No, I am not advocating changing the climate. I'm just saying why I won't care if it does change.
I'm not advocating making the world warmer on purpose. I'll just be personally happier if it does and I think most people in colder parts of the world will as well. Regardless, what is going to happen is going to happen.
You might as well clean the sand out of your vag and move on.
A goal post shift? How stupid are you? I cite a hostile species to humans in the context of eliminating that species. And you counter that humans kill more humans than mosquitoes. I don't doubt it. However, I can't kill all the humans to save human lives. I can kill mosquitoes to save human lives.
Concede the point. It is mine. You give it to me now or you're just being childish. If you want to tip the chess board over and run away crying that is your own business. But I'll just rack that up as a win and move on.
You can concede the point and we can continue the game or throw a fit. Choose.
... Okay, who does the negotiations and why would this not be a zero sum game?
Such negotiations would be handled by the state department, the commerce department, and inevitably unpaid lobbyists.
To be cheaper you'd have to make the argument that we'd hire fewer or pay the existing diplomatic or commerce department staff less. I don't see that as a credible position. Possible? Anything is possible. It isn't likely enough to credit it. You want to call that giving up... I call it being realistic.
As to why you'll have the same number of people working for you, you assume that these deals negotiated individually take up a huge staff. They don't. Historically they didn't. If you compare the size of the commerce department and state department today to what it was in the past, you can see it was dramatically smaller in the past and yet we did individual deals in the past. This is not to say that if we shift to individual deals that the size of these organizations will shrink, but I don't see how they'll get bigger when they were smaller when they did things this way.
What is more, a big deal is often more complicated and that actually probably consumes more people. Smaller deals are easier and faster.
As to your requests for specifics... this request is tiresome. I made it extremely and excruciatingly and obviously and emphatically and unquestionably clear that any specifics would be specific to the specific country and situation. To ask for a general policy when that was made beyond clear is frankly not a credible question on your part.
It is obvious that I will not offer a general policy because it is my thesis that that is a trick question or a trap. A general response to everyone is not what I think is reasonable. I wouldn't have ONE response to everything. I would have a thousand responses to a thousand different situations.
So if you want a "what would you do" answered, I need a scenario. You need to provide me with a nation you want me to make a deal with and then either allow me to find out what is going on from existing economic/political data or you need to state givens that I can use to calculate a response. A general response sans circumstance is not rational.
What would you do if you were in the forest? Do you have a general response to that? Anything you say could be irrational because you're not going to know the circumstances of you existence in that forest. Which forest are you in for example? Do you have supplies? Is this a vacation, an exploration, a rescue, a hunting trip, are you injured and seeking help... there's no context. And absent that you can't say what you should do. All you know is that you're in "a" forest. That's useless. The forest could be warm or freezing. You could have food or be starving. You could be well equipt or have nothing. There could be dangerous predators or it could be totally safe. The purpose of being there could be anything and is not given in the description of "in a forest". You can't craft policy objectives on that basis.
Its a nonsense question. You need to either give me the freedom to fill in the blanks and then tell you how I'd proceed or you can fill them in for me and I'll tell you how I would proceed. But to leave them unfilled and general and then ask how I'd proceed is a trap that I'm not stepping into and isn't a reasonable question.
You're not gaining efficiency by consolidation. The same number of people are going to be working for you regardless. So you're presenting a false dichotomy where in there is savings one one side and not on the other. Both are the same in terms of costs. So that's a fallacious claim on your part that you're saving money. You can't say I'm giving up something that does not exist.
As to what is addressed or not addressed in a given discussion or agreement, that would be specific to that agreement and thus a generalized statement that would cover all agreements would only be so much as "we would agree". That's about as specific as it gets. For some countries you might want to make an agreement that favors the other side for geopoltiical reasons. For other nations you might want an agreement that favors the US economically. For still others you might want something that is neutral. Or you might want something that favors some country in a given industry whilst favoring yours in another. The point is to give yourself flexibility.
As to setting off country X by making an agreement with country Y. Multilateral agreements don't avoid that. Some countries see it as in their strategic interests to be pissy. If you want countries to not be pissy you have to consistently make it not in their interests to do that. An easy way of doing this is to create opportunities that are denied to trade partners that cause problems on a regular basis. You also have to make a point of not rewarding whiny behavior. Set up something reasonable and be very willing for people to walk away from the table if they're not being reasonable. If you are known by everyone else to bend over backwards just to get agreements then it is in the other country's interests to whine and be unreasonable because you'll just cave to pissy behavior. You have to hold your ground once you have something you feel is reasonable. You also have to have very clear policy objectives. Having clear policy objectives that encompass a dozen different countries is not possible. You can't be anything but incoherent in that situation.
