OTOH, each time you leave someone with an opportunity to blend anti-semitism (which is a flavor of racism) with anti-zionism (which is a geopolitical and/or religious opinion), you help zionists that would like to fight the later by labeling it as the former.
Given the volume, I do not know whether I shall call this propaganda or spam. If it is propaganda, I suspect it is so blunt that it is rather ineffective.
I did not, but now I realize. But this is not just national sovereignty, this is people sovereignty, which means democracy in the end.
Each time the EU moves sovereignty from member state to the Union, people sovereignty lost at member state level is never re-created at the Union level. We elect a european parliament that cannot propose directives, cannot have the last word in legislative process (except for killing a directive), and does not vote budget
EU political project is to destroy democracy, this is obvious for me now. I wish we go back to a confederation of sovereign nation that cooperate on chosen subjects
I understand stressful situations make one want answers and not questions. Religion and science are proposed as alternatives for supplying answers, but this is misunderstanding what science is. As Miguel de Unamuno said:
La verdadera ciencia enseña, por encima de todo, a dudar y a ser ignorante.
(True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.)
I bet we touch the difference here between being a scientist and being a science believer
I got a Vaio 9 months ago and I am not impressed by how robust it is. Within minutes after opening the box, the laptop case had scratches. It looks like it is made of metal, but in fact this is just a cheap painting on a plastic case, and the painting goes away easily. Then one month ago, the screen broke while I was carrying it closed in my backpack.
The comparison is harsh with an Apple laptop that live several years without showing any sign of fatigue. I do not think I will buy a Sony machine again - except if someone tells me they made progress.
You touch an interesting point: an engineer that works well will automate work and destroy positions. A manager that works well will reduce costs by shrinking salaries, by outsourcing oversea, by finding tax loopholes to pay less and so on.
While they do good work, we have a bad feeling because this good work shift wealth from workers to shareholders, increasing inequities, and pushing developed societies toward a situation where they cannot sustain themselves anymore: too many poor people, no tax money to maintain social welfare, education, or country infrastructures.
That situation is obviously bad for people, but it is also bad for businesses. People are too poor to buy products anymore which means businesses cash flow goes down. People are not properly trained anymore and make bad workers. Country infrastructure gets wrecked and it is bad again for anyone that rely on it
This means there is some conflict here: maximizing profit is good for each individual business, but it is globally bad for everyone, including themselves.
The only way out of this that was tried with some success is to use the law to maintain a good balance. For now the idea was to protect workers: make sure they have a decent wage, and reasonable working hours. Now that we move to a world where there will be less and less workers, we will need to think about universal income, whether someone works or not.
I understand the attack could be done by a compromised machine sitting on the same private network. Or the local DNS could have been hacked and direct the TV box to a rogue server.
I see other attacks possible outside of local LAN: DNS or BGP hijack, or compromised IPTV server, but they seem much less likely
For some reason, right wingers are pushing this idea, when it is completely, and utterly wrong.
I suspect you interpret this within a context different than mine. I would just say that I would not endorse a regime as a republic or a democracy just because it claims to be such. For instance, Democratic People's Republic of Korea claims to be both a democracy and a republic, but IMO it is none of both.
Yes, they are democractically elected, but that doesn't mean they can't listen to opposition
It is much easier to ignore, fight or repress opposition when being democratically elected, we know that since Adolphe Thiers crushed the commune de Paris in 1871
I like this system. Each vote costs €3 and you can vote as often as you like. In other countries money buys you access, influence and power but we pretend that everyone is equal. France sweeps away the hypocrisy and makes it explicit: mo' money, mo' votes.
This election is not ran by the French Republic, it is ran by one political party in city of Paris, to decide what candidate they will have for next Paris mayor. It does not reflect France position on electronic voting.
The only political form of opposition they actually opposed since the new president got elected was on the topic of gay marriage
OTOH, time is hard for right wing opposition, since the so-called left wing François Hollande is pursuing the exact same economic policy as former right wing president Nicolas Sarkozy.
During the presidential campaign, François Hollande said he would fight finance power and renegociate the treaty on stability, coordination and governance (TSCG), which commits signatories to austerity. He did none of this.
I do not get it. Patent are only national protection, and one would have to file in every juridiction to get a world wide protection. And a sovereign nation can decide to make some patent invalid, the only thing that could refrain it from doing so is WTO's TRIPS, but not everyone signed it, and even for the nations who did, it has provisions to trump patents because of the general interest. See TRIPS article 27.2:
Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment
I did not say all laws are required to preserve your liberty. DMCA does not help on that front, for instance. But without any laws, your liberty would only be what you could afford with your own power. Without laws, your private properties are only yours because you are able to physically defend them against anyone that want to take it from you.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, each time you leave someone with an opportunity to blend anti-semitism (which is a flavor of racism) with anti-zionism (which is a geopolitical and/or religious opinion), you help zionists that would like to fight the later by labeling it as the former.
You confused anti-semites and anti-zionists, didn't you?
Given the volume, I do not know whether I shall call this propaganda or spam. If it is propaganda, I suspect it is so blunt that it is rather ineffective.
On what treaty is this based? I though criminal law was a member state competence. When did it change?
I did not, but now I realize. But this is not just national sovereignty, this is people sovereignty, which means democracy in the end.
