One exception: All the really, really bad "AAA" stuff would profit from people not downloading it early, because then people would go to cinemas unaware how their time will get wasted and their money essentially stolen. But since that morally amounts to fraud on your side, I cannot find it in me to see that any injustice is done to you there.
That, my friend, is the actual reason for "anti-piracy" laws: if people have access to good quality movies (or, more generally, culture), why would they watch marketed crap?
Oh go pound sand, Anonymous COWARD. We went through the anti-facts, don't bother with data stylings of The Harper Conservatives in Canada and we're still undoing the damage more than a year after he was shown the door. This sounds like it's going to be considerably worse than what Steve-O could get away with up here.
On the plus side, Canada will probably be able to reverse that STEM brain drain to the US at last. So we got that going for us.
Shown the door?
You don't have tar and feathers in Canada?
Only way that will happen is if we change the voting system to be something other than First Past the Post and we get rid of Gerrymandering. However since both of those things support the interests of the two major parties neither is likely to see any meaningful reform any time soon.
Basically, either you people get to perform a massive and successful citizen uprising or you're screwed hard; so as a citizen uprising rewrites a lot of the rules, I don't really see a reason it could not rewrite the very rules that you aptly described as locking the voting system into oligarchic bureaucracy...
Is Hillary a saint? Hell no. Nobody who runs for high office is without sin.
I admit that I'm not that knowledgeable about US politics, but I thought that one reason why Sanders was such an interesting candidate is that people may certainly disagree with him on many subjects, but no one could sincerely accuse him of dishonesty.
BTW, that's why I'm actually quite glad that he wasn't elected: there is no way in the 2017 word for a US president, no matter how benevolent, to rule without murdering anyone, and it would be sad for Sanders to taint himself in such a way.
Actually, no, Daemonik is right on this point, ISIS is an apocalyptic sect who wants nothing except total dominance over their enemies, which means that negotiating with them is nonsense, and their grievances are largely irrational.
WHY an apocalyptic sect of madmen using ultraviolence to advance their agenda (and who openly promises to make slavery great again) rose to power in the middle-east is, yes, a result of American actions: the bombing and occupying have shattered the idea of a possible rule of law or popular sovereignty, and convinced important parts of the Sunni population to accept ISIS as a lesser evil.
You have to separate both concepts : addressing the grievances of the population who more or less support ISIS, or the even larger population who won't fight it because they know that western powers will never let them choose their own policies even if they get rid of ISIS, is certainly a good strategy (both morally and politically); thinking there is a possible common ground with ISIS is delusive.
To be more precise, one realistic wording would be "from what we know so far we can say that amongst these people there are terrorists, people who fought in regular or guerilla warfaire against an invading military and are labeled terrorists, and some innocents; and we - the people - don't know who are what".
This gets the "presumption of innocence" for each individual right, but is not bullshitting like claiming that they are all "innocents till proved guilty".
From the article that someone linked below, I get that hiring unqualified (or at least unlicensed) teachers to deliver a scripted standardised curriculum is the official practice of the school: whether it is a bad idea, a full scam or an innovative way of reducing costs via computerized lessons is open to debate (debate into which I will not enter since I have not checked the actual schools).
So, maybe someone is lying, but maybe there are just two different conceptions of education in confrontation here.
That you have to be very careful to who you donate and what it brings... and that, basically, you can't buy solidarity: your money can help, but it's not enough, you have to involve yourself in what is done with it, and you have to understand the society you try to help.
I remember when watching "V" that the "scientists plot" propaganda seemed outlying unbelievable: I mean, everybody's been to high school and has been taught the basis of the scientific methods, so there's no way a politician could single out scientists as a whole and have crowds believe him...
About the TheDonald folks, I've read about them (I tried to surf on Reddit a while ago but wasn't able to filter the noise) but could never figure what is their demographic: do they actually turn in greater numbers than the white nationalists you pointed first?
And in unrelated note, could you explain to a foreigner how the evangelist group came to vote so massively for a godless narcissist?
You need to understand that pornographic producers work in a market, and a very competitive one.
And in this market, since competition scarcely rely on talent and imagination, a not negligible part of it relies on being trashier than the competitor.
You might remember the "golden age of porn" being much more about a man and a woman having sex (or two men if they were so inclined, or two women) than about gang-bang bukkakke (or other acts that are not made because the potential viewer is attracted to them but for shock value).
So, even if I'm not in favor of a "moral majority" of closet perverts making the rules, it's not obvious that no rules are required. And it certainly isn't true that videos sold on the market do not affect people who don't look at this video, considering that they do affect what becomes "market standards".
A question and a remark, if you do care:
- First, I've had courses (middle-level, I'll say) in climatology some years ago, and all climatologists who taught us actually do consider that climate science is complex, and that the gross simplifications that constitute the Global Warming mediatic consensus do not make sense.
- Second, I'd be very happy if you could explain something to me about the Kurgan hypothesis, since afaik it is closely related to your field of work in PIE studies: Marija Gimbutas, the inventor of the Kurgan hypothesis, received her doctorate from Tübingen University in 1946. Which means that she started her doctorate a few years before, and I think that you know that starting 1933 the german anthropology field became a tad less scientific that we may have wished. So, how come such a little epistemologic problem never casted any doubts on Gimbuta's work?
Slashdot Mirror
One exception: All the really, really bad "AAA" stuff would profit from people not downloading it early, because then people would go to cinemas unaware how their time will get wasted and their money essentially stolen. But since that morally amounts to fraud on your side, I cannot find it in me to see that any injustice is done to you there.
That, my friend, is the actual reason for "anti-piracy" laws: if people have access to good quality movies (or, more generally, culture), why would they watch marketed crap?
