution. All smtp servers should all have mandatory per-email charges for RECEIVING, all the way to the email account-holder ( ie I charge my ISP for each email I receive ). Then each account holder would be responsible for refunding this charge when they have read the email, if they are satisfied that it's not spam. If it is spam, then I would of course not refund this amount. My ISP would in turn not refund their amount to the upstream smtp server, and so on, right up to the original sender, who would not get his charge refunded. This would make all legitimate email free, and would make spam too expensive to be worthwhile.
He didn't renew the license for a private TV station which openly advocated assassinating him and launching a coup. Frankly I think he showed massive restraint. If any media outlet here tried the same, they wouldn't just find it difficult to *renew* their license ... they'd loose their license immediately.
Anyone who calls Dubya 'The Devil' can't be 100% insane. What interview(s) are you referring to? I've also checked out some stuff on Youtube and Chavez seems to be one of the most intelligent leaders I've seen in ages.
Settle down dude. We get far worse than that here in Australia. Chemical weapons, tasers, and generally beaten up. And I think the rubber bullets would be for controlling a riot-type situation ...
So? The US funded the Taliban. I think Chavez's support of Farc is far more defensible than the US's funding of the Taliban. Want an example closer to home? How about 9/11, 1973? Don't tell me you've 'forgotten' about that?
Bullshit. Columbia has done exactly what the US has told it to do, and has done so with weapons the US has given them.
Are you fucking serious man? Prosperity? In Columbia? You're a fucking loony tune. Columbia is the definition of abject poverty. The reason so many people are in the drug trade in Columbia is that there are NO other options AT ALL. And what does the corrupt dictatorship do for in response? It doesn't help out these farmers. It sprays poisons on the crops and families. It assaults them with US-sourced Apache gunships. It kills and maims it's own people. And you have the audacity to talk about prosperity! WTF?
Been there, done that. Venezuela is pumping LOTS of money from publicly owned assets back into infrastructure and social programs. This means Venezuela is constantly improving. Literacy rates are sky-rocketing. The poor are actually being lifted out of poverty. In Colombia, the poor are being poisened, bombed, shot at, etc. It's no comparison really.
Only showing an EULA once is ridiculous.
1) As many have pointed out, most people will 'click-through' the 1st time they see a license, not reading it at all. Showing the license multiple times, maybe each startup, or maybe every 5 minutes, helps to ensure that users know their obligations as users, and don't infringe on Mozilla's God-given trademark.
2) What happens on internet Kiosks, libraries, schools, etc? You can't only show the EULA once, as the sys admin will be the only one to know of their obligations, and none of the real users will know.
3) With so much pop-up advertising in web CONTENT, is it really too much to ask for our web browser to start demanding some recognition as well?
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ALSO PISSED OFF AT MOZILLA'S USE OF ALL-CAPS IN THEIR LICENSE, BUT HONESTLY, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT IF IT SLOWS DOWN READING A BIT AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR EULA, AS MOZILLA CLEARLY ARE?
I therefore argue for an EULA popup every 5 minutes.
Of course I myself will no longer be using Firefox. Back to konqueror I suppose. It would be good if someone would write some Gtk2 wrappers for webkit.
I've read a number of books which discuss in detail the fact that memory is stored non-locally, in a method similar to the way a hologram stores information non-locally. The book 'The Holographic Universe' is the most recent example that I've read. It's a fascinating book - well worth a read. In fact I've read it twice now. With respect to memory, it goes on to say that in experiments with mice, researchers said they were incapable of destroying a memory of how to complete a maze by surgically removing brain tissue. The more they removed, the more foggy the memory appeared, but it never disappeared. This strongly backs the holographic storage method that the book postulates.
If these scientists think they've seen an individual brain cell recall a memory, then I think they're horribly mistaken.
This is already quite widespread. Here in Sydney, Australia, I talked to an ASIO officer who openly admitted he was 'gathering data on activists'. He was walking around at a demo, with a digital video player and a notebook & pen, and interviewing people ( not telling them who he was ). I've also seen evidence that this data was then used to target individuals.
To those who mindlessly parrot the old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about", I have 2 responses ( well I have more, but 2 will do for now )
1) The individuals targeted ( who were friends and comrades ) were violently attacked by riot police at a subsequent demonstration. They were arrested, roughed up, and released without charge. One was so shaken up by the experience that she pulled out of activism ( for 6 months anyway ).
2) There's a difference between what's "wrong" and what's technically against the law. There are such things as bad laws. Here in Australia, we have some VERY bad laws. There are a group of a hundred or so builders who are facing losing their homes for not being able to pay fines imposed because they had the 'audacity' to protest over unsafe working conditions, and the high number of deaths in their industry. Sounds like a valid reason to be protesting to me ... but illegal.
That's your response? You should stick to commenting on things you are knowledgeable about.
I honestly would love to visit South America. If I do manage to, I'll Personal Message you. But note: we've had a handful of members visiting Caracas on & off for the past couple of years, sending back reports, talking to activists, etc. We also brought some trade union leaders to Australia to talk about the state of the Bolivarian revolution, Chavez's limitations, etc. I would like to think my sources are very close to the action. But I gladly accept any more non-corporate-sponsored sources.
