Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality.
Why even state this? There is no global plan for a world economy. No government has even bothered to write anything resembleing a human rights law with regards to so called Global Trade. In fact, in Quebec earlier this year, between beating, gassing, and shooting students from across the U.S.A. and Canada - the G7 liars club rejected a human rights clause they originally put in to silence the protests from outside. Behind the fences, the dogs, the guns, the gas launchers. Talk about two faced.
Remember, this was before 9.11.
For Katz to begin his article with the implication that there is anything but a policy against human rights within the rich halls of international trade, shows an ignorance of the facts.
This is the second time I've called Katz on facts. I'm getting annoyed. Stop writing about things you don't understand Katz.
The first computer I got had Rogue Spear. I think that's it, a Wolfenstien progenitor. 2D pixel Nazi shootin'!
Now, one night I downloaded that Wolfenstien demo, you know the one. It's been all over Gamespy. Well... I've been killin' Nazis for 2 hours every night on the same map! Did I mention on the same map?!?!!!
War is HELL. Let's go! Shnell shnell!!! Watch out for turkey dinners.:-D
Perhaps a journalist could help me understand the subtle difference between reporting an Anthrax Scare and reporting Anthrax Deaths. I'm under the impression that it would be improper to say scare if deaths had occured.
What I'm saying, perhaps not well, is that an artist does have special rights. Copyright is to revert after a period of around 25 or 35 years. A person must hold these rights, not a corporation. But recently, as had been witnessed in the comics industry court cases, work for hire, copyright law changes, and general leeway the corporation as a legal definition has gathered has changed dramatically. In there favor.
It's sad to see my power to protect what I create diminish. Naturally, I should read the bloody contract! I shouldn't be a fool and sign away my fortune. But when had it become standard practice to gouge the artist? Anyway, my point is... *puts down vodka, lights cigarette*... corporations have changed law and gained so much clout that individuals, the ones with inaliable rights don't stand a chance should a fat corporation have it in for ya. And as it seems, having it in for the artist is standard practice.
But this licenseing to Napster thing bugs me. I can't see why anyone who downloads a song can't be charged by the artist/copyright owner of the item. It might seem complicated to have a few cents sent to an individual for every song downloaded - millions of transactions, compicalted networking, big calculations. But the good news is... computers are good at that I hear.
Hmm. Naive aren't you? You seem to think I'm whinning because of a contract I shouldn't have signed. Well, no. I'm talking about a Corporation having rights equal to the artist (an actual human being). More than that, I'm taking about giant corporations using thier lobbying power to change copyright law in thier favor. Effectivly forcing anyone who wants to sell a song into being a Record Company employee.
Programmers should have rights for thier code don't you think? No?
Corporations shouldn't be able to own an artistic property for more than 25 years. Right? No?
What happens if an artist writes a song at home while under contract? Who owns it?
As an artist, I don't sign such contracts and I'm completely aware of how large companies would kill my mother to keep my work off any shelf near thiers. You tell me I'm whinning? You should go back to your desk job pal.
Contracted musicians aren't a special social class who deserve to earn a 6-figure-plus salary. I'd be willing to bet that the figures are more or less proportionate. Artists who sell a lot earn a lot. Artists who sell relatively little get paid relatively little.
What? Why would you think this? Artists who are pushed/promoed by the record company make money, not the lucky popular ones (though that can still happen... sorta). The ones the record company decided should sell, since they control the market like the Lord on High. The artists the Record Company decides to sell. Britney Spears vs. a little band. The Record Company makes a mint from Britney for example, and, thanks to a cruel contract and support from the copyright law, they can force the dept ridden little band to pay for promotion and distribution. And as any Record exec will tell you, they just make up the promo and destribution stuff. Truth is, that poor little bands records are still in a warehouse in Malibu.
About your friend - royalties will be a thing of the past with any work for hire contract. Trust me.
Normal business these days used to be called payola. Remember that.
OK! Who can tell me who created the comicbook character Wolverine?
Who can tell me who owns Wolverine?
That's right.
This is all about Copyright law, and corportations gaining even more power to steal material it's creator... contract or not. It worked for Marvel comics... it'll work for the RIAA.
