It's actually profoundly American. Of course it's also British, Russian, German, any other place that has a strong government.
Now if you wanted to claim that it's opposed to the stories that people used to tell themselves about was it was like to be an American, that's a different matter. But they also used to claim that gold was freely available to pick up in California...and many people died of believing that yarn. Just about the only ones who got rich were the merchants, though some farmers did pretty well.
The stories that people tell about themselves and their histories always need to be considered at best fiction. More or less just a guide post saying "something important happened here", and even that's often wrong. The "Old West" was nothing like the Hollywood version. I've read my great grandfather's diary of the days of the opening of the Oklahoma territory. For awhile he was a sheriff in a fairly major (for that time and place) town. Other times he ran a department store, or a construction company. As a sheriff, to take down a gunman he waited until the guy got drunk, and then talked him into putting down is guns...which he then confiscated. And though the guy threatened people, he never actually shot anyone. Soon afterwards the guy left town for somewhere else, were he got shot (and it me it sounded like he set himself up).
As for relations with the local Indians, they were a bit stand-offish, but trade was common, and he didn't report any fights. This doesn't mean such things didn't happen, but they weren't the common experience. His problems were either natural causes, romance, or unruly whites. Or people who wanted him to run for office instead of running his business.
And even then he kept records on just who did what, and how much he thought he could trust them. You don't sell people goods on credit if you don't trust them.
You're as emotionally overwrought as he is. You can't have a society without laws, so your points are largely valid, but *sheesh*, it's better to make the points in a way that people won't shut their ears to.
That said, the amount of regulation is a valid point of discussion. Also who should be how regulated. I've got few concerns about companies and corporations being regulated...except that the existing regulations and regulators tend to favor the ones with deep pockets.
That said, it's not clear to me how this law helps anyone. And notice that companies like Google are unaffected.
Tax is a bad instrument for public policy. Fines aren't much better. Prison for executives would be superior, but such laws are rarely enforced, and allow the potential for abuse in framing someone you don't like. And evidence is hard to collect.
Confiscation of assets and public auction is better, but some of those assets you really don't want going public. And when that happens limitations on use agreed to by the original party often lapse.
The only real answer is removal of corporate person-hood, and actually holding those in power responsible for the actions of their company, even if you can't document why they took those actions. But powerful people are usually successful in avoiding prosecution.
The problem with that is that it encourages governments to encourage them to collect data via other governmental programs. I'd rather it was enacted as a law with a built-in automatic tax rate increase that would reach 100% in a decade or so.
FWIW, the US was isolationist and largely pro-German during WWII until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Then we quickly changed our minds. France had little or nothing to do with our participation. Even Britain was a secondary consideration, and much of the populace was anti-British. (Much, not only those with Irish ancestors.) This was apparently because the Germans were openly racist, and the British much less so.
That said, there were prominent pro-British spokesmen (including FDR) as well as pro-Nazi (including Charles Lindberg). So isolationism was dominant. Until it wasn't practical any more.
You need to study your history a LOT more. You're wrong.
That said, the French support was a side show in their sparring off against Britain, and earlier they had instigated what the US histories call "The French and Indian war", introducing widespread scalping to the Indians by paying a bounty on white scalps.
And THAT said, both of those actions were actions of the French monarchy. Whoops! That has little relation to the current French government, and even at the time had little to do with the intentions of the French populace.
When both sides want to kill the other side, and both have legitimate grievances, I find it difficult to want to support either side, and I really don't want to stand between them, either.
No. A modern major war between nuclear powers would not resemble either the Hitler war or the Napoleon war. It would be massively more destructive in a much shorter time.
OTOH, it would end the problem of global warming, as urban nuclear blasts would waft a large amount of carbon-black high into the stratosphere, cooling things down in what has been called a "nuclear autumn" (though that analysis was done WRT a war between India and Pakistan, and several decades ago, so that might be an understatement).
One thing to remember with trains is that it makes a great deal of difference which stations you are traveling between. Distance is not a great metric, unless you use route distance.
That said, the US system is pathetic, and was intentionally sabotaged by both the auto industry and the rail freight portion of the railroads. It used to be underfunded, but these days calling it underfunded is a gross understatement. The passenger service was sold to the government, and then freight was given priority over passenger service, while the government did it's best to totally kill off passenger service. They haven't quite succeeded, but pretty damn close.
One thing, however, is that you're considering all the corporations involved to be public goods. In France, at least, many consider foreign influences to be the opposite of a public good. And, personally, I consider Facebook to be such even without invoking national benefit.
