I've seen reports [cdc.gov] that say there is no significant impact [no-smoking.org]; please cite your source for this claim.
Pfft!
My sources are the neighborhood bars that were doing great pre-ban, out of business post-ban. I don't care what "no-smoking.org" has to say on the matter. I can look at the vacant buildings.
So the Chinese government wants to steal Google's search engine technology?
And that's the US Government's problem, as opposed to Google's?
Well, I suppose you're right. We can't have those commie yellow bastards using their very own GIS knock-off to look up pr0n whenever they please! It's an issue of national security! What was I thinking!?
So, you don't want Google servers placed in China because those wiley Chinese might steal tech secrets from the motherboards (which were more than likely manufactured in China in the first place)?
I don't think you've thought this through all the way.
My point was, most people don't regard either of them as "action figures."
That expression was coined because in the late 1970s, it was still considered rather odd for young boys to be "playing with dolls" by a large part of the American culture, and so the Star Wars dolls had to be marketed under another, less-gay-sounding, name.
The fact that their clothing was molded as part of the toy, as opposed to being separate cloth pieces, probably also helped avoid the stigma. They looked more like bigger, multi-colored "Green Army Men" than their larger, Malibou-driving kin.
The South African economy, IIRC, is based almost entirely on trade and tourism. Sanctions were crippling their economy, which is the reason why de Klerk and the reformers were able to bring about change without bloodsheed.
(A person more cynical than I would probably insist that sanctions, not some pure altruism, were the main reason why de Klerk himself opposed apartheid in the first place, or at the very least were a factor in forming his opinion.)
In the case of Abu Grahib, I find it hard to imagine that generic pressure from the top for better intel-gathering is what resulted in naken man-pyramids and guards snapping photos of each other mocking the prisoners.
Occam's Razor leads me to suspect that it was just plain old immature grab-assery which lead to that particular scandal. Give a bunch a 20-something idiots that much authority without enough oversight, and that's what you get, as hidden video of a typical frat hazing will usually confirm.
Those at the top still ought to be criticized for inadequite supervision of those involved, however, so this comment should in no way be read as a defense of anybody up the chain of command, including the Commander in Chief himself. I'm just saying that the situations don't appear to be as analogous as you seem to be implying.
I'd like to point out that the reason why South Africa has done away with apartheid is not trade sanctions. It happened because a few great men did was what needed.
While they are certainly to be applauded, there's no way you can convince me that their victory would have come about nearly as swiftly (if at all) without the entire world putting economic pressure on South Africa to reform.
While it warms my libertarian heart to see somebody express a fondness for the "dead" Amendments (the 9th and 10th), you really should take the time to read the document which is being ameded as well.
9th - All powers not specifically granted to the federal government in this document are reserved for the states
The right to regulate international (and interstate!) commerce is specifically granted to the federal government, so the 9th does not apply here.
10th - Any right not given to the government (see above) here, or prohibited by the states, is automatically given to the people
Since the right is given, the 10th doesn't apply here either.
No... it's not a human right to have Yahoo and Google, that you are correct.
But is it right for the US govt to say who Yahoo and Google can do business with?
Yes. Yes it is.
Countries regulate commerce, sometimes for political reasons. They are called "trade sanctions" and are the reason, among other things, that black folks in South Africa are now able to participate in their own government.
Now, as to the question of whether this particular sanction is a good idea, I'm inclined to say "no."
We've been a political rival of China's ever since Chairman Mao took over, but we've also been a friendly trade partner going all the way back to Nixon's visit. Trade between the US and China seems to have been, for the most part, a Good Thing for both countries, and has resulted in a gradual shift in China of becoming slightly more capitalistic and slightly more democratic, all without a shot fired. (Okay, not counting Korea and Viet Nam, where we indirectly butted heads a bit... Oh, and that spy plane they nabbed right after Bush the Younger took office... but that hardly counts.)
I respectfully disagree with the Senator on this one. China is either a "Most Favored Nation" in our economic policy or it's not. If you want to push a policy of major trade sanctions against them, let's talk about it, but don't nickel-and-dime them by witholding Internet search engines. That's just petty and stupid.
They put policies in place which make retail managers feel pressured to pump up their sales figures by "forcing" excessive bundles on desperate (and foolish) pre-Christmas X-Box 360 buyers.