No, you are not as informed about what really made Tom MacFarlane the biggest asshole in comicdom... even over Jim Shooter! Image comics, Tom's little California shop, is a work for hire sweat shop. Can't tell you how many people worked there and didn't even get paid.
Spawn makes money from toys, movies, etc. It's a brand, not a comic. And it's utter junk. imho
Even if you do not sign a contract, like the recent Marv Wolfman (Blade) case, your rights as an artist are not the same as they were a few years ago. I see this RIAA thing as the same silliness I've seen in the comic industry.
Pass all rights to the corporation. Individuals should not have the right to challenge a corporation. Why, because money are important... art isn't.
I've been through the Work for Hire copyright problem. It's how Marvel Comics and DC have stolen the rights to every comics character since Superman. The "rich" have recently changed copyright law so it does not revert to the artist after 25 years. Seemingly this law was changed by the "rich" to solidify the rights to such famous brand names as... Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, etc.
This situation has destroyed the comics industry (Marvel is bankrupt, comics sell at a loss) and has devastated artists who gave there all for an industry that didn't care a wit for the medium or the art.
The music industry is the same. Suits who are so bloated and sickening... I've seen how the music industry in Canada has grown into a massive corporate mess (thanks Moses! What a guy). A legal mess that is.
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic music/entertainment/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to music over the artist who wrote it?
If you feel the need to censor a work of art before you partake in it... may I suggest you dig your brain out with a spoon.
What moron thinks this is useful? What fool believes this needs to exist? It's for sale??? I find I often come to Slashdot just to see what silly new technological pile of baloney the industry will come up with next.
Is a lobotomy a requirement to be an IT CEO??? Shock therapy? Long needles inserted into the ears?
Excuse me, I've another corporation to make fun of on another web forum.
I'm actually rather fond of Mr. Katz and his writing. This article has a vagueness that I feel needs my personal comment (lucky you), which is perhaps the point.
IMHO...
> So do religious fundamentalists and extremists like the Taliban, who equate it
> with godlessness and blasphemy.
The Taliban would equate sand to blasphemy. Why silly extremists are taken seriously is somewhat of a mystery to those of us who can read. Billy Graham is not a wise man. Really. Neither are the Taliban. Jerry Falwell's words are as foolish and harmful as Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric.
Yet Ronald Reagan is elected... then George... Then Bill... then George clone...*sigh*. This isn't government, this is continued policy. Stagnation. This is an important part of Globalization, I'm sure, as the continued policy of Reagan was a Cold War Economic plan... Reaganomics.
> I still couldn't tell you exactly what it is.
Well, get off the fence John! Personally, I see it as a continuation of the aggressive American Cold War Economic plan. If anyone believes America would do this to create an even playing field for trade is a fool. America will always be on top, or it won't play.
> Sometimes things are easier to grasp by defining what they're not.
It's no help to people, or their rights as humans. Global Trade is all about getting around laws of humanitarian and tariff restriction and regulation. Nothing more. It's Multi-national corps getting law changed through government on an international scale. Scary, IMHO.
> Generally speaking, globalization today is a Western idea (although other,
> earlier cultures took some shots at it), fueled most recently by technology's
> forging of a global economy. It's a powerful offshoot of capitalism and popular
> culture, yet it's being debated in almost every country, and it's become almost
> impossible to hear a major political speech that doesn't mention it.
Yet no one seems to be saying "we have allowed Multi-national Corps to pretty much kill Asian children to make sneakers for rich Westerners". This isn't some mysterious, mystical thing. It's a matter of law. Does a multi-national have the legal means to ignore human rights? Ask the people from Bhopal, India. Ask the folks in Alaska as their pipeline rusts and their ground melts. Ask the people in any Nike factory.
>
> The subject arouses strong emotions. Directly or not, globalism is at the root
> of the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the resulting conflict between the
> United States and Islamic fundamentalists, who are articulate and open about
> their hatred of the changes sweeping their cultures. Every business is obsessed
> with it.
