I think what happens is that people have gotten used to "entertainment" as their sole art form. If a movie doesn't entertain you but instead makes you think, it clearly cannot be "art."
Of course, others have gone the other route and decided that if it entertains without controversy, then it clearly cannot be "art."
Both camps need to learn how to accept and value diversity and appreciate the wealth of art that exists today, whatever form it takes.
The promotion with McD's is not a contest. You buy a Big Mac Meal; you get a song. Sure, you shorten your life at the same time, but... it's a free song!
Regarding the SonicStage player, my mother always told me to say nothing if I had nothing nice to say. So, "nothing.";)
Yeah, well we all agree that Linux kicks ass, so there's not much debate to be had down that road. So...
If the Palistinians are a wounded people then it seems to me that the wound is largely self-inflicted.
This might apply if you ignore all but that past decade. When you go back to 1948 when England declared 70% of the Palestinian land to be used to create a Jewish state -- current inhabitants be damned -- things don't look so self-inflicted. You might argue that it was the fault of the Palestinians to believe England's promises that they would pull out of Palestine in exchange for their help against Germany, but that would be a bit short-sighted.
As I said, I disagree with Arafat's violent policies, but I absolutely understand their position. Not only are they fighting against insurmountable odds, but they've got the world's leading superpower backing up their aggressor. Israel has been using tanks and gunships against rock-throwing demonstrators for decades with support from the U.S. What effect is sitting down for the abuse going to have at this point? I haven't studied India much, but one of my Indian coworkers explained that it wasn't really Ghandi that brought about the retreat of the Brittish. Apart from Ghandi, it was an extremely violent mess that began costing England more than it was worth to hang on.
They react like children, returning every real or imagined affront two times over.
If you actually look at the body counts, Israel is far, far in the lead. The reason it looks like the Palestinians are over-reacting is that, for the most part, their violence is reported while that of Israel must be sought out in other channels. Again, I do not condone their use of violence, but it's minor compared to the damage caused by the IDF.
Its easy to modify the policies of democratic countries, and Isreal is no exception.
I would question your use of "easy" here. Can you provide examples of the policies of semi-democratic governments being easily changed? If you look at the polls in Israel you will find much support for changing Israeli policies, yet the military pretty much runs things there, similar to the U.S. (though it's more oil and corporate interests here, which merge very neatly with the military). Average Israeli citizens are for returning the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and ending the violence. The policies, however, remain the same.
The international consensus for decades has been for Israel to cease new settlements, return to its 1967 borders and allow Palestinian refugees the right of return (guaranteed by the Geneva Convention). The only states to block this path continue to be Israel and the United States of America. Tell me, what percentage of world opinion is necessary to affect "easy" change in Israel's democratic policies?
Unfortunately the continuing support for murderers among, what seems, the average Palistinian, will only lead to more of the same.
Similarly, if the U.S. continues to support Israel's murderous policies, this will only lead to more violence against Israel and the U.S. Please, can we stop paying Israel to slay "hapless school children"?
If the "arab street" really buys into the righteousness of indescriminant murder as a form of protest
That's just it. The average Palestinian (again according to polls) doesn't support Arafat's policies. The problem is that that entire area has been subjected to so much terror that it allows a man like him to take and hold power. The same can be said of the U.S., although I have no idea what our excuse would be. Three thousand people killed? That pales in comparison to the terror the U.S. has meeted out directly or through its junior partners throughout the past century. And when the world extended its compassion and understanding toward
You assumed too much from that comment, I'd guess. I would say that it is quite common to abbreviate "I am against the policies of the current administration leading the government of the state of X" as "I am against the state of X." I'm not saying he couldn't have intended to be in favor of dismantling the state of Israel, but given his statement I would not have jumped to that conclusion. Given social norms, I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt -- or if I cared to know I would have asked.
For the record, I am against the policies of the IDF and Israeli leadership (if you don't know the policies of which I speak you need to read more than the NYT). I am also against the PLO's use of violence in retaliation, yet I understand their position of powerlessness and frustration. In my view, the solution of a two-state settlement with Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, highly regarded in international discussions, is a good place to start.
Israel's insistance on its current policies of violence and humiliation is leading the world to a very serious clash in the near future. Fine, you believe you're God's chosen people. That's all well and good; you're free to be chosen in your own home. But the moment you feel this gives you the right to inflict pain and suffering on other people is the moment I cry foul. Unfortunately, the U.S. administration continues to follow right along (with billions of tax-payer funding per year) in order to maintain chaos in the Middle East.
