Once that happens, the laws will spread through Europe & eventually overseas... all in the name of "harmonization"
Indeed. Although the matter of data retention has passed the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. It's now a directive in full force, which means member states has to pass it into law within a given period of time (18 or 24 months, iirc). The directive states that data pertaining to tracing and identifying communications, but not content, should be retained for a period of no less than one year.
Another good example of harmonization rhetoric is Swedish Minister of Justice's[1] campaign to legalize audio surveillance of specific locations (they've been previously restricted to wiretaps, afaik) - including, under some circumstances, news organizations. Good way to get at those political dissenters. His main argument seems to be that similar laws exist in the other Nordic countries.
[1] He is known as Satan, or the Adversary, in some circles (disclaimer: joke:P).
Madisons definition of democracy is no longer relevant - modern political science has many, many definitions of democracy. In its most wide sense it simply means that the ruling body's power is derived from its citizens, something which clearly includes the US. There is, however, something called 'constitutional rule' which is meant to limit government power. Furthermore, most western countries are referred to as liberal democracies, i.e. countries where the ruling body's power is derived from its citizens and where citizens have legal protection from the government, including freedom of speech, equality under the law, etc.
I do agree with you on the issue at hand; political donations should be strictly regulated. However, there are some opposing viewpoints on this. Some argue that a pluralistic system (e.g. in the US), where the government is impartial towards competing special interests groups, is a superior form of governing.
The "American Public" could remove the CIA from existence in the next pair of elections if it wanted.
What you're is describing is an ideal, and an example of early democratic theory. Once applied, it's not that simple. A government doesn't respond to the merest whim of its citizens, nor are its citizens the only source of power in a democracy. Special interests, or lobbyists, are, in most democracies, a power to be reckoned with. Another example that contradicts this is the election process; Joe Schmoo cannot be elected president/prime minister - it requires resources in the form of power and money.
Democracy is not perfect - it's simply the least flawed system we've been able to come up with so far. I believe Churchill said something to that effect.
When I stated 'presenting a theory as fact', I was very sloppy, and I apologize. I did not mean as a fact or collection of facts (as in parts of a whole), but rather, 'as true'.
I did not mean to imply that I, or Popper, shared the logical positivist point of view (i.e. science is the accumulation of facts). In fact, I don't, and he didn't. Nor does hardly anyone notable in that field (with the possible exception of van Fraassen).
There's a difference between theories. Some theories are closer to the truth than others. Presenting string theory as fact might very well be considered unethical, but the same can hardly be said about the theory of gravity (or evolution, if you want to start a flame war;). This distinction is important when speaking to laymen in whatever discipline it concerns, IMHO.
Karl Popper wrote extensively on verisimilitude (truth proximity). The basic idea is while truth is probably unattainable, and the number of experiments which can be done to (verify/)falsify/strengthen a theory are infinite, the comparison should be between where are we are now, and where we were before. So even if the (metaphorical) space between a theory and the truth is still infinite, it is in a way not as great as it was with a previous theory, or before a conducted experiment.
The EU isn't really comparable to the US. The US is a federation, while the EU is something altogether different - usually referred to as a 'complex multi-level democracy' (at least in the political science field).
If you're referring to the election of national parliament, the number has never been 95%. It was above 90% during the 70's though (with a peak of 91.8% in 1976). More recent figures are around 80%.
Incorrect. It is not "VERY difficult" to get a residency permit in Sweden.
As far as (1) is concerned: seeking asylum is one way to get a temporary permit (it was always a temporary permit, that's not a recent invention - they do, however, check to see if your country of origin is more stable, if you have relatives in Sweden, if you have children, and so on, and so forth - there are a number of factors which influence the type and the length of your permit). However, people from the West have pretty much no chance of being granted asylum.
On point (2): you don't have to marry a Swede, you merely have to be involved with one, and they as a matter of course do not view relationships as 'fake' - usually you might be denied if there is foul play involved (if they suspect trafficing or some such). Country of origin does not come into play, regardless of what the evening news claims. This is probably the easiest way to get a residency permit.