I'm not offering country X the same thing as country Y because country X is not country Y. The circumstances will inevitably be different and while I might offer SIMILAR deals they should never be interchangeable.
And I'd just like to stress again... the point is not to miff countries. The point is make reasonable and sustainable deals that profit the US either economically or geopolitically. A miffed country may or may not be in our interests or even relevant one way or the other. What is more, setting a lack of them being miffed as the goal ignores other imperatives that really have to be taken seriously. If them not being miffed means us giving them billions of dollars a year you have to question which matters more... them being miffed or the billions of dollars.
What is more, you can't be everyone's friend. It isn't possible. Some people won't like you. End of story. We need to get over that and strengthen relationships with people that like us while simply insulating ourselves from the damage countries that don't like us will attempt.
I do not expect us to get along with everyone. I'd like to get along but sometimes it isn't possible. And if the price getting along is being a sucker... then fuck that arrangement.
As to your standard of "the only way you can prove individual deals are effective is by me personally doing it"... that isn't reasonable. That is precisely how trade deals used to be conducted by default and they were very profitable. So... I just don't find your criticism on that point to be reasonable given that we have a history and track record with doing deals in precisely that manner and having great success with them.
No, I'm saying that it is objectively better in most parts of the world to be warmer farther from the equator. We are tropically descended primates. Saying you're happier in fucking cold places is great but you're in a minority there.
We're human beings. You're not an ice fish. Saying it is opinion or something is nonsensical. Regardless, lets say its all opinion and I'm an ass for imposing something on you. Only here is your second problem... I'm not.
All I'm doing is not taking your complaint seriously. You want to impose yourself on ME. I am just minding my own business doing what I do. Here you're going to blame me for all the CO2 and all the warming etc. Never mind that it doesn't matter what I do or you do. The CO2 being released in China and India so dwarfs any reduction you could credibly make that it defeats the whole point.
Your entire campaign is meaningless because we have ONE atmosphere. Get over it. The world is the world. What is going to happen will happen. Move on.
I personally think it won't be a big deal. But if it were a big deal, I'd offer you geoengineering. Short of that, nothing you or I do will matter. At all.
So what do you choose? Nothing/useless actions or Geoengineering. Choose.
As to there being different breeds and strains of the species... I've been to an entomology museum. Have you? Anyone that knows anything about insects know that they're a zillion different species that are identical except for their genitals which means they don't interbreed. However, when you've seen 10,000 species of green beetles that all eat the same thing and live in similar environments... nonsense.
And really its besides the point because I'm obviously referring to the flying insects that drink human blood and spread bloodborn diseases in the process.
You want to plead the indispensability of this? Where do you live? In a city? The least natural environment possible? Genius.
As to making statements out of thin air, you read your own statement and see where I got that... or keep pretending it came out of nowhere and admit effectively that you're too dishonest to maintain this discussion. - Choose.
That's a strawman, I didn't say it is codified that only specific companies are allowed to run cable. I said that the system is set up in such a way that that happens. But that isn't explicitly stated.
Here you'll say that I then have no argument ignoring that we have many other situations where things are not directly codified yet result in those situations. Such as the Jim Crow laws which didn't forbid black people from voting but did create a situation where it was very hard for them to vote which made it statistically unlikely for them to vote.
What I can show you in franchise agreements is that they tend to require that anyone that offers ISP services must service the ENTIRE city to serve ANY portion of the city. That is pretty common. And it means that only the largest companies are well capitalized enough to compete. This does all by itself restrict competition to a handful of companies and it akin to saying someone can't open a sandwich shop anywhere in a city unless they are willing to commit to open hundreds all over the city serving the entire population.
Its not a reasonable requirement. And there are many other unreasonable requirements. Often as not you have to provide free or subsidized access for example which is hard to do if you're a small company. Then there is a regulatory burden which is difficult for anyone that doesn't have a dedicated legal team to handle. And it just goes on and on and on and on.
So you'll accept any major news outlet that supports my position? And that is what we consider to be valid information? Mainstream news? I'm just confirming your commitment to accept ANYTHING I provide from such a source.
Also Ars Technica is apparently fine as well. Excellent. So can we assume any alternative tech media is also acceptable? You're making this very easy. I will provide evidence that is mainstream news etc... and then by your statement you'll be obligated to concede.
Lolz... so you start off saying its all a matter of opinion, then you say my opinion is invalid for some reason. Lolzcats. If you bring this down to a matter of opinion, then all opinions are basically the same. I don't have to regard your opinion or even remotely care about it. And I'll take you as seriously with your criticism as you'd take someone else's when they told you what meat to put on your sandwich.