Clearly, we all have some work to do to bring a peaceful end to this conflict. And no, killing and displacing all the "Araboushim" is not a peaceful solution. These are people with cares and love and feelings just like all other people.
I would be most curious how one could value the lives of one people over the lives of another and still claim to be reasonable or enlightened. I'm sure that if you explain how you arrived at that opinion, we would all immediately understand your wise insights.
You click on a package and see its classes in the next pane. Click on a class and see its members in the next pane. Click on the member and see its definition in the detail pane.
That was pretty interesting (sorry, posted in this discussion already, so no mod points for you). Did that come from a larger article somewhere? If so, could you post a link please?
Keep in mind that while SWG, Connect and Sony's other groups are all under the Sony umbrella, they are all individual business units. What that means is that they have their own financials and are responsible for their own customer service departments.
It's possible that SWG's CS department could suck while Connect's could be really good. I'm not saying it is -- just that a failing in one does not preclude the other from being good.
I looked this up as I was curious. I, like many here, believe the PATRIOT Act to be a travesty and completely misses the point. Of the many articles covering the story, one ("Berkley opposes use of Patriot Act in case") tells of a representative that feels the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be used in cases not involving terrorism.
Rep. Shelley Berkley wants answers on why the federal government used laws meant to curb terrorism to pry into financial records tied to alleged political corruption in Southern Nevada.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Dan Schiess told a U.S. Magistrate that the Patriot Act was not used to collect any of the nearly 120,000 intercepted communications the FBI garnered in the course of an investigation that resulted in the indictments of Clark County Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and former commissioners Lance Malone and Dario Herrera.
"I'm 100 percent certain and have no doubt that the Patriot Act was not used for any of the intercepts in this case," Schiess said Monday during a status check hearing on the strip-club indictments.
See? It was all a big misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion by tree huggers and ACLU lovers. Clearly, the DoJ is following both the letter and intent of the PATRIOT Act. I feel much better now.
Continuing with the article...
The FBI has said the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information in the political corruption investigation.
To quote Jack Valenti, un-fucking-believable. What part of "the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information" leads to the conclusion "Patriot Act not used in probe"? Sure, it wasn't used to intercept communications. I'd also bet it wasn't used to wipe their asses either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used for other purposes!
Given that the average American with a thirty-second attention span reads the headline and maybe the first one or two paragraphs, they'd be left believing the DoJ's claim that it wasn't used in the probe. Period. Which is not true. No wonder people think all is well and we'd be okay if it weren't for some disgruntled Arabs on the other side of the world.
First off, the current crop of formats do use DRM. They let you burn so many times (in a particular order? I didn't know that), share among X number of PCs, etc. With Sony using OpenMG, you must "check out" songs to your device and then check them back in to your collection.
The trick is, the ones that are doing this to sell devices have absolutely no incentive to use a format compatible with other devices. For one thing, they make a trivial amount on the music sale itself. For another, once they've hooked you they want to keep you.
For the music execs, however, it's all about music sales. So clearly it would be better if a consumer could go to any store and have all that music in their combined library. I for one would prefer that, too. It would be so much nicer to have a single media library application that could search and buy from any store simply by installing a plugin.
[Parent] Arguing semantics doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of what you wrote.
That's hardly arguing semantics. If someone says, "Killing is a bad thing," to which you reply, "Not all violence is bad," you have misunderstood and twisted his argument. When he corrects you by saying, "I said 'killing' -- not 'all violence'," he is hardly arguing semantics. He's correcting you.
If, on the other hand, you replied, "Not all murder is bad, e.g. murdering someone to keep them from murdering your whole family," and he said, "I said 'killing' -- not 'murder'," now he's arguing semantics.
Money, however, is not even remotely synonymous with IPO. That doing an IPO involves money doesn't make them the same thing at all.
For example, if I offer 1% of my company publicly and retain the other 99%, why do I have to answer to the 1%?
Of course, in that corner case you don't have to answer to them. But seriously, how many companies IPO with only 1% of their stock? Using the 0.00001% case as the cornerstone of your argument is pointless.
That's basically the point of Troll (-1) is to stop offensive (or offensively lame) posts...