Regarding point (3): this permit is not given automatically, but is rather subject to a number of rules, most of which concern your income. Can't come here to be a bum, apparently, even if you're from within the EU.
Another way to get a permit is through a job or as a foreign exchange student. If you manage to secure a position as au pair or a visiting researcher you receive a permit. You can also start up a company, but that requires that you undergo some scrutiny regarding the possibility of actually making money. I have no idea what kind expertise they have in this field though. It might be that they hire consultants for this particular type of applicant.
While I agree that children stumbling upon pornography is a concern, this is NOT a good solution. For instance, why is it an opt-out solution, instead of an opt-in solution? Or why not let the market deal with it: sooner or later, there will be a demand for this service. At that point, any ISP can take it up, and those who want their Internet censored can simply use that ISP.
Those with a conspiratorial mind may see other uses for this. It's a first step towards general content control. Even though this almost certainly is not the intent, there will always be people who feel that such a great tool can always be used for many more things. Next step might perhaps be blocking (without the opt-out, of course) child pornography. That's not likely to garner much opposition. After that they'll go for snuff, or prostitution. After awhile they'll start finding things that aren't really illegal, just morally reprehensible (to most people). Pretty soon, censoring yet another thing won't be such a big deal.
There are times when censorship might seem like a good idea. However, anything that might lead to a less free society is not a good solution. It might sound callous, but I'd rather have a few children messed up by seeing pornography accidentally (if that really is such a trauma) than live with a perpetual censoring filter, just waiting to be abused. Parents, find another way to protect your kids, please.
That's why I have a love-hate relationship with conducting interviews, as opposed to observations, when it comes to usability testing. On the one hand, it's necessary and can be extremely useful. On the other, 80% of all responses are something like "I just don't like it" or "it looks nice".
Although, I must admit that specifying exactly what in the "look n' feel" of an application is "awkward and unnatural" is at times difficult. (And I can confirm that mocking users for their vagueness is not appreciated.:-) )
A very important point to make here is that while I can make that choice for myself, it is NOT legitimate for me to make that choice for others. Actually limiting other people's freedom without their consent is repressive.
This is a good example of J.S. Mills "tyranny of the majority". There has to be limits concerning the governments rights over the individual. Somewhere, in our all-encompassing praise of democracy, we forgot this.
I couldn't agree more; the US is going down the drain. However, the European Union is going the exact same way. And much of the world is already down there. Welcome to your Orwellian future.
The EUCD, the software patent legislation (which might just be happening anyway), the joint effort of ministers Bodstrom of Sweden and Clarke of the UK when it comes destroying civil liberties in Europe, the less-than-perfect freedom of press in Sweden (not to mention the debate about journalists blogging on their own time) - it's a road paved with mostly good intentions to guess where.
While I'm all for critizing the US for the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT Act, let's not pretend we (swedes/europeans) live in a perfect society.
In fact, I'd like to argue that it would be easier to turn this development around in the US than in Europe. Due to differing civic cultures, and a much more clear tradition of focusing politics on civil rights and liberties in the US compared to Europe in general, and the social democratic countries in particular.
(Even though you didn't really claim that Sweden was 'better' in your post, I felt obligated to point out that it isn't.;)
Bishop Ussher (of Ireland, iirc) calculated that the universe was created October 23rd, 4004 BC. It was a Sunday. Again iirc: it was created in the evening.
I'm sure other people have done similar calculations, but the fact the he specified a date and an approximal time of day struck me as funny.:)
As far as your hypothesis go; sure, but why? Is it a reasonable assumption to make? I mean, the brain-in-a-vat-theory (Heil, et al) is difficult to disproof, but is it more likely than the other possibility; that the physical world is actually real and things are pretty much as we perceive them?
I agree with parts of what the parent said, and this post is only in part intended as a reply to that post. I do, however, think that it is important to point out that global warming does affect some people greatly, and those people are not European. I don't think that the "people do die" argument is valid here.