Don't argue opinion... its a foolish rhetorical ploy that has already fatally backfired. Pick something else.
I didn't fail to provide evidence. I negated the requirement by proving that your request was an insincere ploy.
As to efficiency, that's not the point. I simply refuse to be trolled into taking people seriously that are not taking the discussion seriously or lack the intellectual integrity to be worthy of my effort.
What you did was make it clear that this is an insult and shit talking thread. I queried you to see if you wanted a real discussion or shit talking. You opted for shittalking. So that's what you get.
I am quite happy to continue the discussion on the basis that your mother is fat. However, i will not be baited into a discussion where you regard the discussion as a shit talking discussion and I am expected to do research and argue logically. I will regard YOU as you regard this discussion. And that means this is what you get.
You chose this. If you want something else next time, then choose otherwise.
Actually yes, the species collectively accounts for more deaths than any other species on earth. Saying that we shouldn't regard the mosquitoes as a problem because only the females of the species spread diseases is like saying a country invading and murdering your people shouldn't be treated as enemies because the majority of the population remains in their home country. By this logic, the French shouldn't have seen the invading Nazis as enemies because after all most of the Nazis were still in Germany.
I'm not giving up on anything. I think its easier to negotiate individually and that the deals will be more contextually reasonable on that basis.
Ever heard of a demand loan? Its a loan that has a term which ends whenever the lender demands their money back. When you deposit money in the bank you've actually made a demand loan to the bank. Short term agreements are not unfavorable always. It depends. If everyone trusts everyone and there is a high likelihood that the agreement will sustain into the future than what giving a short term out does it keep everyone honest. You fuck the other person in the agreement and they pull out. So you don't do that.
As to specific issues, you're just being pedantic now because I did refer to protectionist issues and I more importantly said that the relevant matters would be specific to the specific country. We're not going to have the same discussion with Japan that we would with India and we're not going to have the same discussion with India that we would with Saudi Arabia... trying to conflate all these different trade situations into a single agreement is foolish. What is more, it creates a problem where it is hard to punish individual countries that are breaking the rules because you have to back out of the entire deal to do it. OR just as bad you surrender your state sovereignty by forbidding a given country including your own from punishing a country that violated a rule unless the other countries also agree that that rule was violated. If the agreements are individual then you don't need anyone else's permission and dealing with one country's misbehavior doesn't queer the entire nation's trade policy.
The TPP is objectively less flexible, less customized, less accountable, and therefore objectively inferior to individual deals unless you have the conceit that you could create a universal deal that encompassed all trade deals with all countries as well as a lot of individual deals. Which as I said is both arrogant and stupid. Which is a lethal combination.
The costs of what? Diplomats? That's a zero sum game... we're going to have those guys regardless.
As to the term of the agreement, if the agreement works out to everyone's interest and the terms were held in the prior time period then one could expect a renewal of the contract term after term after term. Think about it like any place you go to buy something on a regular basis where the price is right and quality is right. You're coming back. You'll keep coming back. You like the deal.
And that's the point. If the deal is good then the term of the deal could literally be daily and it wouldn't really matter because it would be renewed every day. if everyone is happy then there won't be a problem. You only need longer term contracts when someone is going to want to back out for some reason. And they'll only want to do that if it isn't working out for them in some manner. Well, why have a contract that does that at all? Just make it work out. Its not that complicated. You find the things that both nations can agree upon and won't feel bad or uncomfortable about. You agree to that. End of story. The stuff that is squirrely should be handled on a case by case basis and not conflated into a larger agreement.
As to specifics, the specifics would be specific to the nation in question. That is another advantage of doing this on a case by case basis because you can make lots of custom deals. Country X might have an issue with an industry they want protectionist policies for... fine. And country Y might want assurances that some export they're keen on is competitive in the US market. Okay. And we can work out the details of all that on a case by case basis without polluting the whole thing with a "well this needs to work for every possible circumstance at once" sort of solution. That's as arrogant as it is dumb.
It presupposes that someone can make a universal contract that is so perfect in its adaptability and breadth that it can deal with any possible situation as efficiently and coherently as a thousand custom deals. That's arrogant. No one is going to have a deal that good. And thinking that we could is dumb. So its arrogant and dumb at the same time... which is a bad combination.
Explain why we need the TPP in the first place and I'll tell you what we need to move on to.
I would argue it was a solution in search of a problem.