And you were calling me naive! That statement shows you have absolutely no idea.
I hate to break it to you, but China doesn't import anything from the US, other than raw materials, and there would be no point them taxing them.
Done it.
The problem that people who don't think typically have is that they only listen to one side - never both. Hence the 'not thinking' part. You've obviously listened to the capitalist defense of globalisation. Well the left has a coherent response, and it involves the policies I've already outlined. Stomping your feet and demanding that we 'go and research' only proves that you're either too lazy or too stupid to consider the consensus opinion coming from the organised left - a movement which has an incredible wealth of intellectual resources. So stick your head in the sand, but don't bother calling other people naive.
Sounds like sour grapes from a member of the ruling class on his way out. Interesting enough, a large majority of Venezuelans not only keep voting for Chavez, but strongly support his social and welfare reforms ( funded largely by nationalising industries ). Also an enormous number of people put their lives on the line the last time the CIA tried to topple him. So he's a pretty popular guy really. Corrupt despots don't generally enjoy this kind of popularity.
What a stupid thing to say! As mentioned above, Chavez has instigated widespread welfare reforms that have seen massive improvements in quality of life, education and health for Venezuala's poor. This is the very reason he's so popular. In fact these reforms weren't even his idea to begin with; Venezuala's working class have mobilised to the extent that Chavez has had to deliver them. As for his 'hate of free enterprise', this is a pretty stupid statement as well. He's been treading very lightly. He's nationalised a handful of companies, but left the rest of the economy untouched. It's still capitalism, but with some serious social security, funded by Venezuala's natural resources. I think if most people in the US actually knew what kind of reforms were taking place in Venezuala, they'd vote for Chavez over Obama any day.
Such as?
He called Emperor Dubya the Devil. Plenty of people have done that. More have thought it.
He told US energy companies to get their greedy fucking hands off his people's assets. Nothing wrong there.
He told a privately-owned media outlet that OPENLY CAMPAIGNED FOR HIS ASSASSINATION that they wouldn't be able to renew their license next time. Amazing restraint. Imagine if CBS ran advertisements inciting people to assassinate Dubya!
So what was it again that you didn't like? Or are you not sure?
Interesting blanket statement. Is that why millions of his supporters brought the capital to a halt in the CIA-backed coup?
You're conveniently forgetting what I've already made quite clear. People opposed to globalisation do so on a couple of uncontroversial grounds.
Most simply, we demand and END to trade with countries that allow slave labour. So in your example with Nike, we would ban the import of those goods.
This demand seems hugely popular based on my own research. Talking to people about working conditions, rights, and pay in 3rd world countries, the response is almost always along the lines of "Yes I know it's wrong to buy goods manufactured with slave labour, but there are no locally produced alternatives. If there were, I'd buy them." The only other reason given is that they know that buying slave-labour products is wrong, but there's too much cost difference ( which can be addressed by boosting the local manufacturing industry, by banning slave-labour products ). Now the reason that there are no locally produced alternatives is that they've been driven out of the market by so-called 'free market' competition. What people must do to overcome this is to organise collectively, and demand and end to all slave-labour products, and re-establishment of local industries.
Well first, it's not just ME demanding this - it's workers all over the world. And second, what we're demanding is quite simple. Your comment just here makes it obvious what could be done. Tax imported products to the extent that locally produced products can be sold at the same cost. This supports workers locally AND in 3rd-world countries, by providing an incentive for businesses to pay a fair wage ( otherwise they can't sell their product, as there is no longer any cost difference, and people know it's produced by slave labour, so it's not very desirable at all ).
That's a different topic - related, but different. Firstly, China doesn't need investment. China invests heavily in the US. A more relevant question is whether this investment is desirable. What China needs is taxation for local businesses, to fund health, education, and public services. It needs fair wages for a day's work. I suppose foreign investment only to the extent that it helps achieve these goals. I also point out that this has been one of the leading arguments of globalisation apologists - ie claiming that a 'rising tide lifts all boats' or some such bullshit. Clearly this has not happened. Another issue that foreign investment raises is environmental destruction. China shut down major industry and half their cars to please the IOC while the Olymics was on. Why? Are our Olympians so much more important than Chinese workers that must live in these conditions every day.
Further, what effect does foreign investment have in such an anti-democratic country? Is this desirable?
It's not about me and it's not about liking a country or not. Either you don't understand the issues at stake, or can't assemble a reasonable argument, so resort to twisting mine into some personal vendetta. You have to take a view seriously before you can seriously respond to it.
But anyway, yes, as detailed above, I am suggesting that taxation is a simple way to address the issues while keeping inside the constraints of capitalism. Sure, it's not inside the foaming-at-the-mouth neo-conservative model. But it's quite easy to implement, and has an instant effect on slave-labour shops and on stimulating local industry and employment. I don't know if you live in the US or not, but if you do, I believe you could use some employment right about now ...