The roots of the terrorists attacks on New York and the Pentagon are, I suspect, more polemic and have more to do with Bin Laden's tiny dick than anything approaching an economic difference of opinion with American policy in the Middle East. Sure. it's what Osama might say, but it's just rhetoric to make him look like he reads the newspaper once in a while. My people have lots of problems with American trade policy... funny, we still like Americans. Maybe I'd agree if I was a crazy rich oil baby with a God complex. Yo Osama, eat my meat!
> It's getting hard to find academics and other members of the intelligentsia who
> don't mistrust it, equating it, somewhat justifiably, with corporatism and the
> rise of the multinationals. Surely, there are more reasons to mistrust the
> multinational corporations who advance globalization than I could possibly list
> here.
Most multi-national corporations have a terrible record. I'm always disappointed that people aren't aware of the many crimes against humanity that most corporations are guilty of. Unfortunately, with the growing rights these bodies have, it is almost impossible to even convince a court to take a humanistic case. Ask Erin Brockovitch (which was settled out of court btw).
> And there are clear differences. Globalization seems to erode the longtime
> primacy of the nation-state, already undercut by networked computing, which
> changes the potency of boundaries and enables people, businesses and banks to
> talk directly to one another rather than through surrogates. It also undermines
> dogmas, both political and religious, some of which greatly fear environments
> that permit the free flow of ideas. It's hard to preach a monotheistic view of
> the world if all sorts of ideas are available to your kids online and via TV,
> music and film. And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund
> managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can
> transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds,
> quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in
> Asia.
The only clear affect is the rich getting richer and the poor getting killed. Do the research. Stabilization? Suuuure, we talked about that one in economic class all the time *snork*.
> Electronic information has also fueled globalism and its consequences.
Sure has wha!?!
> Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the
> inevitability of globalism. Most other governments do, perhaps the primary
> reason the Arab world isn't actively resisting the much-resented United States
> in its new war. Countries that don't want to join in may end up like
> Afghanistan, beset by tribal conflicts, cut off from capital development and
> economic opportunity. Would investment from multi-nationals help or harm a
> country like Afghanistan, where one kid after another says in TV interviews that
> the only available job opportunities involve shooting people?
This is the dumbest paragraph I ever read from John Katz. Do you believe this crapola? It's all assumption based on... God knows. Do you really think the U.S. is resented because of Globalization? That seems a simplification - it's because the U.S. gives billions to their oil sheik buddies who, when the spirit moves them, are brutal to the people they rule. They don't fear the US terminating relations for humanitarian reasons now do they?
America has made it clear it doesn't give a rats ass. It just wants it's oil.
> Whether it's a good witch or not, globalism is much too big and pervasive an
> idea to go away.
Again, it's a hidden agenda that changes international trade law in favor of any multi-national corporation. The big ones are, of course, American. Why aren't WTO laws put through debate? Ask yourself why these meetings are private? Why would economic policy that will, even as this article purports, change the lives of most people on the planet, not be discussed in depth? Why maim and kill students who protest these meetings?
> For all the media hysteria about bio-terrorism and other
> dangers, it seems probable that the United States will ultimately destroy the
> Taliban government, and the first such conflict of the 21st century will be
> over. What isn't as clear is whether this will mark the beginning of a war or
> the end. Or whether anybody will ever come up with a widely-accepted definition
> of what globalization really is.
Naive beyond all expectations John. The U.S.A. will not get the Taliban any more than the USSR got anyone in Afghanistan. I doubt the US even intends too! Worse, the US really could care less. To keep oil flowing the US has left Saddam Hussein in power, as had always been policy. The Saudi Royals will not be replaced with an American style Republic... or even a Turkey style one. It's better for the US to have these evil people in power, and the US will leave them there. If they get outta line, the US will bomb them. It's policy people !!!
This has been going on for decades. Today is no different than September 10th when it comes to American policy. This speculation by John Katz is understandable since the Sept11th attack on the US. Things are scary for Americans now. Fear grips the land. And as Osama, George, and every other political jackal since Crassus became the first Emperor of Rome knows... fear is the most powerful weapon in politics.