The question here is NOT whether or not it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was severely abusing his power and killing his own citizens.
First, Iraq was to be invaded under the pretense that they were linked to Osama Bin Laden somehow. After that, they had WMD's and was a threat to the US and the free world. Now, afterwards, when no link has been proven to Bin Laden, and no WMD's found, the administration is trying to pass it off as a mission of liberation.
If Saddam Hussein hadn't killed his own citizens and been a general homocidal maniac, the first two reasons (arguably) still would've been valid reasons to invade. That's not true for the third reason, which was contrived afterwards. What would the adminstration have claimed was the reason for invasion if the third reason hadn't existed? What will they say next time, if the next country invaded doesn't have such a murderer for a leader?
You need to be clear and truthful in advance when you're conducting such serious business as war. Now if the Bush administration had relied more on diplomacy for just a bit longer (which probably wouldn't have made Saddam cave in), and then tried to form a coalition based on the fact that he actually murders his own people rather than on non-existant WMD's, I'd wager that political climate concerning Iraq and US foreign policy would be quite different.
This thread is starting to go off topic, but I nonetheless feel the post warrants a reply. However, since the parent does not specify any specific UN ruling, I'll feel free to comment more freely around Israeli policy concerning Palestine.
When said policy includes things with such massive collateral damage such as shooting missiles into the streets, killing alleged terrorists as well as many civilians. (I'm using the word alleged here, since it's probably on the word of Mossad, and not any court-ruling that these people are named terrorists.)
Now, before you say, "but what about the terrorists, they're bombing Israeli civilians", I'll be happy to state the difference. The terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such; arrested, if possible, and put to trial. Israel, however, is a state, and should not use the same inhumane methods as criminals that blow people up right and left.
Now, these terrorists may or may not be supported by Arafat (or whomever) in the Palestine government. It's certainly something that requires further investigation. The difference here (between two possible variants of state-sponsored terrorism (term used losely)) is that Palestine (if it actually sponsors the terrorists) does so with more clandestine methods, thus concealing the link between the terror and the state. Israel does no such thing, but instead explains that the methods used are the same their enemies are using (or less worse actually, since Israeli operations has a military target, whereas suicide bombings and such does not - neither side seems overly concerned with collateral damage though). But a state cannot compare its methods or actions to that of a non-state. It simply doesn't work that way.
If the UN were to vote on whether or not to support terrorist activities in Israel they would naturally not support it, nor do they support state-sponsored terrorism of any kind (please correct me on this, if I am mistaken).
As Israel is naturally a sensitive subject, perhaps a small disclaimer is appropriate. This post is NOT antisemitic in nature. My views on the matter would be the same regardless of with nation acted as described above, and I do NOT condone terrorism (not the 'ordinary' kind or the state-sponsored kind (in the slightly Chomskyan sense)).
Unfounded statistics or generalizations are pretty useless.:)
Like it or not, sex is part of society and many western women are taught that their is a value to it. Accordingly, terms of trade may not be strictly those used as prostitutes, but you'll find that a trade for sex is more subtle terms is still very common.
As above.
You can prove me wrong by making the wedding jewlery industry all but vanish.
Whereas you are likely right as to the original use of the engagement rings, this is not necessarily the case today. The tradition of wedding bands are a symbol of the union. And, of course, as you pointed out; it IS an industry, and as such it uses advertising to make sure that people buy their products even if the original reason for the engagement bands is gone.
>Thus the government has no business regulating marriage. It surely does if there is any benefit to recognizing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wha? I don't believe this at all. Do you have anything to back that claim up?
If anything, Google is probably more recognizable to people in general. They are, at least, to ad execs.
Once that happens, the laws will spread through Europe & eventually overseas... all in the name of "harmonization"
:P).
Indeed. Although the matter of data retention has passed the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. It's now a directive in full force, which means member states has to pass it into law within a given period of time (18 or 24 months, iirc). The directive states that data pertaining to tracing and identifying communications, but not content, should be retained for a period of no less than one year.