Then, when they get heat for it, they respond by firing the retail managers, but keep all the largesse of the whole scam firmly in their pockets.
And we are supposed to take this as an indicator that they are interested in doing the right thing?
It says you are willing to believe in something based on faith which requires absolutely no logical justification.
Which is the same thing as saying he's a human being.
I've never meet an atheist or agnostic who didn't believe in something he or she could not properly support.
Our five senses only give us a tiny glimpse of the world we are in, and often even that input is wrong. We take a hell of a lot of faith just to go on living.
I think Alan Moore's "The Watchmen" is one of the greatest works of storytelling art in the past 50 years, but anybody who calls it a "graphic novel" around me risks a punch in the throat.
It's a comic book.
A brilliant, fantastic, literary comic book.
"Graphic novel" sounds like it's a Stephen King paperback.
Oh, and in answer to the question "Time To Stop Calling Them Games?"
No. They're games. You play them. Stop living in denial.
It's too bad that nobody seems to be asking the workers who are being "protected" what they think about smoking bans.
See the thing is, in just about every city where smoking is banned from bars, lots of bars close down. Since the local bar is (or rather, used to be) the only place left where smokers could go and indulge in their filthy addiction, a lot of bars have come to depend on smokers for the vast majority of their business.
Instead of banning smoking entirely, the correct way to handle it would have been to simply enforce a minimum standard of air quality in the "workplace" where people are serving smokers. This might require very advanced ventilation and filtration systesm, and might also require that fewer smokers are seated in the same size room, which would still be a financial hit to those bars, but might not cause them all to go out of business entirely.
Disclaimer: I don't smoke, hate breathing it, and I very much enjoy going out to the remaining restaurants in my town which didn't close down after the smoking ban. This is a matter of principle for me. I don't like seeing The Nanny State driving honest people out of business.
Ford may have a "monopoly" on Ford Trucks, but the iTunes "monopoly" would be a monopoly on... what, exactly?
I mean, you can buy the exact same song from any of a number of other on-line sellers, or buy the CD itself from any of thousands of stores across the country, but only from iTunes can you get a copy of the song which was sold by iTunes.
What about couples that are not infertile by accident of birth, disease, or injury, but rather when one parent or the other had themselves "fixed" because they don't want to raise children?
Heh. That should have read "one partner or the other", obviously.
My point stands: A society either allows non-child-producing couples to marry or it doesn't. Ours does, and therefore there is no case to be made for preventing gays from getting married beyond a desire to tell people how they can and can't live their lives.
Infertile couples can still adopt and provide a balanced parental environment. Gay adopters cannot.
I understand the logic behind that statement. Women and men are different, and the traditional parental environment is to have one of each...
But is a "balanced" parental environment all that critical? Most studies I've seen show that kids raised by same-gender parents turn out just fine... in fact, they tend to be more well-adjusted to society than those raised by single parents (which a startlingly high number of kids from traditional biological families end up being.)
What about couples that are not infertile by accident of birth, disease, or injury, but rather when one parent or the other had themselves "fixed" because they don't want to raise children? If you let them marry, and don't let gays marry, you're right back to being completely unfair and arbitrary.
North Dakota is preparing to experiment with a cool new method of delivering Wi-Fi Internet access state-wide using small transmitters on weather balloons. If they get it working, it could be the new hotness for most of the rural Western US (not to mention Canada.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen reports [cdc.gov] that say there is no significant impact [no-smoking.org]; please cite your source for this claim.
Pfft!
My sources are the neighborhood bars that were doing great pre-ban, out of business post-ban. I don't care what "no-smoking.org" has to say on the matter. I can look at the vacant buildings.
So the Chinese government wants to steal Google's search engine technology?
And that's the US Government's problem, as opposed to Google's?
Well, I suppose you're right. We can't have those commie yellow bastards using their very own GIS knock-off to look up pr0n whenever they please! It's an issue of national security! What was I thinking!?
So, you don't want Google servers placed in China because those wiley Chinese might steal tech secrets from the motherboards (which were more than likely manufactured in China in the first place)?
I don't think you've thought this through all the way.