This world trade is baloney. It just gives multi-national corporations the rights of actual human beings (the purpose of the WTO is to change law in favor of the rich).
Grow up.
You are employee number 14yu39423813y4... shut up, and take it like a pile of dung.
I've been a Tick fan since my pal Greg bought the comics first printing back in the days when Ronny RayGun was killing Terrorists and stealing oil. The comics were great, but when the animated show came from FOX, well, everything changed...
The cartoon is FAR too brilliant to get into here. It's considered so well done it's been played on the Canadian arts channel BRAVO. Now, if a bunch of smug Toronto producers think your show is intellectual, well, the world is sure to be confused.
But the important thing, of course, was that it was funny. FOX didn't understand and cancelled it. Now let's do the math shall we? The Simpsons is the longest running sitcom EVER. It's a cartoon. It makes millions annually. So when the Tick comes along, they canceled it and created a live show years later.
WTF???
Second question - Can Ben explain why the FOX network is run by morons? Can Ben elaborate on just how moronic (names please) these executives at FOX are?
Thank you for your time Ben. And thanks for the TICK. SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON !!!
Hey, find a way to display M$ sites with Mozilla all you like, what I really want is a way to tell the useragent to "piss off, I'll use whatever software I please".
I noticed this in the article:"Postscript: Several readers have e-mailed me to outline what they feel are holes in my argument. They point out that in the most recent versions of Windows, a right click on file names will offer you an "Open with" option, and that if you navigate this properly you can check a box that says "Always open files of this type with this program," thus effectively changing the default option."
This isn't entirely true. I've noticed that with Windows2000 (which I'm forced to use at my workplace) will REFUSE to allow another program to open grahic files from the Outlook email program. I prefer AC/DC to browse GIF and JPG files, but M$ insists on bringing up IE for GIF files.
Micro$oft has, obviously and once again, hidden code that forces a user to the M$ ways in spite of any efforts the user makes to control his own computer.
This has always been M$'s arrogant stance. They think it's thier desktop, not yours.
Micro$oft has had an ongoing campaign to push their own file types over those of "competing" file types. A distinction only the PR Nazi's at M$ could make. HTML to HTM? DOC incompatibilities? GIF files future a short one?
The worst thing about the Internet is that it took less than a decade for this publicly created resource to become a commercial battleground for around three giant multi-international-hyper-mega-Net bullocks companies.
And we customers are the losers.
Some customers are getting hip to this crap. And they are looking at the technology and beginning to wonder if this is really of any use at all. I mean, why should anyone (anyone laying down his hard earned cash) put up with this sillyness?
Dear M$, you treated me like a chump once too often, you stole my money, you played games with the Internet (something I cared about) and your products suck. I'll never buy your carp again and should anyone in government, business, or personal life ask me, I'll tell 'em to go Linux or MacOS. Heck, I'll recommend FreeBSD too!
Fanboy geek! the first show that was actually aired was "The Man Trap". (8th of September, 1966). These kids today...
Where No Man Has Gone Before was the first show MADE (with Shatner, after the first two hour pilot was rejected by NBC). It was the third show aired on TV. However, in proper chronology, it is considered the first, official, Star Trek EP.
You're right. The "Producers", ever more seeming like the insane people from the Mel Brooks movie, have obviously completely forgotten to use bsic math and common sense with any dangleing plot threads. It's called being a lazy writer... I believe.
Yes the opening bit had great visuals, just didn't go for the Hollywood/ Rod Stewart music. What is it with this sort of crap music from Hollywood? PUT DOWN THE GUNS AND ROSES AND TRY SOME ACTUAL MUSIC. Bo Diddly knows Star Trek.;p
Slashdot Mirror
Globalism ought to be a counterforce, democratizing the world and spreading technological and economic equality.
Why even state this? There is no global plan for a world economy. No government has even bothered to write anything resembleing a human rights law with regards to so called Global Trade. In fact, in Quebec earlier this year, between beating, gassing, and shooting students from across the U.S.A. and Canada - the G7 liars club rejected a human rights clause they originally put in to silence the protests from outside. Behind the fences, the dogs, the guns, the gas launchers. Talk about two faced.
