Look at American TV for a counterexample, whereby the huge flood of "open" channels has provided nothing of any worth and more mindless drivel, pornographics filth and immoral posturings than any other country. Licensing imposes at least some kind of quality control.
And what fucking model do you propose, eh? European TV? What a fucking decandent society. Your TV shows do nothing but glorify killing technology (think of British shows like Robot Wars) or the exploitation of women as sexual objects with gratuituous nudity at prime time. Europe is a decadend society. You'll never see this in America (save in Argentina, but then again, their society has been contaminated by sick Nazi exiles).
My greatest concerns in this area lie with the preponderance of advertising content being dumped on individuals by means of "free PC" type services, with the portal of choice being mandated by the hardware provider.
And WTF do you think will make the net "accessible to all", then? Do you think this is happening all by itself?
Yeah, in your little fantasy world maybe, but the sad fact is that in our current socioeconomic model nothing, except masturbation, is free.
You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, don't you know that most of the traffic in the web is from people who pay porn sites to have material to watch while they jerk off?
Of course, this also neatly proves that the net is a haven of male privilege.
What sort of licensing do you suggest that will keep the corporations in their box, without putting me at a disadvantage? I'd love to hear it- I hate corporatization as much as you do.
Duh-- imposing licensing on corporations, not real people. Remember, legally, a corporation is a fake person, with all the rights that people have. Stupid, isn't it? Somehow people nowadays accept it as "natural".
Of course, all of this means that the problem is much deeper, anyway: we need to stop treating corporations as people. Period.
Compete on the ground, where the sky can't touch you. Legislation (which is likely to be corporate-biased anyhow) isn't going to help us.
Bullshit. Some imaginable legislation would help; some other imaginable legislation wouldn't. Saying "legislation won't help us" is nothing but private totalitarian minarchist propaganda. Please be aware of this fact when you consider saying something like this again.
What about them? They are simply advertisements for yet another informational resource of theirs that I won't bother seeing unless I feel it's necessary. I do have a choice in the matter once I get my browser going:)
Calling corporate propaganda "informational resources" is doublespeak.
And you totally elude my point, anyway. Look at the browsing habits of the typical net user, not some 1337 slashbot, please.
So wait. You say that the government won't defend our right to think, but will bend over backwards to make sure everyone's voice is heard on the Internet? It would appear that the true nature of governmental interference is pro-corporate in both cases- licensing will be used to defend the interests of those with the money to pursue them.
Your rhetoric about "true nature of govermental inference" just evades the point. There are two kinds of things you need to distinguish: what governments do, and what governments should do. When you separate these, all is clear enough.
I'd rather have corporate-controlled media any day than government-controlled media. Look at Russia.
And I'd rather have none of the above. Look at the US.
Did you fucking read my post, anyway? I mean, read as in "process the semantics of the textual input", not as in "look over and decide that poster said what you thought he said rather than what he said"? Where the fuck did I promote the gov controlling the media?
I do think that Open Media is going to kick ass all over the old media, simply because its more 2-way and interactive, whereas the 1-way old media shovels crap down our throats. The net is going to radically transform the whole media scene - we're only in the very early stages.
Dude, you're totally out of it. Just look at the browsing habits of the typical net user nowadays. Nothing but portals and sites owned by big corps.
As the net grows, expect less and less ISPs providing web space with basic subscription (natural cost-cutting move in a competitive market), and more and more concentration of the ISP market in a few companies. All which mean that the ratio of non-corporate content on the net will decrease, and that same content will be far less visible and hard to find for the average user. It's happening already.
By creating my own, and publicizing it. It's not hard:)
Yeah right, "it's not hard". Tell me when you get hits from 50 million different people (just a quarter of the population of the US).
But how will licensing protect the individual? I see it only as a means by which the largest folks can stick their hands in and deny others the ability to broadcast. Surely you would prefer a world in which everyone has the right to broadcast whatever they like? The key is that I am limited in my choices by physical difficulty in radio/TV. On the Internet, the only thing limiting me is how hard I'm willing to look.
I was assuming licensing that respects the interest of the public. You are otherwise right.