Another good example of harmonization rhetoric is Swedish Minister of Justice's[1] campaign to legalize audio surveillance of specific locations (they've been previously restricted to wiretaps, afaik) - including, under some circumstances, news organizations. Good way to get at those political dissenters. His main argument seems to be that similar laws exist in the other Nordic countries.
[1] He is known as Satan, or the Adversary, in some circles (disclaimer: joke
Madisons definition of democracy is no longer relevant - modern political science has many, many definitions of democracy. In its most wide sense it simply means that the ruling body's power is derived from its citizens, something which clearly includes the US. There is, however, something called 'constitutional rule' which is meant to limit government power. Furthermore, most western countries are referred to as liberal democracies, i.e. countries where the ruling body's power is derived from its citizens and where citizens have legal protection from the government, including freedom of speech, equality under the law, etc.
I do agree with you on the issue at hand; political donations should be strictly regulated. However, there are some opposing viewpoints on this. Some argue that a pluralistic system (e.g. in the US), where the government is impartial towards competing special interests groups, is a superior form of governing.
The "American Public" could remove the CIA from existence in the next pair of elections if it wanted.
What you're is describing is an ideal, and an example of early democratic theory. Once applied, it's not that simple. A government doesn't respond to the merest whim of its citizens, nor are its citizens the only source of power in a democracy. Special interests, or lobbyists, are, in most democracies, a power to be reckoned with. Another example that contradicts this is the election process; Joe Schmoo cannot be elected president/prime minister - it requires resources in the form of power and money.
Democracy is not perfect - it's simply the least flawed system we've been able to come up with so far. I believe Churchill said something to that effect.
When I stated 'presenting a theory as fact', I was very sloppy, and I apologize. I did not mean as a fact or collection of facts (as in parts of a whole), but rather, 'as true'.
I did not mean to imply that I, or Popper, shared the logical positivist point of view (i.e. science is the accumulation of facts). In fact, I don't, and he didn't. Nor does hardly anyone notable in that field (with the possible exception of van Fraassen).
There's a difference between theories. Some theories are closer to the truth than others. Presenting string theory as fact might very well be considered unethical, but the same can hardly be said about the theory of gravity (or evolution, if you want to start a flame war ;). This distinction is important when speaking to laymen in whatever discipline it concerns, IMHO.
Karl Popper wrote extensively on verisimilitude (truth proximity). The basic idea is while truth is probably unattainable, and the number of experiments which can be done to (verify/)falsify/strengthen a theory are infinite, the comparison should be between where are we are now, and where we were before. So even if the (metaphorical) space between a theory and the truth is still infinite, it is in a way not as great as it was with a previous theory, or before a conducted experiment.
The EU isn't really comparable to the US. The US is a federation, while the EU is something altogether different - usually referred to as a 'complex multi-level democracy' (at least in the political science field).
If you're referring to the election of national parliament, the number has never been 95%. It was above 90% during the 70's though (with a peak of 91.8% in 1976). More recent figures are around 80%.
Incorrect. It is not "VERY difficult" to get a residency permit in Sweden.
As far as (1) is concerned: seeking asylum is one way to get a temporary permit (it was always a temporary permit, that's not a recent invention - they do, however, check to see if your country of origin is more stable, if you have relatives in Sweden, if you have children, and so on, and so forth - there are a number of factors which influence the type and the length of your permit). However, people from the West have pretty much no chance of being granted asylum.
On point (2): you don't have to marry a Swede, you merely have to be involved with one, and they as a matter of course do not view relationships as 'fake' - usually you might be denied if there is foul play involved (if they suspect trafficing or some such). Country of origin does not come into play, regardless of what the evening news claims. This is probably the easiest way to get a residency permit.
Regarding point (3): this permit is not given automatically, but is rather subject to a number of rules, most of which concern your income. Can't come here to be a bum, apparently, even if you're from within the EU.