Remember, this was before 9.11.
For Katz to begin his article with the implication that there is anything but a policy against human rights within the rich halls of international trade, shows an ignorance of the facts.
This is the second time I've called Katz on facts. I'm getting annoyed. Stop writing about things you don't understand Katz.
The first computer I got had Rogue Spear. I think that's it, a Wolfenstien progenitor. 2D pixel Nazi shootin'!
:-D
Now, one night I downloaded that Wolfenstien demo, you know the one. It's been all over Gamespy. Well... I've been killin' Nazis for 2 hours every night on the same map! Did I mention on the same map?!?!!!
War is HELL. Let's go! Shnell shnell!!! Watch out for turkey dinners.
How much does it cost a school to use M$ software?
How much would it cost to use Linux?
Answer: M$ monopolozes the market, so considering Linux is out.
Sad... but true.
Maybe I'm getting old...
Perhaps a journalist could help me understand the subtle difference between reporting an Anthrax Scare and reporting Anthrax Deaths. I'm under the impression that it would be improper to say scare if deaths had occured.
Just trying to keep the disinfo to a minimum.
Of course your right.
... corporations have changed law and gained so much clout that individuals, the ones with inaliable rights don't stand a chance should a fat corporation have it in for ya. And as it seems, having it in for the artist is standard practice.
;p
What I'm saying, perhaps not well, is that an artist does have special rights. Copyright is to revert after a period of around 25 or 35 years. A person must hold these rights, not a corporation. But recently, as had been witnessed in the comics industry court cases, work for hire, copyright law changes, and general leeway the corporation as a legal definition has gathered has changed dramatically. In there favor.
It's sad to see my power to protect what I create diminish. Naturally, I should read the bloody contract! I shouldn't be a fool and sign away my fortune. But when had it become standard practice to gouge the artist? Anyway, my point is... *puts down vodka, lights cigarette*
Hope your contract holds up.
You're brilliant. Couldn't have said it better.
But this licenseing to Napster thing bugs me. I can't see why anyone who downloads a song can't be charged by the artist/copyright owner of the item. It might seem complicated to have a few cents sent to an individual for every song downloaded - millions of transactions, compicalted networking, big calculations. But the good news is... computers are good at that I hear.
Hmm. Naive aren't you? You seem to think I'm whinning because of a contract I shouldn't have signed. Well, no. I'm talking about a Corporation having rights equal to the artist (an actual human being). More than that, I'm taking about giant corporations using thier lobbying power to change copyright law in thier favor. Effectivly forcing anyone who wants to sell a song into being a Record Company employee.
Programmers should have rights for thier code don't you think? No?
Corporations shouldn't be able to own an artistic property for more than 25 years. Right? No?
What happens if an artist writes a song at home while under contract? Who owns it?
As an artist, I don't sign such contracts and I'm completely aware of how large companies would kill my mother to keep my work off any shelf near thiers. You tell me I'm whinning? You should go back to your desk job pal.
Contracted musicians aren't a special social class who deserve to earn a 6-figure-plus salary. I'd be willing to bet that the figures are more or less proportionate. Artists who sell a lot earn a lot. Artists who sell relatively little get paid relatively little.
What? Why would you think this? Artists who are pushed/promoed by the record company make money, not the lucky popular ones (though that can still happen... sorta). The ones the record company decided should sell, since they control the market like the Lord on High. The artists the Record Company decides to sell. Britney Spears vs. a little band. The Record Company makes a mint from Britney for example, and, thanks to a cruel contract and support from the copyright law, they can force the dept ridden little band to pay for promotion and distribution. And as any Record exec will tell you, they just make up the promo and destribution stuff. Truth is, that poor little bands records are still in a warehouse in Malibu.
About your friend - royalties will be a thing of the past with any work for hire contract. Trust me.
Normal business these days used to be called payola. Remember that.
OK!
Who can tell me who created the comicbook character Wolverine?
Who can tell me who owns Wolverine?
That's right.
This is all about Copyright law, and corportations gaining even more power to steal material it's creator... contract or not. It worked for Marvel comics... it'll work for the RIAA.