Surely, these portals [like Yahoo! Full Coverage] are not the alpha and omega of the Internet! To a new user, they are a beginning- but the nature of the medium is to expand the user's informational horizons.
You are absolutely out of touch with what the average net user is doing nowadays.
(Though, in all fairness, Yahoo! Full Coverage is still fairly good. Not really as balanced as it could be, but they do link a not too bad range of viewpoints. But the only question to ask here is: how long?)
If the entire internet is 'free' doesn't that mean that a huge corporation is 'free' to buy up most of the bandwidth and control much of the content? After all, that is total freedom for you...
Hey, you're almost there, you're about to get it. What does "freedom for individuals" mean, when corporations, which wield far far far more power than you or I do, are individuals?
the fact of the matter is that they are exceedingly easy to ignore on the Internet, if you're so inclined.
They are certainly easier to ignore on the net. This situation is disappearing, though. Each day, as the net grows and more people get on it, the megacorps get more and more influence over it. The traditional media is not yet gone. The traditional media are very important, and they are the traditional media. They leverage this power to dominate the net. Think about all the ads for websites you've seen on TV, the papers or billboards.
The best thing our government could do is to gather a panel of educational experts, and charge them with the task of teaching our children to think critically.
The government defends the interests of the corps. They will not do such a thing. Hell, in the US, governments are forcing TV programs made by corporate owned entities, and full of advertisements, on the schools.
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away! Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
And how does the fact that HUGE media corps are investing HUGE amounts of money in drowning out other voices than their own fit into your picture? Or maybe you haven't even bothered to think about it?
After all, streaming content is broadcasting, which is something that, being of public interest, governments regulate. So in principle, there should be nothing against them doing it. They could impose good restraints on large corporations going into this-- like space for public interest spots and so on.
Of course, since this is/., now the "geeks" will cry "censorship", and rant about how the net should be "free". Some "Libertarians" and/or Randians will decry government interfering with corporations (nevermind that governments create corporations in the first place). I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Absolutely right. This is a fundamental of liberty: the freedom to help, AND the freedom to ignore.
Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
This suggests that those countries should stop trying to play "Keep up with the Joneses" of the rest of the world, and feed their own people first. It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You obviously have a terrible habit of missing the point totally, don't you? You did not address at all my points about the World Bank and the IMF (and now the WTO) forcing this upon these countries.
And I didn't even scratch the surface of how the politics of the industrialized world works towards making things like this. Or how countries that try to go the way you suggest, eg. Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, get treated by the US.
It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
And who enforces this? Last I knew, the US still owed a lot of money to the UN, and wasn't in a rush to pay up. There can be no authority without force to back it up.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep. Your opinions have absolutely no ethical weight.
[*] Yes, I said totalitarian. You are obviously some sort of Objectivist, Libertarian, or "Anarcho"-Capitalist. These are nothing but forms of totalitarianism: private totalitarianism.
Those who are interested in upholding this (presumably non-binding) "Charter of Human Rights" are free to accept charity and use that to purchase food for the rest of the world. If they demand enough grain, the supply chain will shift toward producing more grain. Wonderful thing the market is.
They are also free not to, which means that the starving could well starve, despite having the right to live.
Charities are not a solution, as they do not solve the fundamental problems that lead to malnutrition. Did you know, for instance, that most malnourished people live in countries with a food surplus?
The problem is usually that the countries in question grow export crops to feed the irrationally wasteful diets of the first world. And the IMF and World Bank prohibit many third world countries from taking protectionist measures towards protecting subsistence agriculture in these countries, like subsidies or tariffs, making the locals unable to compete with the subsidised western food industry.
BTW the UN Declaration of Human Rights is binding on nations that are members of the UN. UN members nations have to uphold it.
What is relevant is that society will have then made a conscious decision to grant extra rights to someone (e.g., [...] to humans if we decide that eating is a "fundamental human right")
Pour la comprehention de la langue , je supose que ta aucune espece d'idee pourquoi les Quebecois parle un dialecte diferent que les francais , par dialecte bien sur j'entend langue venant du Francais..... Au meme titre que le Creole , Le Marseillais, etc....