So perhaps the point of this tax it to encourage local business to succeed. Doing it with a tax rather than as a tax-break will generally raise a lot less public opposition. And they may consider that if some of those "giants" just decide to leave the country, they'll be better off.
However, there's a question as to whether the price increase would be enough to offset the network effects benefiting the "giants". For every environment there's an optimal size, and this might be sufficient to favor smaller companies. Perhaps. (That's not the way to bet...but it's a possibility.)
Well, at least a majority of the electoral college. But he doesn't speak for me, and I haven't heard any public statement he's ever made that I agree with. So, as a part of the nation, he doesn't speak for me. What he legitimately speaks for is the power center of the country as represented by the executive branch of the US government. And a bunch of other people who, in my opinion, are either shy several bushels of brains, or are greedy bastards who don't care what happens to the country. (It's an or because some people, demonstrably, actually trust Trump.)
All that said, the Democrats didn't put up a decent candidate either, so you can blame them for the problem, too.
No. Merely personal observation and history. And a few responses from writing to a legislator. So I guess I should have said, "In my experience most controversial statements by any politican are lies", as that was more precisely what I meant.
That said, are you really sure you want to trust the New York times on this matter? They *might* be honest. They *might* have checked things in a even-handed way. But they sure don't always do so.
All that said, I'll generally vote for someone who promotes statements that I think desirable rather than someone who does the opposite, even if I judge the second to be more honest.
How can you tell? Most (relatively honest) evaluation sites find most even mildly controversial statements by any politician of any stripe are lies. Some, admittedly, more blatant and unashamed than others.
Well, yes, but if they didn't have any log files, then restarting after the century rollover would fix things. Only when you need to keep dates from both centuries is this a problem.
The problem is that the GPL3 and the AGPL are different licenses, and it you want both protections you are in a bit of a bind. For my purposes I actually prefer the AGPL, but, IIUC, only (some) GPL2 code can be relicensed under GPL3, and none under the AGPL, so you've got the keep lots of code in separate modules.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily, but they're at best hopeless optimists.
It's actually profoundly American. Of course it's also British, Russian, German, any other place that has a strong government.
Now if you wanted to claim that it's opposed to the stories that people used to tell themselves about was it was like to be an American, that's a different matter. But they also used to claim that gold was freely available to pick up in California...and many people died of believing that yarn. Just about the only ones who got rich were the merchants, though some farmers did pretty well.
The stories that people tell about themselves and their histories always need to be considered at best fiction. More or less just a guide post saying "something important happened here", and even that's often wrong. The "Old West" was nothing like the Hollywood version. I've read my great grandfather's diary of the days of the opening of the Oklahoma territory. For awhile he was a sheriff in a fairly major (for that time and place) town. Other times he ran a department store, or a construction company. As a sheriff, to take down a gunman he waited until the guy got drunk, and then talked him into putting down is guns...which he then confiscated. And though the guy threatened people, he never actually shot anyone. Soon afterwards the guy left town for somewhere else, were he got shot (and it me it sounded like he set himself up).
As for relations with the local Indians, they were a bit stand-offish, but trade was common, and he didn't report any fights. This doesn't mean such things didn't happen, but they weren't the common experience. His problems were either natural causes, romance, or unruly whites. Or people who wanted him to run for office instead of running his business.
And even then he kept records on just who did what, and how much he thought he could trust them. You don't sell people goods on credit if you don't trust them.
You're as emotionally overwrought as he is. You can't have a society without laws, so your points are largely valid, but *sheesh*, it's better to make the points in a way that people won't shut their ears to.
That said, the amount of regulation is a valid point of discussion. Also who should be how regulated. I've got few concerns about companies and corporations being regulated...except that the existing regulations and regulators tend to favor the ones with deep pockets.
That said, it's not clear to me how this law helps anyone. And notice that companies like Google are unaffected.
Tax is a bad instrument for public policy. Fines aren't much better. Prison for executives would be superior, but such laws are rarely enforced, and allow the potential for abuse in framing someone you don't like. And evidence is hard to collect.
Confiscation of assets and public auction is better, but some of those assets you really don't want going public. And when that happens limitations on use agreed to by the original party often lapse.
The only real answer is removal of corporate person-hood, and actually holding those in power responsible for the actions of their company, even if you can't document why they took those actions. But powerful people are usually successful in avoiding prosecution.
The problem with that is that it encourages governments to encourage them to collect data via other governmental programs. I'd rather it was enacted as a law with a built-in automatic tax rate increase that would reach 100% in a decade or so.