No, you are not as informed about what really made Tom MacFarlane the biggest asshole in comicdom... even over Jim Shooter! Image comics, Tom's little California shop, is a work for hire sweat shop. Can't tell you how many people worked there and didn't even get paid.
Spawn makes money from toys, movies, etc. It's a brand, not a comic. And it's utter junk. imho
Even if you do not sign a contract, like the recent Marv Wolfman (Blade) case, your rights as an artist are not the same as they were a few years ago. I see this RIAA thing as the same silliness I've seen in the comic industry.
Pass all rights to the corporation. Individuals should not have the right to challenge a corporation. Why, because money are important... art isn't.
I've been through the Work for Hire copyright problem. It's how Marvel Comics and DC have stolen the rights to every comics character since Superman. The "rich" have recently changed copyright law so it does not revert to the artist after 25 years. Seemingly this law was changed by the "rich" to solidify the rights to such famous brand names as... Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, etc.
This situation has destroyed the comics industry (Marvel is bankrupt, comics sell at a loss) and has devastated artists who gave there all for an industry that didn't care a wit for the medium or the art.
The music industry is the same. Suits who are so bloated and sickening... I've seen how the music industry in Canada has grown into a massive corporate mess (thanks Moses! What a guy). A legal mess that is.
Can anyone explain to me how a court of law can find a giant monopolistic music/entertainment/whatever it's bought recently company can be granted the rights to music over the artist who wrote it?
Someone...
Anyone...
If you feel the need to censor a work of art before you partake in it... may I suggest you dig your brain out with a spoon.
What moron thinks this is useful? What fool believes this needs to exist? It's for sale??? I find I often come to Slashdot just to see what silly new technological pile of baloney the industry will come up with next.
Is a lobotomy a requirement to be an IT CEO??? Shock therapy? Long needles inserted into the ears?
Excuse me, I've another corporation to make fun of on another web forum.
I'm actually rather fond of Mr. Katz and his writing. This article has a vagueness that I feel needs my personal comment (lucky you), which is perhaps the point.
IMHO...
> So do religious fundamentalists and extremists like the Taliban, who equate it
> with godlessness and blasphemy.
The Taliban would equate sand to blasphemy. Why silly extremists are taken seriously is somewhat of a mystery to those of us who can read . Billy Graham is not a wise man. Really. Neither are the Taliban. Jerry Falwell's words are as foolish and harmful as Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric.
Yet Ronald Reagan is elected... then George... Then Bill... then George clone...*sigh*. This isn't government, this is continued policy. Stagnation. This is an important part of Globalization, I'm sure, as the continued policy of Reagan was a Cold War Economic plan... Reaganomics.
> I still couldn't tell you exactly what it is.
Well, get off the fence John! Personally, I see it as a continuation of the aggressive American Cold War Economic plan. If anyone believes America would do this to create an even playing field for trade is a fool. America will always be on top, or it won't play.
> Sometimes things are easier to grasp by defining what they're not.
It's no help to people, or their rights as humans. Global Trade is all about getting around laws of humanitarian and tariff restriction and regulation. Nothing more. It's Multi-national corps getting law changed through government on an international scale. Scary, IMHO.
> Generally speaking, globalization today is a Western idea (although other,
> earlier cultures took some shots at it), fueled most recently by technology's
> forging of a global economy. It's a powerful offshoot of capitalism and popular
> culture, yet it's being debated in almost every country, and it's become almost
> impossible to hear a major political speech that doesn't mention it.
Yet no one seems to be saying "we have allowed Multi-national Corps to pretty much kill Asian children to make sneakers for rich Westerners". This isn't some mysterious, mystical thing. It's a matter of law. Does a multi-national have the legal means to ignore human rights? Ask the people from Bhopal, India. Ask the folks in Alaska as their pipeline rusts and their ground melts. Ask the people in any Nike factory.
>
> The subject arouses strong emotions. Directly or not, globalism is at the root
> of the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the resulting conflict between the
> United States and Islamic fundamentalists, who are articulate and open about
> their hatred of the changes sweeping their cultures. Every business is obsessed
> with it.