Non, je sais si bien les raisons que les linguistes donnent pour ça. (Et si je les savais pas, bon, t'as donné des bonnes raison en bas.)
Je peut ajouter que la distinction entre dialecte e langue n'est pas une distinction scientifique-- les linguistes sont pas d'accord en quelle doit être la distinction, et en plus, y'en a beaucoup qui pense qu'y'a pas vraiment de critères solides pour les differencier.
Mais les langues creoles sont generalment considerés different des les langues "lexificateures". C'est à dire que le Creole vient pas du Français de la même façon que le Québecois, le Cadien, ou le Marseillais.
Ce qui est bizare c'est que je connais beaucoup de francais a Montreal et n'ont pas de difficulter a nous comprendre.... A par une couple d'expression et l'accent... Mais finalement c'est comme la france.... Bien a vous....
On m'a dit que, pour les français, y'a besoin de 1 ou 2 semaines d'être au Québec pour commencer à bien comprendre... Mais moi, le Français n'est pas ma langue maternelle, donc ça a été beaucoup plus difficile de m'adapter au Québécois.
Actually, while you can substitute for the protein gained from eating animals, it is extremely difficult to get the rounded diet neccesary for a human on a vegetarian diet.
Bullshit. Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is incredibly easy. You just don't eat members of the animal kingdom, and eat a variety of plant foods. No "protein matching" crap is necessary-- this is just a myth from the 70s.
Being a strict vegetarian is tougher, but not because of nutritional reasons-- it is tough to avoid all animal products in the Western world.
You've said it. *You* don't eat just to subsist. Many people do. Even then, many people aren't lucky enough for *that*.
If we are to feed everybody in the planet the industrialized countries need to change their eating habits. Do you know how much grains needs to be grown to produce 1 pound of meat?
I see you guys keep repeating that to feel better... when there's actually only one nation that's not really liked in most countries... let me see... which one is it...
Mais tu penses-tu que j'suis aux States? C'est pas possible que t'aies pas vu mon nom, ou mon adresse éléctronique. Mais la prémière chose que t'as fait c'est de m'insulter, en me traiter d'étasunidien. Ouais, t'es certainment un troll.
Vas t'câlisser dans ton esti d'camp, crisse de troll.
It's not a dodge, it's a biological fact. Our bodies evolved to consume meat, and a healthy diet requires it, city-boy.
No serious nutritionist nowadays believes a healthy diet requires meat.
And "meat" (or food in general) is not the same thing nowadays than it was when homo sapiens evolved. You know, they didn't have agriculture back then; the foods they ate were very different from what we have today. The animals people ate were wild animals they hunted-- this means far leaner meat, less frequently. Also, the variety of plants consumed by prehistoric people was far larger than that the typical post-neolithic person eats.
Whatever we evolved to eat is not relevant in the way you think to what we should eat in today's very different environment.
It is also much easier to eat meat to make sure that you have all of your necessary proteins rather than deal with having to make sure that you mix the proper foods together to get everything.
This is a myth. People believed this back in the 70s, but it is simply not true. You don't need to match foods for proteins if you're a vegetarian. You could get all the proteins you need from just eating potatoes. Of course, the best thing to do is to eat a variety of vegetables, legumes, grains and fruit. If you do this, you are guaranteed to get all the nutrients you need, save for B12.
L'orthographie à ton post est surement pas "correcte", mais quand l'on le lit, ça sonne vraiment comme de Québécois parlé. Je peux supposer que t'as écrit ton post comme ça parce que c'était comme ça que tu le voulais, pas vrai?
Je supose que ta jamais fait le tour du PLUSSSSS beau pay au monde ??? Pis que tu comprend pas le Francais
Mais c'est si difficile de comprendre le Français Québécois quand on l'entend la premiére fois, même si on parle si bien Français... Ça fait seulement plus ou moins un mois que j'ai commencé à comprendre quelque chose en des situations conversationales ou à la télé.
Dude, you managed both to evade his point (0.4% blood alcohol is deadly), insult him by calling him a puritan, and insult the rest of the people of the continent of America by calling an USian "american". Jeez.