Clearly you haven't taken the time to ask us. We're for fair trade that respects the rights of people on all sides of the transaction. That means not trading with countries that allow slave labour, attack freedom of speech, outlaw trade unions, etc. That means you don't get cheap Nike crap any more. In fact you don't get a LOT of cheap crap any more. But you also don't entrench the problem.
Actually the joke here is on you, even though you're the one who made it. String theory is less of a theory than the theory of flying pigs, because this theory predicts that pigs fly, which is a statement that can be falsified. String theory makes no such statements that are falsifiable. It's hocus-pocus. It doesn't belong in the realm of science.
String theory is not a theory. It's a set of hopes and dreams that a theory actually exists, that has certain properties which are as yet unknown. String theory makes precisely no predictions that are falsifiable. So it really has nothing to say about how many universes there are.
SIS have always sucked. I'd be happy to see everyone pay a bit more and get decent quality hardware, especially when it's me that people call when their POS motherboard by SIS stops working.
I'm not talking about the alleged 'first' inhabitants. Of course the point in the past that you're using is arbitrary. There were people there before that. You're just not interested in them because they weren't Jewish. That's a fundamental problem with your outlook.
When I say the Palestinians were there FIRST, I'm talking about people who are actually alive now, and were forcibly removed from their land, or who fled after witnessing violent fundamentalists butcher their families.
Enough of the '3000 years ago' crap. Lets talk about people alive today - millions of refugees, for example.
HA! The only reason I'd come would be to fight alongside the Palestinians. I'd consider making a documentary on the Apartheid Wall, or the bulldozing of Palestinians homes, etc. But to be completely frank, I'm not at all interested in living amongst Zionists - even for a short time.
No. My logic includes a sliding scale of right to claim, that reduces with time and disconnection from the land. For 1st and 2nd generation descendants of Palestinians - particularly those living in refugee camps, they all have right of return. Fundamentalists who have no connection to the land other than fairy tales and bloodlust have no right of 'return'.
You know what? I don't believe that. If you actually did, then you'd understand WHY this change in tactics has happened. The old 'until they started blowing things up' line has been warn out. History states that Israel is a state based on genocide, starting with Al Nakba. I could very well say that Palestinians treated Jews well, until the Jews murdered millions of them in horrific atrocities and drove them from their lands. You see, you have to keep everything in context. Simply crying about Palestinian tactics now without acknowledging the causes of these tactics will get you nowhere. You need to have a memory that goes back further than a couple of days. You've already demonstrated that you can refer to things that allegedly happened 3000 YEARS ago. So try 60 years.
Oh come ON! Are you seriously telling me you don't know why this happened? If I was an Arab living in one of these countries, I'd probably have helped to chase the remaining Jews from my country too. Context please. Stop bitching about 'poor defenseless Jews who've done nothing wrong' and start critically appraising how you got yourself into this collective mess.
It doesn't work like that. Everyone knows the type of fundamentalist living in Israel now has no intention of living peacefully amongst anyone else. ... and this is while the neo-cons beat the war d
And also, where do you get off calling these nations racist? They all have rich multicultural societies ( something Israel will never ever have ). There are Muslims, Christians, Hindus and atheists living in Iraq ( one of the richest and most tolerant societies for 2,000 years ). Iran is a far more tolerant nation than Israel. Even today polls are saying that 75% of people worldwide think that Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East, behind Iran at about 15%
Correct. I have no problem with Jews who want to live peacefully with Palestinians remaining in Palestine, but the key point is that Palestinians have the 1st claim. Israel is a state based on murder, hate, fear and fundamentalism, and has no place in a civilized world.
I'm Australian, and I recognize that I live on stolen land. I fight alongside Aboriginal activists to reclaim their land and control of their resources. A recent example of this is opposition to the 'NT Intervention', which is basically a small-scale version of exactly what Israel does - forces people off their traditional lands and into refugee camps etc. Our neo-conservative ex-prime-minister used this as a desperate final attempt to build support amongst his conservative base. We are now fighting to end the military occupation of northern Australia and allow Aboriginals to return back to their land without threat military intervention or 'welfare quarantining'.
The Gattagal people of the great Eora nation are the traditional owners of this land. The Gattagal people inhabited the wider Sydney region. As for me stealing land, no, I didn't steal any land. You see, I was born here, and that gives me quite a powerful claim to be a valid resident. For better or worse, white Australians are here to stay, and the only solution looking forwards is to compensate the Aboriginal owners for past crimes, and strive for equality. In the case of Israel, there are still many Palestinians who were alive in '47 and are being prevented from the land that they were born on. This is a serious crime, and one that's at the heart of your racist nation. Only when you accept Palestinians in their own land will you have peace. And of course, accepting Palestinians in their own land basically means the destruction of Israel, as it's specifically founded on the basis of racist exclusion.
1954 is after 1947, or have you forgotten the ultra-violent creation of Israel?
As I read the blurb, I immediately thought of a list of readings by extremely well-respected biologists on the nature of consciousness that would serve as an excellent starting point.
But should I help out DARPA? I don't think so. Someone else can help you kill people, poison the environment, and support the growing neo-con empire.