As for punching people in the throat, you seem to have quite a bit of fanboy rage built up over this issue.
/. story about people not capturing the tone of written text correctly?
Need I refer you to today's
My point was, most people don't regard either of them as "action figures."
That expression was coined because in the late 1970s, it was still considered rather odd for young boys to be "playing with dolls" by a large part of the American culture, and so the Star Wars dolls had to be marketed under another, less-gay-sounding, name.
The fact that their clothing was molded as part of the toy, as opposed to being separate cloth pieces, probably also helped avoid the stigma. They looked more like bigger, multi-colored "Green Army Men" than their larger, Malibou-driving kin.
The South African economy, IIRC, is based almost entirely on trade and tourism. Sanctions were crippling their economy, which is the reason why de Klerk and the reformers were able to bring about change without bloodsheed.
(A person more cynical than I would probably insist that sanctions, not some pure altruism, were the main reason why de Klerk himself opposed apartheid in the first place, or at the very least were a factor in forming his opinion.)
In the case of Abu Grahib, I find it hard to imagine that generic pressure from the top for better intel-gathering is what resulted in naken man-pyramids and guards snapping photos of each other mocking the prisoners.
Occam's Razor leads me to suspect that it was just plain old immature grab-assery which lead to that particular scandal. Give a bunch a 20-something idiots that much authority without enough oversight, and that's what you get, as hidden video of a typical frat hazing will usually confirm.
Those at the top still ought to be criticized for inadequite supervision of those involved, however, so this comment should in no way be read as a defense of anybody up the chain of command, including the Commander in Chief himself. I'm just saying that the situations don't appear to be as analogous as you seem to be implying.
I'd like to point out that the reason why South Africa has done away with apartheid is not trade sanctions. It happened because a few great men did was what needed.
While they are certainly to be applauded, there's no way you can convince me that their victory would have come about nearly as swiftly (if at all) without the entire world putting economic pressure on South Africa to reform.
I think you got confused about who "he" is and who you are replying to, but never the less are pretty much on target.
Insightful???
While it warms my libertarian heart to see somebody express a fondness for the "dead" Amendments (the 9th and 10th), you really should take the time to read the document which is being ameded as well.
9th - All powers not specifically granted to the federal government in this document are reserved for the states
The right to regulate international (and interstate!) commerce is specifically granted to the federal government, so the 9th does not apply here.
10th - Any right not given to the government (see above) here, or prohibited by the states, is automatically given to the people
Since the right is given, the 10th doesn't apply here either.
Comic books imply a storyline in serial form.
No, they really don't. Just because the two biggest producers of comics (DC and Marvel) did things that way doesn't mean that it's the only way.
I pick up a graphic novel like Watchmen and I have the whole story.
You do know that Watchmen was originally published in 12 serialized issues, right?
Most of the paperbacks that people like to call "graphic novels" and buy in bookstores are just bound reprints of multiple issues.
No... it's not a human right to have Yahoo and Google, that you are correct.
But is it right for the US govt to say who Yahoo and Google can do business with?
Yes. Yes it is.
Countries regulate commerce, sometimes for political reasons. They are called "trade sanctions" and are the reason, among other things, that black folks in South Africa are now able to participate in their own government.
Now, as to the question of whether this particular sanction is a good idea, I'm inclined to say "no."
We've been a political rival of China's ever since Chairman Mao took over, but we've also been a friendly trade partner going all the way back to Nixon's visit. Trade between the US and China seems to have been, for the most part, a Good Thing for both countries, and has resulted in a gradual shift in China of becoming slightly more capitalistic and slightly more democratic, all without a shot fired. (Okay, not counting Korea and Viet Nam, where we indirectly butted heads a bit... Oh, and that spy plane they nabbed right after Bush the Younger took office... but that hardly counts.)
I respectfully disagree with the Senator on this one. China is either a "Most Favored Nation" in our economic policy or it's not. If you want to push a policy of major trade sanctions against them, let's talk about it, but don't nickel-and-dime them by witholding Internet search engines. That's just petty and stupid.
They put policies in place which make retail managers feel pressured to pump up their sales figures by "forcing" excessive bundles on desperate (and foolish) pre-Christmas X-Box 360 buyers.