Et après ça, les français se demandent pourquoi ils sont pas bien aimés au monde entier.
BTW your people have lost it. Chilean wines are just better (and cheaper too) nowadays than the stuff your wineries are putting out.
Corporations are tools, not necessarily evil in and of themselves.
Yeah, right. Come off it. A corporation is a legal fiction designed to absolve the investors of being responsible of their investment. This is evil in and of itself.
They do, however, often reflect the values of their founders.
Bullshit. Corporations exist to do but one thing: make money. That is the extent to which a corporation can "have values".
Remember, that if a corporations puts any sort of interest even on the same level as that of making money, they can be sued by their stockholders.
Yes, there is untold suffering across the planet, yes terrorists are killing people and cutting off kids hands, yes people are dying from aids and starvation, but the question is why is this happening less in countries well supplied with schooling, money and information technology?
You, sir, are a moron.
Can you bother to ask yourself the contrary question: "There are countries where people are dying from starvation; why are these countries not well supplied with schooling, money, and IT? Well, maybe because they're too fucking busy trying to eat to survive to care about stuff that is comparatively secondary?
it is in fact possible to pull a culture up to first-world levels of education in a fairly short time, the members of those cultures are not stupid, they simply have tradition, and the older members are often resistant to change.
Drop the euphemisms, e.g., "change" for assimilation. The western world simply does not appreciate that which is worthy in the third world peasant's culture, and aims to replace it with unbridled commercialism, money worship and such.
Slashdot Mirror
And what fucking model do you propose, eh? European TV? What a fucking decandent society. Your TV shows do nothing but glorify killing technology (think of British shows like Robot Wars) or the exploitation of women as sexual objects with gratuituous nudity at prime time. Europe is a decadend society. You'll never see this in America (save in Argentina, but then again, their society has been contaminated by sick Nazi exiles).
And WTF do you think will make the net "accessible to all", then? Do you think this is happening all by itself?
You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, don't you know that most of the traffic in the web is from people who pay porn sites to have material to watch while they jerk off?
Of course, this also neatly proves that the net is a haven of male privilege.
Duh-- imposing licensing on corporations, not real people. Remember, legally, a corporation is a fake person, with all the rights that people have. Stupid, isn't it? Somehow people nowadays accept it as "natural".
Of course, all of this means that the problem is much deeper, anyway: we need to stop treating corporations as people. Period.
Bullshit. Some imaginable legislation would help; some other imaginable legislation wouldn't. Saying "legislation won't help us" is nothing but private totalitarian minarchist propaganda. Please be aware of this fact when you consider saying something like this again.
What about them? They are simply advertisements for yet another informational resource of theirs that I won't bother seeing unless I feel it's necessary. I do have a choice in the matter once I get my browser going :)
Calling corporate propaganda "informational resources" is doublespeak.
And you totally elude my point, anyway. Look at the browsing habits of the typical net user, not some 1337 slashbot, please.
So wait. You say that the government won't defend our right to think, but will bend over backwards to make sure everyone's voice is heard on the Internet? It would appear that the true nature of governmental interference is pro-corporate in both cases- licensing will be used to defend the interests of those with the money to pursue them.
Your rhetoric about "true nature of govermental inference" just evades the point. There are two kinds of things you need to distinguish: what governments do, and what governments should do. When you separate these, all is clear enough.
And I'd rather have none of the above. Look at the US.
Did you fucking read my post, anyway? I mean, read as in "process the semantics of the textual input", not as in "look over and decide that poster said what you thought he said rather than what he said"? Where the fuck did I promote the gov controlling the media?
I do think that Open Media is going to kick ass all over the old media, simply because its more 2-way and interactive, whereas the 1-way old media shovels crap down our throats. The net is going to radically transform the whole media scene - we're only in the very early stages.
Dude, you're totally out of it. Just look at the browsing habits of the typical net user nowadays. Nothing but portals and sites owned by big corps.
As the net grows, expect less and less ISPs providing web space with basic subscription (natural cost-cutting move in a competitive market), and more and more concentration of the ISP market in a few companies. All which mean that the ratio of non-corporate content on the net will decrease, and that same content will be far less visible and hard to find for the average user. It's happening already.