US trade policy is probably best negocated on a country by country basis rather than creating these giant bills. The problem is that countries are not going to agree to the same stuff. And big packages create lowest common denominator situations.
It also robs us of our ability to reward countries that are behaving themselves while also robbing ourselves of the ability to punish other countries.
If Country 1 plays well with us, is honorable, and has held up their ends of bargains... why would i throw them in the same boat as country 2 that doesn't play well, is dishonorable, and has a history of not holding up bargains? The whole point of the TPP is to conflate these countries. And that doesn't serve US trade interests.
A trade agreement that does not serve US trade interests is not in our interest to sign.
So... where would I go from here? To a per nation trade negotiation that extends no more than 5 years and is limited to what is relevant to a trade negotiation. It would be understood that how countries conducted themselves during the previous term of the treaty would influence the terms and nature of the next treaty when it was renewed.
There is no political right or left anymore. Its a false dichotomy. Its marxists versus everyone else in the west these days.
No one is advocating for kings and queens and no one is seriously talking about putting the church in charge of everything and no one is seriously talking about repealing democratic rule. Conflating non-marxists with the right is a trap. Don't fall into it.
Anyone non-marxist is labeled right these days. That's all right means at this point. Not marxist.
So lets just stop beating around the bush and label things what they mean.
I'm anti marxist... so by the strawmen of the marxists, I'm hard right. But I also believe very strongly in democracy, press freedom, religious liberty, etc etc etc... but apparently I'm right wing... why? Because I'm anti marxist.
So I reject the whole right left dichotomy. Its not meaningful. its marxists versus everyone else. That's it. The marxists have just turned on the private sector unions. They're doing it throughout the US and Europe. The idiots never saw the inevitable betrayal coming. They were told. They didn't believe... now we're beyond "believe me" territory and into "its happening".
That's what this whole "progressive vs leftist" thing is these days. The whole progressive stack... its so funny.
Now we're going to see if the marxists can bribe, extort, and manipulate their way into negating the democratic process entirely. Their plan could work, but if it fails, it should bring about a systemic immunity or resistance to future incursions.
False dichotomy... both sides only are rational when it serves their interests. The left is just as prone to be crazy and erratic when that serves its ideology.
The real lesson is that people follow their interests.
At this point however, there really isn't a left or right...
Its basically just Marxists versus everyone else at this point. Otherwise why have evangelicals and libertarians on the same side?
Claiming the left is all virtue, unicorns, and rainbows isn't credible. The marxists gave us Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, etc... Its hardly the ideology of sweetness and light.
They're always declaring war on something... and that war tends to boil down to them trolling on social media or maybe "hacking" some very very very easy to hack something or other. Like... a voice mail system that has a default password. Such amazing hacking...
Anon broke apart shortly after it was created. The people that cite themselves as Anon are mostly script kiddies and posers at this point.
So a bunch of script kiddies and posers just declared "war" on a guy currently getting Secret Service protection.
I did... about three or four posts back. You've apparently lost the plot which makes me lose any interest I had left in carrying on this farce... yawn.
I'm not intimidated by dumb humans that will presume to use any pretext to take my stuff or hurt me. That's generally all this boils down to. The Marxists have co-opted the environmental movement as a pretext to get what they always want which is someone else's shit.
We see you. You want it? Come and take it. *kiss* *kiss*
Nah, I'm just showing that your request for proof was insincere and a waste of time. I proved that by showing that you'd not agree to any standards of evidence. And that freed me of any obligation to provide any.
There are lots of insects that fill the same niche. So I reject your simplistic notion of ecology. The system isn't unstable. You're talking about a table with a thousand legs. Taking one out isn't going to make the table fall over. And mosquitoes are fucking awful for humans.
Here you're going to give me some warped 1st world pretentious crap about how we can't change anything even though in the first world we've changed everything.
We don't have large predators on our streets. We have killed off the mosquitoes in our territory and near our population centers. And we've done lots of other things to our ecology in our territory. But if anyone else does it... they're bad people. Because hypocrisy.
I reject your crap and will instead extend to the people of the world the freedom to do what we have and would do in their place. If you want to be a raging hypocrite, that is your own business. I personally have too much regard for my own credibility to make that much of a fool of myself.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am not advocating changing the climate. I'm just saying why I won't care if it does change.
I'm not advocating making the world warmer on purpose. I'll just be personally happier if it does and I think most people in colder parts of the world will as well. Regardless, what is going to happen is going to happen.
You might as well clean the sand out of your vag and move on.
A goal post shift? How stupid are you? I cite a hostile species to humans in the context of eliminating that species. And you counter that humans kill more humans than mosquitoes. I don't doubt it. However, I can't kill all the humans to save human lives. I can kill mosquitoes to save human lives.