The roots of the terrorists attacks on New York and the Pentagon are, I suspect, more polemic and have more to do with Bin Laden's tiny dick than anything approaching an economic difference of opinion with American policy in the Middle East. Sure. it's what Osama might say, but it's just rhetoric to make him look like he reads the newspaper once in a while. My people have lots of problems with American trade policy... funny, we still like Americans. Maybe I'd agree if I was a crazy rich oil baby with a God complex. Yo Osama, eat my meat!
> It's getting hard to find academics and other members of the intelligentsia who
> don't mistrust it, equating it, somewhat justifiably, with corporatism and the
> rise of the multinationals. Surely, there are more reasons to mistrust the
> multinational corporations who advance globalization than I could possibly list
> here.
Most multi-national corporations have a terrible record. I'm always disappointed that people aren't aware of the many crimes against humanity that most corporations are guilty of. Unfortunately, with the growing rights these bodies have, it is almost impossible to even convince a court to take a humanistic case. Ask Erin Brockovitch (which was settled out of court btw).
> And there are clear differences. Globalization seems to erode the longtime
> primacy of the nation-state, already undercut by networked computing, which
> changes the potency of boundaries and enables people, businesses and banks to
> talk directly to one another rather than through surrogates. It also undermines
> dogmas, both political and religious, some of which greatly fear environments
> that permit the free flow of ideas. It's hard to preach a monotheistic view of
> the world if all sorts of ideas are available to your kids online and via TV,
> music and film. And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund
> managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can
> transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds,
> quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in
> Asia.
The only clear affect is the rich getting richer and the poor getting killed. Do the research. Stabilization? Suuuure, we talked about that one in economic class all the time *snork*.
> Electronic information has also fueled globalism and its consequences.
Sure has wha!?!
> Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the
> inevitability of globalism. Most other governments do, perhaps the primary
> reason the Arab world isn't actively resisting the much-resented United States
> in its new war. Countries that don't want to join in may end up like
> Afghanistan, beset by tribal conflicts, cut off from capital development and
> economic opportunity. Would investment from multi-nationals help or harm a
> country like Afghanistan, where one kid after another says in TV interviews that
> the only available job opportunities involve shooting people?
This is the dumbest paragraph I ever read from John Katz. Do you believe this crapola? It's all assumption based on
America has made it clear it doesn't give a rats ass. It just wants it's oil.
> Whether it's a good witch or not, globalism is much too big and pervasive an
> idea to go away.
Again, it's a hidden agenda that changes international trade law in favor of any multi-national corporation. The big ones are, of course, American. Why aren't WTO laws put through debate? Ask yourself why these meetings are private? Why would economic policy that will, even as this article purports, change the lives of most people on the planet, not be discussed in depth? Why maim and kill students who protest these meetings?
> For all the media hysteria about bio-terrorism and other
> dangers, it seems probable that the United States will ultimately destroy the
> Taliban government, and the first such conflict of the 21st century will be
> over. What isn't as clear is whether this will mark the beginning of a war or
> the end. Or whether anybody will ever come up with a widely-accepted definition
> of what globalization really is.
Naive beyond all expectations John. The U.S.A. will not get the Taliban any more than the USSR got anyone in Afghanistan. I doubt the US even intends too! Worse, the US really could care less. To keep oil flowing the US has left Saddam Hussein in power, as had always been policy. The Saudi Royals will not be replaced with an American style Republic... or even a Turkey style one. It's better for the US to have these evil people in power, and the US will leave them there. If they get outta line, the US will bomb them. It's policy people !!!
This has been going on for decades. Today is no different than September 10th when it comes to American policy. This speculation by John Katz is understandable since the Sept11th attack on the US. Things are scary for Americans now. Fear grips the land. And as Osama, George, and every other political jackal since Crassus became the first Emperor of Rome knows... fear is the most powerful weapon in politics.
CRAP
This world trade is baloney. It just gives multi-national corporations the rights of actual human beings (the purpose of the WTO is to change law in favor of the rich).
Grow up.