Or you could abolish the Supreme Court...
Oh go pound sand, Anonymous COWARD. We went through the anti-facts, don't bother with data stylings of The Harper Conservatives in Canada and we're still undoing the damage more than a year after he was shown the door. This sounds like it's going to be considerably worse than what Steve-O could get away with up here.
On the plus side, Canada will probably be able to reverse that STEM brain drain to the US at last. So we got that going for us.
Shown the door?
You don't have tar and feathers in Canada?
Only way that will happen is if we change the voting system to be something other than First Past the Post and we get rid of Gerrymandering. However since both of those things support the interests of the two major parties neither is likely to see any meaningful reform any time soon.
Basically, either you people get to perform a massive and successful citizen uprising or you're screwed hard; so as a citizen uprising rewrites a lot of the rules, I don't really see a reason it could not rewrite the very rules that you aptly described as locking the voting system into oligarchic bureaucracy...
Is Hillary a saint? Hell no. Nobody who runs for high office is without sin.
I admit that I'm not that knowledgeable about US politics, but I thought that one reason why Sanders was such an interesting candidate is that people may certainly disagree with him on many subjects, but no one could sincerely accuse him of dishonesty.
BTW, that's why I'm actually quite glad that he wasn't elected: there is no way in the 2017 word for a US president, no matter how benevolent, to rule without murdering anyone, and it would be sad for Sanders to taint himself in such a way.
Actually, no, Daemonik is right on this point, ISIS is an apocalyptic sect who wants nothing except total dominance over their enemies, which means that negotiating with them is nonsense, and their grievances are largely irrational.
WHY an apocalyptic sect of madmen using ultraviolence to advance their agenda (and who openly promises to make slavery great again) rose to power in the middle-east is, yes, a result of American actions: the bombing and occupying have shattered the idea of a possible rule of law or popular sovereignty, and convinced important parts of the Sunni population to accept ISIS as a lesser evil.
You have to separate both concepts : addressing the grievances of the population who more or less support ISIS, or the even larger population who won't fight it because they know that western powers will never let them choose their own policies even if they get rid of ISIS, is certainly a good strategy (both morally and politically); thinking there is a possible common ground with ISIS is delusive.
To be more precise, one realistic wording would be "from what we know so far we can say that amongst these people there are terrorists, people who fought in regular or guerilla warfaire against an invading military and are labeled terrorists, and some innocents; and we - the people - don't know who are what".
This gets the "presumption of innocence" for each individual right, but is not bullshitting like claiming that they are all "innocents till proved guilty".
It's not all the people that make medecine, it's the people who makes the decision...
Or you can just forbid electoral ads, making elections about programs rather than about money...
Well, not 25% of French population, the 25% votes for Front National only appears when abstention is record-high...
Shouldn't you secede then?
Have you seen an actual porn catalog (online or offline) recently?
Well, there's Minetest now...
From the article that someone linked below, I get that hiring unqualified (or at least unlicensed) teachers to deliver a scripted standardised curriculum is the official practice of the school: whether it is a bad idea, a full scam or an innovative way of reducing costs via computerized lessons is open to debate (debate into which I will not enter since I have not checked the actual schools).
So, maybe someone is lying, but maybe there are just two different conceptions of education in confrontation here.
That you have to be very careful to who you donate and what it brings... and that, basically, you can't buy solidarity: your money can help, but it's not enough, you have to involve yourself in what is done with it, and you have to understand the society you try to help.
Do you really want us to believe that Swiss actually exists?
I remember when watching "V" that the "scientists plot" propaganda seemed outlying unbelievable: I mean, everybody's been to high school and has been taught the basis of the scientific methods, so there's no way a politician could single out scientists as a whole and have crowds believe him...
What went wrong?
About the TheDonald folks, I've read about them (I tried to surf on Reddit a while ago but wasn't able to filter the noise) but could never figure what is their demographic: do they actually turn in greater numbers than the white nationalists you pointed first?
And in unrelated note, could you explain to a foreigner how the evangelist group came to vote so massively for a godless narcissist?
I get your point, but have you read Pasolini's "I know" texte?
You need to understand that pornographic producers work in a market, and a very competitive one.
And in this market, since competition scarcely rely on talent and imagination, a not negligible part of it relies on being trashier than the competitor.
You might remember the "golden age of porn" being much more about a man and a woman having sex (or two men if they were so inclined, or two women) than about gang-bang bukkakke (or other acts that are not made because the potential viewer is attracted to them but for shock value).
So, even if I'm not in favor of a "moral majority" of closet perverts making the rules, it's not obvious that no rules are required. And it certainly isn't true that videos sold on the market do not affect people who don't look at this video, considering that they do affect what becomes "market standards".
What people are does not depend on whatever some people with robes sitting behind a desk decide what they recognize the formers to be...
Or maybe we could have real international regulation instead of Pax Americana?
Trust France? After they hijacked Morales' airplane because they thought that Snowden might be on board?
A question and a remark, if you do care:
- First, I've had courses (middle-level, I'll say) in climatology some years ago, and all climatologists who taught us actually do consider that climate science is complex, and that the gross simplifications that constitute the Global Warming mediatic consensus do not make sense.
- Second, I'd be very happy if you could explain something to me about the Kurgan hypothesis, since afaik it is closely related to your field of work in PIE studies: Marija Gimbutas, the inventor of the Kurgan hypothesis, received her doctorate from Tübingen University in 1946. Which means that she started her doctorate a few years before, and I think that you know that starting 1933 the german anthropology field became a tad less scientific that we may have wished. So, how come such a little epistemologic problem never casted any doubts on Gimbuta's work?
You mean it's a proof of sanity?