True, but use some good judgment. If your whole objection to the OP's post is a single word, and you feel offended, you need to chill out and not take things so personally. Troll is for posts that are clearly trying to offend without providing any other value.
following that logic, modding someone UP because you AGREE with them would also be an abuse of the moderation system.
Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Yet, you have to agree with someone to find their thoughts Insightful or even Interesting.
I totally disagree. I've found many arguments to be insightful and interesting and yet still disagreed with their conclusion. Moderating is a responsibility that requires some thought. It's not a free hand to promote your beliefs. Use it wisely, please.
[President Bush]'s sending 100s of soldiers to their deaths to bring Iraq the gift of democracy.
Right. It's not about control of oil -- that's a red herring. Clearly, Bush wants the Iraqi people to run their own affairs. Oh, so long as it's not the majority of Iraqis that have that say (the Shi'ite majority, the ones that rebelled against Saddam but the U.S. effectively destroyed). No, that wouldn't be democratic. Instead, it should be a few elite that will benefit from playing junior partner to the U.S. and capital interests.
Hmm, that looks just like the democracy we have in the U.S. I guess it is about bringing them democracy -- our kind of democracy. I bet they're so excited.
as a whole Mexicans are wealthier than they were before NAFTA.
And your data on this is where? If Mexican businesses had been created using capital from Mexican investors, then perhaps you could say that as a whole Mexicans are wealthier. Sure, it would still be the wealthy capital classes that gained over the poor Mexican laborers and farmers, but as a whole it's a net gain in wealth. It's up to you to decide if this hypothetical situation would be acceptable.
However, the capital came from U.S. corporations and investors. And thus the profits from those new "Mexican" businesses flow directly to the U.S. as NAFTA freed up the flow of foreign capital. So Mexicans workers labor, the farmers lose their livelihood, and some wealthy foreigners get wealthier. How does this benefit Mexicans as a whole?
And this only looks at the money aspects. Keep in mind that much of the biodiversity in crops comes from the Campesinos, along with very old traditions and techniques. These will be lost so that the rich can get richer until the whole system collapses and we're left with one strain of corn that's been engineered to not create seeds, meaning you have to continue manufacturing and buying seeds from Monsanto. This is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, of course you do. The winners tend to be quite happy about winning. Duh.
150M consumers * $270 saved per DVD player purchased from China = $40.5B saved over 5 years.
Well now you're just being ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that out of a total population near 290M Americans, that half of them will buy a new DVD player every year? Please, put the crack pipe down.
Your Scenario: We keep 10000 jobs in the Good Ol' U.S. of A
Not my scenario at all. Because I feel that workers in developing nations have as much right to be treated fairly and with respect doesn't mean that I insist on no foreign trade. Welcome to Conclusions; did you have a nice jump?
under my scenario, we also have 10000 Chinese who are pleased as punch to make DVD players, because the cost of living in China is low, and making DVDs in the city beats the living fuck out of peasant farming.
You might want to ask a few peasant farmers who have had their livelihood destroyed due to urbanization. Most were quite happy to continue thousands of years of tradition growing and selling their own food. But you somehow know what they really want, and you'll make them take it no matter what the cost. Nice.
the low-income countries are somehow low income because they have no environmental laws, exploit people in sweatshops, or do some other terrible thing that you would never get away with in the U.S.A.
Actually, you are the first person I have ever seen express that statement. I can only claim RTFA -- did the article really claim that? That's absolutely preposterous for the reasons you stated. These laws and worker benefits exist in the U.S. and other countries solely by the people exercising their will over that of the capital class, rare as that may be.
if you are born in china, and work as hard as you do now in your cushy american job, you get 1/100 the $ for it. this situation arose from historical events going back 10s of thousands of years
Historical situations, yes. Tens of thousands of years? Um, no. I do not believe that the differences in wages and standard of living that exist now were directly caused by events in the Mesapotamia Valley at the time farming and animal husbandry were invented.
it has nothing to do with the here and the now.
That is pretty much the last step to accepting that there is nothing to be done and the developing nations should shut up and accept their position in the global order. If that is not your stance, please clarify.
there will be a general and broad tendency to even out the differences.
History has shown a continuing trend in the opposite direction. What makes you conclude that this is going to suddenly change without taking some corrective action? For centuries the rich have extended the gap between them and the poor. The U.S.'s primary export is poverty. We work very hard to ensure that the rest of the world will become our lower class.