Another way to get a permit is through a job or as a foreign exchange student. If you manage to secure a position as au pair or a visiting researcher you receive a permit. You can also start up a company, but that requires that you undergo some scrutiny regarding the possibility of actually making money. I have no idea what kind expertise they have in this field though. It might be that they hire consultants for this particular type of applicant.
While I agree that children stumbling upon pornography is a concern, this is NOT a good solution. For instance, why is it an opt-out solution, instead of an opt-in solution? Or why not let the market deal with it: sooner or later, there will be a demand for this service. At that point, any ISP can take it up, and those who want their Internet censored can simply use that ISP.
Those with a conspiratorial mind may see other uses for this. It's a first step towards general content control. Even though this almost certainly is not the intent, there will always be people who feel that such a great tool can always be used for many more things. Next step might perhaps be blocking (without the opt-out, of course) child pornography. That's not likely to garner much opposition. After that they'll go for snuff, or prostitution. After awhile they'll start finding things that aren't really illegal, just morally reprehensible (to most people). Pretty soon, censoring yet another thing won't be such a big deal.
There are times when censorship might seem like a good idea. However, anything that might lead to a less free society is not a good solution. It might sound callous, but I'd rather have a few children messed up by seeing pornography accidentally (if that really is such a trauma) than live with a perpetual censoring filter, just waiting to be abused. Parents, find another way to protect your kids, please.
That's why I have a love-hate relationship with conducting interviews, as opposed to observations, when it comes to usability testing. On the one hand, it's necessary and can be extremely useful. On the other, 80% of all responses are something like "I just don't like it" or "it looks nice".
:-) )
Although, I must admit that specifying exactly what in the "look n' feel" of an application is "awkward and unnatural" is at times difficult. (And I can confirm that mocking users for their vagueness is not appreciated.
A very important point to make here is that while I can make that choice for myself, it is NOT legitimate for me to make that choice for others. Actually limiting other people's freedom without their consent is repressive.
This is a good example of J.S. Mills "tyranny of the majority". There has to be limits concerning the governments rights over the individual. Somewhere, in our all-encompassing praise of democracy, we forgot this.
I couldn't agree more; the US is going down the drain. However, the European Union is going the exact same way. And much of the world is already down there. Welcome to your Orwellian future.
;)
The EUCD, the software patent legislation (which might just be happening anyway), the joint effort of ministers Bodstrom of Sweden and Clarke of the UK when it comes destroying civil liberties in Europe, the less-than-perfect freedom of press in Sweden (not to mention the debate about journalists blogging on their own time) - it's a road paved with mostly good intentions to guess where.
While I'm all for critizing the US for the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT Act, let's not pretend we (swedes/europeans) live in a perfect society.
In fact, I'd like to argue that it would be easier to turn this development around in the US than in Europe. Due to differing civic cultures, and a much more clear tradition of focusing politics on civil rights and liberties in the US compared to Europe in general, and the social democratic countries in particular.
(Even though you didn't really claim that Sweden was 'better' in your post, I felt obligated to point out that it isn't.
Bishop Ussher (of Ireland, iirc) calculated that the universe was created October 23rd, 4004 BC. It was a Sunday. Again iirc: it was created in the evening.
:)
I'm sure other people have done similar calculations, but the fact the he specified a date and an approximal time of day struck me as funny.
As far as your hypothesis go; sure, but why? Is it a reasonable assumption to make? I mean, the brain-in-a-vat-theory (Heil, et al) is difficult to disproof, but is it more likely than the other possibility; that the physical world is actually real and things are pretty much as we perceive them?
I agree with parts of what the parent said, and this post is only in part intended as a reply to that post. I do, however, think that it is important to point out that global warming does affect some people greatly, and those people are not European. I don't think that the "people do die" argument is valid here.
t m p
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2204756.s
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030729/449_7030.as
http://greennature.com/article1608.html
http://www.climatehotmap.org/africa.html
If I make a copy and give it to a friend, that will never be illegal.