Concede the point. It is mine. You give it to me now or you're just being childish. If you want to tip the chess board over and run away crying that is your own business. But I'll just rack that up as a win and move on.
You can concede the point and we can continue the game or throw a fit. Choose.
... Okay, who does the negotiations and why would this not be a zero sum game?
Such negotiations would be handled by the state department, the commerce department, and inevitably unpaid lobbyists.
To be cheaper you'd have to make the argument that we'd hire fewer or pay the existing diplomatic or commerce department staff less. I don't see that as a credible position. Possible? Anything is possible. It isn't likely enough to credit it. You want to call that giving up... I call it being realistic.
As to why you'll have the same number of people working for you, you assume that these deals negotiated individually take up a huge staff. They don't. Historically they didn't. If you compare the size of the commerce department and state department today to what it was in the past, you can see it was dramatically smaller in the past and yet we did individual deals in the past. This is not to say that if we shift to individual deals that the size of these organizations will shrink, but I don't see how they'll get bigger when they were smaller when they did things this way.
What is more, a big deal is often more complicated and that actually probably consumes more people. Smaller deals are easier and faster.
As to your requests for specifics... this request is tiresome. I made it extremely and excruciatingly and obviously and emphatically and unquestionably clear that any specifics would be specific to the specific country and situation. To ask for a general policy when that was made beyond clear is frankly not a credible question on your part.
It is obvious that I will not offer a general policy because it is my thesis that that is a trick question or a trap. A general response to everyone is not what I think is reasonable. I wouldn't have ONE response to everything. I would have a thousand responses to a thousand different situations.
So if you want a "what would you do" answered, I need a scenario. You need to provide me with a nation you want me to make a deal with and then either allow me to find out what is going on from existing economic/political data or you need to state givens that I can use to calculate a response. A general response sans circumstance is not rational.
What would you do if you were in the forest? Do you have a general response to that? Anything you say could be irrational because you're not going to know the circumstances of you existence in that forest. Which forest are you in for example? Do you have supplies? Is this a vacation, an exploration, a rescue, a hunting trip, are you injured and seeking help... there's no context. And absent that you can't say what you should do. All you know is that you're in "a" forest. That's useless. The forest could be warm or freezing. You could have food or be starving. You could be well equipt or have nothing. There could be dangerous predators or it could be totally safe. The purpose of being there could be anything and is not given in the description of "in a forest". You can't craft policy objectives on that basis.
Its a nonsense question. You need to either give me the freedom to fill in the blanks and then tell you how I'd proceed or you can fill them in for me and I'll tell you how I would proceed. But to leave them unfilled and general and then ask how I'd proceed is a trap that I'm not stepping into and isn't a reasonable question.
You're not gaining efficiency by consolidation. The same number of people are going to be working for you regardless. So you're presenting a false dichotomy where in there is savings one one side and not on the other. Both are the same in terms of costs. So that's a fallacious claim on your part that you're saving money. You can't say I'm giving up something that does not exist.
As to what is addressed or not addressed in a given discussion or agreement, that would be specific to that agreement and thus a generalized statement that would cover all agreements would only be so much as "we would agree". That's about as specific as it gets. For some countries you might want to make an agreement that favors the other side for geopoltiical reasons. For other nations you might want an agreement that favors the US economically. For still others you might want something that is neutral. Or you might want something that favors some country in a given industry whilst favoring yours in another. The point is to give yourself flexibility.
As to setting off country X by making an agreement with country Y. Multilateral agreements don't avoid that. Some countries see it as in their strategic interests to be pissy. If you want countries to not be pissy you have to consistently make it not in their interests to do that. An easy way of doing this is to create opportunities that are denied to trade partners that cause problems on a regular basis. You also have to make a point of not rewarding whiny behavior. Set up something reasonable and be very willing for people to walk away from the table if they're not being reasonable. If you are known by everyone else to bend over backwards just to get agreements then it is in the other country's interests to whine and be unreasonable because you'll just cave to pissy behavior. You have to hold your ground once you have something you feel is reasonable. You also have to have very clear policy objectives. Having clear policy objectives that encompass a dozen different countries is not possible. You can't be anything but incoherent in that situation.
I'm not offering country X the same thing as country Y because country X is not country Y. The circumstances will inevitably be different and while I might offer SIMILAR deals they should never be interchangeable.