Then, when they get heat for it, they respond by firing the retail managers, but keep all the largesse of the whole scam firmly in their pockets.
And we are supposed to take this as an indicator that they are interested in doing the right thing?
It says you are willing to believe in something based on faith which requires absolutely no logical justification.
Which is the same thing as saying he's a human being.
I've never meet an atheist or agnostic who didn't believe in something he or she could not properly support.
Our five senses only give us a tiny glimpse of the world we are in, and often even that input is wrong. We take a hell of a lot of faith just to go on living.
Exactly.
Well, at some point "action figure" replaced "doll" or "toy".
That point would be 1977, when Star Wars came out.
And I've yet to see anybody else successfully market little dolls as "action figures" since then. G.I. Joe is a "toy." Barbie is a "doll."
I think Alan Moore's "The Watchmen" is one of the greatest works of storytelling art in the past 50 years, but anybody who calls it a "graphic novel" around me risks a punch in the throat.
It's a comic book.
A brilliant, fantastic, literary comic book.
"Graphic novel" sounds like it's a Stephen King paperback.
Oh, and in answer to the question "Time To Stop Calling Them Games?"
No. They're games. You play them. Stop living in denial.
It's too bad that nobody seems to be asking the workers who are being "protected" what they think about smoking bans.
See the thing is, in just about every city where smoking is banned from bars, lots of bars close down. Since the local bar is (or rather, used to be) the only place left where smokers could go and indulge in their filthy addiction, a lot of bars have come to depend on smokers for the vast majority of their business.
Instead of banning smoking entirely, the correct way to handle it would have been to simply enforce a minimum standard of air quality in the "workplace" where people are serving smokers. This might require very advanced ventilation and filtration systesm, and might also require that fewer smokers are seated in the same size room, which would still be a financial hit to those bars, but might not cause them all to go out of business entirely.
Disclaimer: I don't smoke, hate breathing it, and I very much enjoy going out to the remaining restaurants in my town which didn't close down after the smoking ban. This is a matter of principle for me. I don't like seeing The Nanny State driving honest people out of business.
LOL. Yes, I'm that confused by this lawsuit that I can't even get a simple acronym right.
It's worse than that.
Ford may have a "monopoly" on Ford Trucks, but the iTunes "monopoly" would be a monopoly on... what, exactly?
I mean, you can buy the exact same song from any of a number of other on-line sellers, or buy the CD itself from any of thousands of stores across the country, but only from iTunes can you get a copy of the song which was sold by iTunes.
Wilco
Charlie
Foxtrot
?
Vista is just the next version of Windows, right?
How is a new version of windows going to make the all the non-Madden EA games not suck?
How is a new version of windoes going to result in a new FPS that is anything other than an even-more-prettied-up revision of Quake?
How is a new version of windows going to do away with level grind and moster farming in MMORPGs?
Shenanigans! Shenanigans!
Yet, in spite of all this, the climate is still cooler than it was in 800 AD.
Get out there and drive more SUV's people, we've got a Mini Ice Age to fend off here!!!
What about couples that are not infertile by accident of birth, disease, or injury, but rather when one parent or the other had themselves "fixed" because they don't want to raise children?
Heh. That should have read "one partner or the other", obviously.
My point stands: A society either allows non-child-producing couples to marry or it doesn't. Ours does, and therefore there is no case to be made for preventing gays from getting married beyond a desire to tell people how they can and can't live their lives.
Infertile couples can still adopt and provide a balanced parental environment. Gay adopters cannot.
I understand the logic behind that statement. Women and men are different, and the traditional parental environment is to have one of each...
But is a "balanced" parental environment all that critical? Most studies I've seen show that kids raised by same-gender parents turn out just fine... in fact, they tend to be more well-adjusted to society than those raised by single parents (which a startlingly high number of kids from traditional biological families end up being.)
What about couples that are not infertile by accident of birth, disease, or injury, but rather when one parent or the other had themselves "fixed" because they don't want to raise children? If you let them marry, and don't let gays marry, you're right back to being completely unfair and arbitrary.
North Dakota is preparing to experiment with a cool new method of delivering Wi-Fi Internet access state-wide using small transmitters on weather balloons. If they get it working, it could be the new hotness for most of the rural Western US (not to mention Canada.)