Yeah right, "it's not hard". Tell me when you get hits from 50 million different people (just a quarter of the population of the US).
But how will licensing protect the individual? I see it only as a means by which the largest folks can stick their hands in and deny others the ability to broadcast. Surely you would prefer a world in which everyone has the right to broadcast whatever they like? The key is that I am limited in my choices by physical difficulty in radio/TV. On the Internet, the only thing limiting me is how hard I'm willing to look.
I was assuming licensing that respects the interest of the public. You are otherwise right.
Surely, these portals [like Yahoo! Full Coverage] are not the alpha and omega of the Internet! To a new user, they are a beginning- but the nature of the medium is to expand the user's informational horizons.
You are absolutely out of touch with what the average net user is doing nowadays.
(Though, in all fairness, Yahoo! Full Coverage is still fairly good. Not really as balanced as it could be, but they do link a not too bad range of viewpoints. But the only question to ask here is: how long?)
Hey, you're almost there, you're about to get it. What does "freedom for individuals" mean, when corporations, which wield far far far more power than you or I do, are individuals?
More power to you.
They are certainly easier to ignore on the net. This situation is disappearing, though. Each day, as the net grows and more people get on it, the megacorps get more and more influence over it. The traditional media is not yet gone. The traditional media are very important, and they are the traditional media. They leverage this power to dominate the net. Think about all the ads for websites you've seen on TV, the papers or billboards.
The best thing our government could do is to gather a panel of educational experts, and charge them with the task of teaching our children to think critically.
The government defends the interests of the corps. They will not do such a thing. Hell, in the US, governments are forcing TV programs made by corporate owned entities, and full of advertisements, on the schools.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away! Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
And how does the fact that HUGE media corps are investing HUGE amounts of money in drowning out other voices than their own fit into your picture? Or maybe you haven't even bothered to think about it?
Of course, since this is /., now the "geeks" will cry "censorship", and rant about how the net should be "free". Some "Libertarians" and/or Randians will decry government interfering with corporations (nevermind that governments create corporations in the first place). I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
This suggests that those countries should stop trying to play "Keep up with the Joneses" of the rest of the world, and feed their own people first. It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You obviously have a terrible habit of missing the point totally, don't you? You did not address at all my points about the World Bank and the IMF (and now the WTO) forcing this upon these countries.
And I didn't even scratch the surface of how the politics of the industrialized world works towards making things like this. Or how countries that try to go the way you suggest, eg. Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, get treated by the US.
It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
And who enforces this? Last I knew, the US still owed a lot of money to the UN, and wasn't in a rush to pay up. There can be no authority without force to back it up.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep. Your opinions have absolutely no ethical weight.
[*] Yes, I said totalitarian. You are obviously some sort of Objectivist, Libertarian, or "Anarcho"-Capitalist. These are nothing but forms of totalitarianism: private totalitarianism.
They are also free not to, which means that the starving could well starve, despite having the right to live.
Charities are not a solution, as they do not solve the fundamental problems that lead to malnutrition. Did you know, for instance, that most malnourished people live in countries with a food surplus?
The problem is usually that the countries in question grow export crops to feed the irrationally wasteful diets of the first world. And the IMF and World Bank prohibit many third world countries from taking protectionist measures towards protecting subsistence agriculture in these countries, like subsidies or tariffs, making the locals unable to compete with the subsidised western food industry.
BTW the UN Declaration of Human Rights is binding on nations that are members of the UN. UN members nations have to uphold it.
Eh... ever heard of the Charter of Human Rights?
Pour la comprehention de la langue , je supose que ta aucune espece d'idee pourquoi les Quebecois parle un dialecte diferent que les francais , par dialecte bien sur j'entend langue venant du Francais ..... Au meme titre que le Creole , Le Marseillais, etc ....
Non, je sais si bien les raisons que les linguistes donnent pour ça. (Et si je les savais pas, bon, t'as donné des bonnes raison en bas.)