FWIW, the US was isolationist and largely pro-German during WWII until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Then we quickly changed our minds. France had little or nothing to do with our participation. Even Britain was a secondary consideration, and much of the populace was anti-British. (Much, not only those with Irish ancestors.) This was apparently because the Germans were openly racist, and the British much less so.
That said, there were prominent pro-British spokesmen (including FDR) as well as pro-Nazi (including Charles Lindberg). So isolationism was dominant. Until it wasn't practical any more.
You need to study your history a LOT more. You're wrong.
That said, the French support was a side show in their sparring off against Britain, and earlier they had instigated what the US histories call "The French and Indian war", introducing widespread scalping to the Indians by paying a bounty on white scalps.
And THAT said, both of those actions were actions of the French monarchy. Whoops! That has little relation to the current French government, and even at the time had little to do with the intentions of the French populace.
When both sides want to kill the other side, and both have legitimate grievances, I find it difficult to want to support either side, and I really don't want to stand between them, either.
An axe age
an iron age
Shields shall be broken
A wind age
a wolf age
Ere the world totters.
No. A modern major war between nuclear powers would not resemble either the Hitler war or the Napoleon war. It would be massively more destructive in a much shorter time.
OTOH, it would end the problem of global warming, as urban nuclear blasts would waft a large amount of carbon-black high into the stratosphere, cooling things down in what has been called a "nuclear autumn" (though that analysis was done WRT a war between India and Pakistan, and several decades ago, so that might be an understatement).
One thing to remember with trains is that it makes a great deal of difference which stations you are traveling between. Distance is not a great metric, unless you use route distance.
That said, the US system is pathetic, and was intentionally sabotaged by both the auto industry and the rail freight portion of the railroads. It used to be underfunded, but these days calling it underfunded is a gross understatement. The passenger service was sold to the government, and then freight was given priority over passenger service, while the government did it's best to totally kill off passenger service. They haven't quite succeeded, but pretty damn close.
One thing, however, is that you're considering all the corporations involved to be public goods. In France, at least, many consider foreign influences to be the opposite of a public good. And, personally, I consider Facebook to be such even without invoking national benefit.
So perhaps the point of this tax it to encourage local business to succeed. Doing it with a tax rather than as a tax-break will generally raise a lot less public opposition. And they may consider that if some of those "giants" just decide to leave the country, they'll be better off.
Mod parent up. A combination of underrated, insightful, interesting, and informative.
However, there's a question as to whether the price increase would be enough to offset the network effects benefiting the "giants". For every environment there's an optimal size, and this might be sufficient to favor smaller companies. Perhaps. (That's not the way to bet...but it's a possibility.)
Well, at least a majority of the electoral college. But he doesn't speak for me, and I haven't heard any public statement he's ever made that I agree with. So, as a part of the nation, he doesn't speak for me. What he legitimately speaks for is the power center of the country as represented by the executive branch of the US government. And a bunch of other people who, in my opinion, are either shy several bushels of brains, or are greedy bastards who don't care what happens to the country. (It's an or because some people, demonstrably, actually trust Trump.)
All that said, the Democrats didn't put up a decent candidate either, so you can blame them for the problem, too.
No. Merely personal observation and history. And a few responses from writing to a legislator. So I guess I should have said, "In my experience most controversial statements by any politican are lies", as that was more precisely what I meant.
That said, are you really sure you want to trust the New York times on this matter? They *might* be honest. They *might* have checked things in a even-handed way. But they sure don't always do so.
All that said, I'll generally vote for someone who promotes statements that I think desirable rather than someone who does the opposite, even if I judge the second to be more honest.
How can you tell? Most (relatively honest) evaluation sites find most even mildly controversial statements by any politician of any stripe are lies. Some, admittedly, more blatant and unashamed than others.
Well, yes, but if they didn't have any log files, then restarting after the century rollover would fix things. Only when you need to keep dates from both centuries is this a problem.
A point. I, personally, am much more a proponent of free software, but in the 1980's open source frequently worked as you describe.
That should be "How many times have you tried to enforce this"
I don't believe you, but my latin isn't good enough to check your translation.
How do you know that the EULA that is shown in court is identical to the original EULA?
One thing you get with the GPL3 that you don't get with the AGPL is that a lot of GPL2 code can be relicensed as GPL3 code.
The problem is that the GPL3 and the AGPL are different licenses, and it you want both protections you are in a bit of a bind. For my purposes I actually prefer the AGPL, but, IIUC, only (some) GPL2 code can be relicensed under GPL3, and none under the AGPL, so you've got the keep lots of code in separate modules.
Considering the origin of the company promoting it, I think you're right.