And I'd just like to stress again... the point is not to miff countries. The point is make reasonable and sustainable deals that profit the US either economically or geopolitically. A miffed country may or may not be in our interests or even relevant one way or the other. What is more, setting a lack of them being miffed as the goal ignores other imperatives that really have to be taken seriously. If them not being miffed means us giving them billions of dollars a year you have to question which matters more... them being miffed or the billions of dollars.
What is more, you can't be everyone's friend. It isn't possible. Some people won't like you. End of story. We need to get over that and strengthen relationships with people that like us while simply insulating ourselves from the damage countries that don't like us will attempt.
I do not expect us to get along with everyone. I'd like to get along but sometimes it isn't possible. And if the price getting along is being a sucker... then fuck that arrangement.
As to your standard of "the only way you can prove individual deals are effective is by me personally doing it"... that isn't reasonable. That is precisely how trade deals used to be conducted by default and they were very profitable. So... I just don't find your criticism on that point to be reasonable given that we have a history and track record with doing deals in precisely that manner and having great success with them.
No, I'm saying that it is objectively better in most parts of the world to be warmer farther from the equator. We are tropically descended primates. Saying you're happier in fucking cold places is great but you're in a minority there.
We're human beings. You're not an ice fish. Saying it is opinion or something is nonsensical. Regardless, lets say its all opinion and I'm an ass for imposing something on you. Only here is your second problem... I'm not.
All I'm doing is not taking your complaint seriously. You want to impose yourself on ME. I am just minding my own business doing what I do. Here you're going to blame me for all the CO2 and all the warming etc. Never mind that it doesn't matter what I do or you do. The CO2 being released in China and India so dwarfs any reduction you could credibly make that it defeats the whole point.
Your entire campaign is meaningless because we have ONE atmosphere. Get over it. The world is the world. What is going to happen will happen. Move on.
I personally think it won't be a big deal. But if it were a big deal, I'd offer you geoengineering. Short of that, nothing you or I do will matter. At all.
So what do you choose? Nothing/useless actions or Geoengineering. Choose.
Don't argue with people that are right. It annoys people that know more than you.
http://www.who.int/features/fa...
As to there being different breeds and strains of the species... I've been to an entomology museum. Have you? Anyone that knows anything about insects know that they're a zillion different species that are identical except for their genitals which means they don't interbreed. However, when you've seen 10,000 species of green beetles that all eat the same thing and live in similar environments... nonsense.
Do you want me to show you how meaningless your statement is?... check this out:
https://www.gardensafari.nl/en...
And really its besides the point because I'm obviously referring to the flying insects that drink human blood and spread bloodborn diseases in the process.
You want to plead the indispensability of this? Where do you live? In a city? The least natural environment possible? Genius.
As to making statements out of thin air, you read your own statement and see where I got that... or keep pretending it came out of nowhere and admit effectively that you're too dishonest to maintain this discussion. - Choose.
That's a strawman, I didn't say it is codified that only specific companies are allowed to run cable. I said that the system is set up in such a way that that happens. But that isn't explicitly stated.
Here you'll say that I then have no argument ignoring that we have many other situations where things are not directly codified yet result in those situations. Such as the Jim Crow laws which didn't forbid black people from voting but did create a situation where it was very hard for them to vote which made it statistically unlikely for them to vote.
What I can show you in franchise agreements is that they tend to require that anyone that offers ISP services must service the ENTIRE city to serve ANY portion of the city. That is pretty common. And it means that only the largest companies are well capitalized enough to compete. This does all by itself restrict competition to a handful of companies and it akin to saying someone can't open a sandwich shop anywhere in a city unless they are willing to commit to open hundreds all over the city serving the entire population.
Its not a reasonable requirement. And there are many other unreasonable requirements. Often as not you have to provide free or subsidized access for example which is hard to do if you're a small company. Then there is a regulatory burden which is difficult for anyone that doesn't have a dedicated legal team to handle. And it just goes on and on and on and on.
So you'll accept any major news outlet that supports my position? And that is what we consider to be valid information? Mainstream news? I'm just confirming your commitment to accept ANYTHING I provide from such a source.
Also Ars Technica is apparently fine as well. Excellent. So can we assume any alternative tech media is also acceptable? You're making this very easy. I will provide evidence that is mainstream news etc... and then by your statement you'll be obligated to concede.
Press the button. Give me an easy win.
Lolz... so you start off saying its all a matter of opinion, then you say my opinion is invalid for some reason. Lolzcats. If you bring this down to a matter of opinion, then all opinions are basically the same. I don't have to regard your opinion or even remotely care about it. And I'll take you as seriously with your criticism as you'd take someone else's when they told you what meat to put on your sandwich.