Each time the EU moves sovereignty from member state to the Union, people sovereignty lost at member state level is never re-created at the Union level. We elect a european parliament that cannot propose directives, cannot have the last word in legislative process (except for killing a directive), and does not vote budget
EU political project is to destroy democracy, this is obvious for me now. I wish we go back to a confederation of sovereign nation that cooperate on chosen subjects
True. When looking back 5 years, I see migration to gigabit, virtualization and much more CMS usage. Not big game changers.
I understand stressful situations make one want answers and not questions. Religion and science are proposed as alternatives for supplying answers, but this is misunderstanding what science is. As Miguel de Unamuno said:
La verdadera ciencia enseña, por encima de todo, a dudar y a ser ignorante.
(True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.)
I bet we touch the difference here between being a scientist and being a science believer
Insightful. Your answer deserves some mod points.
I got a Vaio 9 months ago and I am not impressed by how robust it is. Within minutes after opening the box, the laptop case had scratches. It looks like it is made of metal, but in fact this is just a cheap painting on a plastic case, and the painting goes away easily. Then one month ago, the screen broke while I was carrying it closed in my backpack.
The comparison is harsh with an Apple laptop that live several years without showing any sign of fatigue. I do not think I will buy a Sony machine again - except if someone tells me they made progress.
Don't say you are proficient in Microsoft Word unless you are applying for some kind of clerical job.
Indeed. IMO Word & Excel skills on a resume for an IT position is more a liability than an asset.
We knew the patriot act made that possible. We knew the US government could not resist using such a possibility.
Now we have the proof. Next question: are there other governments involved?
You touch an interesting point: an engineer that works well will automate work and destroy positions. A manager that works well will reduce costs by shrinking salaries, by outsourcing oversea, by finding tax loopholes to pay less and so on.
While they do good work, we have a bad feeling because this good work shift wealth from workers to shareholders, increasing inequities, and pushing developed societies toward a situation where they cannot sustain themselves anymore: too many poor people, no tax money to maintain social welfare, education, or country infrastructures.
That situation is obviously bad for people, but it is also bad for businesses. People are too poor to buy products anymore which means businesses cash flow goes down. People are not properly trained anymore and make bad workers. Country infrastructure gets wrecked and it is bad again for anyone that rely on it
This means there is some conflict here: maximizing profit is good for each individual business, but it is globally bad for everyone, including themselves.
The only way out of this that was tried with some success is to use the law to maintain a good balance. For now the idea was to protect workers: make sure they have a decent wage, and reasonable working hours. Now that we move to a world where there will be less and less workers, we will need to think about universal income, whether someone works or not.
I understand the attack could be done by a compromised machine sitting on the same private network. Or the local DNS could have been hacked and direct the TV box to a rogue server.
I see other attacks possible outside of local LAN: DNS or BGP hijack, or compromised IPTV server, but they seem much less likely
But with different tones, tianhe means "milky way". That ones makes more sense.
Tianhe stands for "cereal field", is that right? Anyone know why the name?
If people aren't interested in eating whale meat, why not just give up on the hunt and stop killing the things?
I suspect there must be an established industry around whale meat, and they will to whatever they can to recover lost sales.
For some reason, right wingers are pushing this idea, when it is completely, and utterly wrong.
I suspect you interpret this within a context different than mine. I would just say that I would not endorse a regime as a republic or a democracy just because it claims to be such. For instance, Democratic People's Republic of Korea claims to be both a democracy and a republic, but IMO it is none of both.
What prevents Turk government to block EC2 IP ranges?
Yes, they are democractically elected, but that doesn't mean they can't listen to opposition
It is much easier to ignore, fight or repress opposition when being democratically elected, we know that since Adolphe Thiers crushed the commune de Paris in 1871
if someone is elected by a majority that wants the minority tortured and exterminated, that is the democratic outcome
You have just hit the difference between a democratic regime and a republic.
I like this system. Each vote costs €3 and you can vote as often as you like. In other countries money buys you access, influence and power but we pretend that everyone is equal. France sweeps away the hypocrisy and makes it explicit: mo' money, mo' votes.
This election is not ran by the French Republic, it is ran by one political party in city of Paris, to decide what candidate they will have for next Paris mayor. It does not reflect France position on electronic voting.
The only political form of opposition they actually opposed since the new president got elected was on the topic of gay marriage
OTOH, time is hard for right wing opposition, since the so-called left wing François Hollande is pursuing the exact same economic policy as former right wing president Nicolas Sarkozy.
During the presidential campaign, François Hollande said he would fight finance power and renegociate the treaty on stability, coordination and governance (TSCG), which commits signatories to austerity. He did none of this.
I do not get it. Patent are only national protection, and one would have to file in every juridiction to get a world wide protection. And a sovereign nation can decide to make some patent invalid, the only thing that could refrain it from doing so is WTO's TRIPS, but not everyone signed it, and even for the nations who did, it has provisions to trump patents because of the general interest. See TRIPS article 27.2:
Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment
So where is the problem?
I did not say all laws are required to preserve your liberty. DMCA does not help on that front, for instance. But without any laws, your liberty would only be what you could afford with your own power. Without laws, your private properties are only yours because you are able to physically defend them against anyone that want to take it from you.
Laws are required to preserve your liberty. For instance, without labor laws, you are free to be a slave