Je peut ajouter que la distinction entre dialecte e langue n'est pas une distinction scientifique-- les linguistes sont pas d'accord en quelle doit être la distinction, et en plus, y'en a beaucoup qui pense qu'y'a pas vraiment de critères solides pour les differencier.
Mais les langues creoles sont generalment considerés different des les langues "lexificateures". C'est à dire que le Creole vient pas du Français de la même façon que le Québecois, le Cadien, ou le Marseillais.
Ce qui est bizare c'est que je connais beaucoup de francais a Montreal et n'ont pas de difficulter a nous comprendre .... A par une couple d'expression et l'accent ... Mais finalement c'est comme la france .... Bien a vous ....
On m'a dit que, pour les français, y'a besoin de 1 ou 2 semaines d'être au Québec pour commencer à bien comprendre... Mais moi, le Français n'est pas ma langue maternelle, donc ça a été beaucoup plus difficile de m'adapter au Québécois.
Bullshit. Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is incredibly easy. You just don't eat members of the animal kingdom, and eat a variety of plant foods. No "protein matching" crap is necessary-- this is just a myth from the 70s.
Being a strict vegetarian is tougher, but not because of nutritional reasons-- it is tough to avoid all animal products in the Western world.
You've said it. *You* don't eat just to subsist. Many people do. Even then, many people aren't lucky enough for *that*.
If we are to feed everybody in the planet the industrialized countries need to change their eating habits. Do you know how much grains needs to be grown to produce 1 pound of meat?
Mais tu penses-tu que j'suis aux States? C'est pas possible que t'aies pas vu mon nom, ou mon adresse éléctronique. Mais la prémière chose que t'as fait c'est de m'insulter, en me traiter d'étasunidien. Ouais, t'es certainment un troll.
Vas t'câlisser dans ton esti d'camp, crisse de troll.
No serious nutritionist nowadays believes a healthy diet requires meat.
And "meat" (or food in general) is not the same thing nowadays than it was when homo sapiens evolved. You know, they didn't have agriculture back then; the foods they ate were very different from what we have today. The animals people ate were wild animals they hunted-- this means far leaner meat, less frequently. Also, the variety of plants consumed by prehistoric people was far larger than that the typical post-neolithic person eats.
Whatever we evolved to eat is not relevant in the way you think to what we should eat in today's very different environment.
This is a myth. People believed this back in the 70s, but it is simply not true. You don't need to match foods for proteins if you're a vegetarian. You could get all the proteins you need from just eating potatoes. Of course, the best thing to do is to eat a variety of vegetables, legumes, grains and fruit. If you do this, you are guaranteed to get all the nutrients you need, save for B12.
Je supose que ta jamais fait le tour du PLUSSSSS beau pay au monde ??? Pis que tu comprend pas le Francais
Mais c'est si difficile de comprendre le Français Québécois quand on l'entend la premiére fois, même si on parle si bien Français... Ça fait seulement plus ou moins un mois que j'ai commencé à comprendre quelque chose en des situations conversationales ou à la télé.
Et après ça, les français se demandent pourquoi ils sont pas bien aimés au monde entier.
BTW your people have lost it. Chilean wines are just better (and cheaper too) nowadays than the stuff your wineries are putting out.
Yeah, right. Come off it. A corporation is a legal fiction designed to absolve the investors of being responsible of their investment. This is evil in and of itself.
They do, however, often reflect the values of their founders.
Bullshit. Corporations exist to do but one thing: make money. That is the extent to which a corporation can "have values".
Remember, that if a corporations puts any sort of interest even on the same level as that of making money, they can be sued by their stockholders.
You, sir, are a moron.
Can you bother to ask yourself the contrary question: "There are countries where people are dying from starvation; why are these countries not well supplied with schooling, money, and IT? Well, maybe because they're too fucking busy trying to eat to survive to care about stuff that is comparatively secondary?
it is in fact possible to pull a culture up to first-world levels of education in a fairly short time, the members of those cultures are not stupid, they simply have tradition, and the older members are often resistant to change.
Drop the euphemisms, e.g., "change" for assimilation. The western world simply does not appreciate that which is worthy in the third world peasant's culture, and aims to replace it with unbridled commercialism, money worship and such.