Don't argue opinion... its a foolish rhetorical ploy that has already fatally backfired. Pick something else.
I didn't fail to provide evidence. I negated the requirement by proving that your request was an insincere ploy.
As to efficiency, that's not the point. I simply refuse to be trolled into taking people seriously that are not taking the discussion seriously or lack the intellectual integrity to be worthy of my effort.
What you did was make it clear that this is an insult and shit talking thread. I queried you to see if you wanted a real discussion or shit talking. You opted for shittalking. So that's what you get.
I am quite happy to continue the discussion on the basis that your mother is fat. However, i will not be baited into a discussion where you regard the discussion as a shit talking discussion and I am expected to do research and argue logically. I will regard YOU as you regard this discussion. And that means this is what you get.
You chose this. If you want something else next time, then choose otherwise.
Actually yes, the species collectively accounts for more deaths than any other species on earth. Saying that we shouldn't regard the mosquitoes as a problem because only the females of the species spread diseases is like saying a country invading and murdering your people shouldn't be treated as enemies because the majority of the population remains in their home country. By this logic, the French shouldn't have seen the invading Nazis as enemies because after all most of the Nazis were still in Germany.
You said something profoundly stupid and should feel stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not giving up on anything. I think its easier to negotiate individually and that the deals will be more contextually reasonable on that basis.
Ever heard of a demand loan? Its a loan that has a term which ends whenever the lender demands their money back. When you deposit money in the bank you've actually made a demand loan to the bank. Short term agreements are not unfavorable always. It depends. If everyone trusts everyone and there is a high likelihood that the agreement will sustain into the future than what giving a short term out does it keep everyone honest. You fuck the other person in the agreement and they pull out. So you don't do that.
As to specific issues, you're just being pedantic now because I did refer to protectionist issues and I more importantly said that the relevant matters would be specific to the specific country. We're not going to have the same discussion with Japan that we would with India and we're not going to have the same discussion with India that we would with Saudi Arabia... trying to conflate all these different trade situations into a single agreement is foolish. What is more, it creates a problem where it is hard to punish individual countries that are breaking the rules because you have to back out of the entire deal to do it. OR just as bad you surrender your state sovereignty by forbidding a given country including your own from punishing a country that violated a rule unless the other countries also agree that that rule was violated. If the agreements are individual then you don't need anyone else's permission and dealing with one country's misbehavior doesn't queer the entire nation's trade policy.
The TPP is objectively less flexible, less customized, less accountable, and therefore objectively inferior to individual deals unless you have the conceit that you could create a universal deal that encompassed all trade deals with all countries as well as a lot of individual deals. Which as I said is both arrogant and stupid. Which is a lethal combination.
The costs of what? Diplomats? That's a zero sum game... we're going to have those guys regardless.
As to the term of the agreement, if the agreement works out to everyone's interest and the terms were held in the prior time period then one could expect a renewal of the contract term after term after term. Think about it like any place you go to buy something on a regular basis where the price is right and quality is right. You're coming back. You'll keep coming back. You like the deal.
And that's the point. If the deal is good then the term of the deal could literally be daily and it wouldn't really matter because it would be renewed every day. if everyone is happy then there won't be a problem. You only need longer term contracts when someone is going to want to back out for some reason. And they'll only want to do that if it isn't working out for them in some manner. Well, why have a contract that does that at all? Just make it work out. Its not that complicated. You find the things that both nations can agree upon and won't feel bad or uncomfortable about. You agree to that. End of story. The stuff that is squirrely should be handled on a case by case basis and not conflated into a larger agreement.
As to specifics, the specifics would be specific to the nation in question. That is another advantage of doing this on a case by case basis because you can make lots of custom deals. Country X might have an issue with an industry they want protectionist policies for... fine. And country Y might want assurances that some export they're keen on is competitive in the US market. Okay. And we can work out the details of all that on a case by case basis without polluting the whole thing with a "well this needs to work for every possible circumstance at once" sort of solution. That's as arrogant as it is dumb.
It presupposes that someone can make a universal contract that is so perfect in its adaptability and breadth that it can deal with any possible situation as efficiently and coherently as a thousand custom deals. That's arrogant. No one is going to have a deal that good. And thinking that we could is dumb. So its arrogant and dumb at the same time... which is a bad combination.
Explain why we need the TPP in the first place and I'll tell you what we need to move on to.
I would argue it was a solution in search of a problem.
US trade policy is probably best negocated on a country by country basis rather than creating these giant bills. The problem is that countries are not going to agree to the same stuff. And big packages create lowest common denominator situations.