You are employee number 14yu39423813y4... shut up, and take it like a pile of dung.
I agree. I can sum it up in one quote...
I can't eat a kitten! THAT'S JUST WRONG !!!
Why a live action show???
I've been a Tick fan since my pal Greg bought the comics first printing back in the days when Ronny RayGun was killing Terrorists and stealing oil. The comics were great, but when the animated show came from FOX, well, everything changed...
The cartoon is FAR too brilliant to get into here. It's considered so well done it's been played on the Canadian arts channel BRAVO. Now, if a bunch of smug Toronto producers think your show is intellectual, well, the world is sure to be confused.
But the important thing, of course, was that it was funny. FOX didn't understand and cancelled it. Now let's do the math shall we? The Simpsons is the longest running sitcom EVER. It's a cartoon. It makes millions annually. So when the Tick comes along, they canceled it and created a live show years later.
WTF???
Second question - Can Ben explain why the FOX network is run by morons? Can Ben elaborate on just how moronic (names please) these executives at FOX are?
Thank you for your time Ben. And thanks for the TICK. SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON !!!
Hey, find a way to display M$ sites with Mozilla all you like, what I really want is a way to tell the useragent to "piss off, I'll use whatever software I please".
Wow, you're a well trained little monkey.
I don't have any patience to relearn where settings are. I certainly don't have patience about what word on the menu even MEANS settings!
Is is Options? Folder Options? Settings? Accounts? Admin? Services? Network Settings?
Why should these change with every "new" version?
I noticed this in the article:"Postscript: Several readers have e-mailed me to outline what they feel are holes in my argument. They point out that in the most recent versions of Windows, a right click on file names will offer you an "Open with" option, and that if you navigate this properly you can check a box that says "Always open files of this type with this program," thus effectively changing the default option."
This isn't entirely true. I've noticed that with Windows2000 (which I'm forced to use at my workplace) will REFUSE to allow another program to open grahic files from the Outlook email program. I prefer AC/DC to browse GIF and JPG files, but M$ insists on bringing up IE for GIF files.
Micro$oft has, obviously and once again, hidden code that forces a user to the M$ ways in spite of any efforts the user makes to control his own computer.
This has always been M$'s arrogant stance. They think it's thier desktop, not yours.
Micro$oft has had an ongoing campaign to push their own file types over those of "competing" file types. A distinction only the PR Nazi's at M$ could make. HTML to HTM? DOC incompatibilities? GIF files future a short one?
The worst thing about the Internet is that it took less than a decade for this publicly created resource to become a commercial battleground for around three giant multi-international-hyper-mega-Net bullocks companies.
And we customers are the losers.
Some customers are getting hip to this crap. And they are looking at the technology and beginning to wonder if this is really of any use at all. I mean, why should anyone (anyone laying down his hard earned cash) put up with this sillyness?
Dear M$, you treated me like a chump once too often, you stole my money, you played games with the Internet (something I cared about) and your products suck. I'll never buy your carp again and should anyone in government, business, or personal life ask me, I'll tell 'em to go Linux or MacOS. Heck, I'll recommend FreeBSD too!
Fanboy geek! the first show that was actually aired was "The Man Trap". (8th of September, 1966). These kids today...
Where No Man Has Gone Before was the first show MADE (with Shatner, after the first two hour pilot was rejected by NBC). It was the third show aired on TV. However, in proper chronology, it is considered the first, official, Star Trek EP.
No get back down into that basement boy!
You're right. The "Producers", ever more seeming like the insane people from the Mel Brooks movie, have obviously completely forgotten to use bsic math and common sense with any dangleing plot threads. It's called being a lazy writer... I believe.
Yes the opening bit had great visuals, just didn't go for the Hollywood/ Rod Stewart music. What is it with this sort of crap music from Hollywood? PUT DOWN THE GUNS AND ROSES AND TRY SOME ACTUAL MUSIC. Bo Diddly knows Star Trek.
BWAHAHAHA. Tha's priceless. Good one. LMAO
About the Rod Stewart theme to Enterprise. Yuck! I miss the original theme. What other Sci-Fi show had bongos! BONGOS !!!