;)
Never? I'm sorry, but I think you're underestimating the greed and lobbying power of these organizations.
The question here is NOT whether or not it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was severely abusing his power and killing his own citizens.
First, Iraq was to be invaded under the pretense that they were linked to Osama Bin Laden somehow. After that, they had WMD's and was a threat to the US and the free world. Now, afterwards, when no link has been proven to Bin Laden, and no WMD's found, the administration is trying to pass it off as a mission of liberation.
If Saddam Hussein hadn't killed his own citizens and been a general homocidal maniac, the first two reasons (arguably) still would've been valid reasons to invade. That's not true for the third reason, which was contrived afterwards. What would the adminstration have claimed was the reason for invasion if the third reason hadn't existed? What will they say next time, if the next country invaded doesn't have such a murderer for a leader?
You need to be clear and truthful in advance when you're conducting such serious business as war. Now if the Bush administration had relied more on diplomacy for just a bit longer (which probably wouldn't have made Saddam cave in), and then tried to form a coalition based on the fact that he actually murders his own people rather than on non-existant WMD's, I'd wager that political climate concerning Iraq and US foreign policy would be quite different.
This thread is starting to go off topic, but I nonetheless feel the post warrants a reply. However, since the parent does not specify any specific UN ruling, I'll feel free to comment more freely around Israeli policy concerning Palestine.
When said policy includes things with such massive collateral damage such as shooting missiles into the streets, killing alleged terrorists as well as many civilians. (I'm using the word alleged here, since it's probably on the word of Mossad, and not any court-ruling that these people are named terrorists.)
Now, before you say, "but what about the terrorists, they're bombing Israeli civilians", I'll be happy to state the difference. The terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such; arrested, if possible, and put to trial. Israel, however, is a state, and should not use the same inhumane methods as criminals that blow people up right and left.
Now, these terrorists may or may not be supported by Arafat (or whomever) in the Palestine government. It's certainly something that requires further investigation. The difference here (between two possible variants of state-sponsored terrorism (term used losely)) is that Palestine (if it actually sponsors the terrorists) does so with more clandestine methods, thus concealing the link between the terror and the state. Israel does no such thing, but instead explains that the methods used are the same their enemies are using (or less worse actually, since Israeli operations has a military target, whereas suicide bombings and such does not - neither side seems overly concerned with collateral damage though). But a state cannot compare its methods or actions to that of a non-state. It simply doesn't work that way.
If the UN were to vote on whether or not to support terrorist activities in Israel they would naturally not support it, nor do they support state-sponsored terrorism of any kind (please correct me on this, if I am mistaken).
As Israel is naturally a sensitive subject, perhaps a small disclaimer is appropriate. This post is NOT antisemitic in nature. My views on the matter would be the same regardless of with nation acted as described above, and I do NOT condone terrorism (not the 'ordinary' kind or the state-sponsored kind (in the slightly Chomskyan sense)).
Well, WAS isn't 100% correct. It's mostly true.
:)
Unfounded statistics or generalizations are pretty useless.
Like it or not, sex is part of society and many western women are taught that their is a value to it. Accordingly, terms of trade may not be strictly those used as prostitutes, but you'll find that a trade for sex is more subtle terms is still very common.
As above.
You can prove me wrong by making the wedding jewlery industry all but vanish.
Whereas you are likely right as to the original use of the engagement rings, this is not necessarily the case today. The tradition of wedding bands are a symbol of the union. And, of course, as you pointed out; it IS an industry, and as such it uses advertising to make sure that people buy their products even if the original reason for the engagement bands is gone.
>Thus the government has no business regulating marriage.
It surely does if there is any benefit to recognizing it.
I whole-heartedly agree.
That merely shows you haven't had sex with one.
Neither have I, of course. I heard it through the grapewine..
Actually, the Echelon system does exist and it is not what you seem to think it is. Source: http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/pre chelon_en.pdf