It also robs us of our ability to reward countries that are behaving themselves while also robbing ourselves of the ability to punish other countries.
If Country 1 plays well with us, is honorable, and has held up their ends of bargains... why would i throw them in the same boat as country 2 that doesn't play well, is dishonorable, and has a history of not holding up bargains? The whole point of the TPP is to conflate these countries. And that doesn't serve US trade interests.
A trade agreement that does not serve US trade interests is not in our interest to sign.
So... where would I go from here? To a per nation trade negotiation that extends no more than 5 years and is limited to what is relevant to a trade negotiation. It would be understood that how countries conducted themselves during the previous term of the treaty would influence the terms and nature of the next treaty when it was renewed.
The above seems quite reasonable and sustainable.
Its hard to objectively separate a positive and reasonable regulation from an abusive power grab.
I am not saying you can't... I'm just saying it is difficult.
There is no political right or left anymore. Its a false dichotomy. Its marxists versus everyone else in the west these days.
No one is advocating for kings and queens and no one is seriously talking about putting the church in charge of everything and no one is seriously talking about repealing democratic rule. Conflating non-marxists with the right is a trap. Don't fall into it.
Anyone non-marxist is labeled right these days. That's all right means at this point. Not marxist.
So lets just stop beating around the bush and label things what they mean.
I'm anti marxist... so by the strawmen of the marxists, I'm hard right. But I also believe very strongly in democracy, press freedom, religious liberty, etc etc etc... but apparently I'm right wing... why? Because I'm anti marxist.
So I reject the whole right left dichotomy. Its not meaningful. its marxists versus everyone else. That's it. The marxists have just turned on the private sector unions. They're doing it throughout the US and Europe. The idiots never saw the inevitable betrayal coming. They were told. They didn't believe... now we're beyond "believe me" territory and into "its happening".
That's what this whole "progressive vs leftist" thing is these days. The whole progressive stack... its so funny.
Now we're going to see if the marxists can bribe, extort, and manipulate their way into negating the democratic process entirely. Their plan could work, but if it fails, it should bring about a systemic immunity or resistance to future incursions.
False dichotomy... both sides only are rational when it serves their interests. The left is just as prone to be crazy and erratic when that serves its ideology.
The real lesson is that people follow their interests.
At this point however, there really isn't a left or right...
Its basically just Marxists versus everyone else at this point. Otherwise why have evangelicals and libertarians on the same side?
Claiming the left is all virtue, unicorns, and rainbows isn't credible. The marxists gave us Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, etc... Its hardly the ideology of sweetness and light.
They're always declaring war on something... and that war tends to boil down to them trolling on social media or maybe "hacking" some very very very easy to hack something or other. Like... a voice mail system that has a default password. Such amazing hacking...
Anon broke apart shortly after it was created. The people that cite themselves as Anon are mostly script kiddies and posers at this point.
So a bunch of script kiddies and posers just declared "war" on a guy currently getting Secret Service protection.
This should be good.
... At least not one that anyone would honestly express outside of the back room and off the record.
The thing is a joke. Trash it and move on.
I did... about three or four posts back. You've apparently lost the plot which makes me lose any interest I had left in carrying on this farce... yawn.
I'm not intimidated by dumb humans that will presume to use any pretext to take my stuff or hurt me. That's generally all this boils down to. The Marxists have co-opted the environmental movement as a pretext to get what they always want which is someone else's shit.
We see you. You want it? Come and take it. *kiss* *kiss*
Nah, I'm just showing that your request for proof was insincere and a waste of time. I proved that by showing that you'd not agree to any standards of evidence. And that freed me of any obligation to provide any.
The above is obvious and sustained. Good day.
There are lots of insects that fill the same niche. So I reject your simplistic notion of ecology. The system isn't unstable. You're talking about a table with a thousand legs. Taking one out isn't going to make the table fall over. And mosquitoes are fucking awful for humans.
Here you're going to give me some warped 1st world pretentious crap about how we can't change anything even though in the first world we've changed everything.
We don't have large predators on our streets. We have killed off the mosquitoes in our territory and near our population centers. And we've done lots of other things to our ecology in our territory. But if anyone else does it... they're bad people. Because hypocrisy.
I reject your crap and will instead extend to the people of the world the freedom to do what we have and would do in their place. If you want to be a raging hypocrite, that is your own business. I personally have too much regard for my own credibility to make that much of a fool of myself.
Well since you've reduced it all to opinion... then I don't have to care anymore than I care what you like your coffee.
Done.
Look at the graphs. They speak for themselves.
Just saying, why are we trying to make shitty weather out like a good thing? Most life on earth likes it warmer.