This is another reason why the U.S. works so hard to keep nations from developing fully: in a class-based society, not everyone can be upper class.
Because IT usually gives an opportunity to deserving, highly skilled people who just happened to have been born in the wrong country to get a decent job and decent pay (relative to their country).
We don't have to outsource jobs in order for that to happen. India had a vibrant and growing IT industry before the U.S. began outsourcing jobs there. Don't pretend that we need to save the developing nations from their own plight. We don't really help them in the end (we hold them back); we only help the capital classes.
While U.S. firms with access to more capital hiring Indians locally does benefit those hired with higher wages, and some of that "trickles down" into the poorer people in the society, this stifles the rest of the IT industry and other industries as well. IT wages in general rise, locking out competition in the higher pay scales and making it harder for local companies to hire Indian IT people.
This is very common, and yes, it is called imperialism. You export the mindless grunt work to the colonies and keep the creative, high paying jobs at home, along with the majority of the profits. Not only does the capital class make more money, but the effect is to make this easier to do the next time.
Yes, the cattle should be happy they have a barn at all, but now it's that much harder for them to create better barns themselves and eventually start their own farm. This is one method imperialists use to maintain their control.
For many countries... IT represents an equal playing field on which they can compete with the big guys.
It is far from an equal playing field. If it were equal, we'd be outsourcing vertical industries along with the capital to invest. Instead, we outsource only the commodity labor while keeping the ownership of capital and management here. The developing nations can certainly compete "as equals" against each other (note that much of the call center work is now being moved to Indonesia) as junior partners, but this only locks them in to that position.
Once again, people choose to be rich rulers of poor states rather than equal citizens of flourishing ones.
And the bit about sweatshops and the like apply to different industries.. not this one.
Only if you restrict yourself to thinking about "sweatshops." You'd be likely to forget about nice-to-haves such as
sick pay and holidays
workers compensation for on-the-job injuries
safe working conditions
health insurance
unemployment
Americans could learn from third world countries.
...like not calling them "third world" for starters.;)
All economic theory, and all empirical data, show that when two regions trade, both benefit. . . . Of course, the benefit is true for the country in the aggregate
So you're willing to accept that certain groups within one country could be screwed while other groups benefit, but when you consider each country as a whole group, both groups benefit? While this is possible, I don't see that one can accept both premises in all cases. For example, when the U.S. pushed for NAFTA and Mexico was forced to drop its tariff on U.S. tomatoes while the U.S. kept its own, the Mexican farmers got screwed but the consumers won (cheaper American tomatoes), and thus Mexico as a country benefited. This makes it acceptable?
However, it is completely hypocritcial to claim that tariffs and other regulations are in the interests of those in the developing world!!
When did I say this? Each country uses tariffs in an attempt to protect its local industries. The U.S. uses its economic might to impose its will more effectively and in many cases is far more protectionist than developing nations -- the ones who need to be protectionist but give in, usually because this keeps the leaders in power. Yes, the country as a whole benefits. The citizens suffer while the U.S. props up the dictator who lives lavishly while U.S. investors profit, so it's a win-win. Bring in the cheerleaders!
Improved wages and environment legislation will follow the growth in the developing world just as it has here.
Those developed here because the citizens had the desire and conviction to fight and the country had the capital to do it. When a nation depends heavily on foreign capital, a higher percentage of the profits leave the country. Yes, the countries are very productive, but they keep far less of that productivity in which to further invest to build their own industry.
As well, A Chinese citizen has less desire to enact environmental legislation knowing that many investors will move the plants to other countries, affecting their livelihood. In contrast, when our legislation was put through, it was still more cost effective to keep plants here than to move them, and thus workers were not cutting their own throats by pushing for the measures. Yes, their wages decreased slightly, but they still had jobs. Of course, now we're seeing mass flights as it finally becomes cheaper and easier for each industry to relocate.
When NAFTA was first being punted around, corporations talked about free movement of labor like it would be so great for workers. What that means is freedom to exploit labor in the best market. Workers calling for a pay increase? You mention to the union leaders that the plant might just have to be closed and reopened in Mexico. The workers, of course, are now free to move there and compete with the Mexicans.
For them to legislate the same standards as ours when their economies only produce 1/20th as much is an invitation for economic disaster
Slavery was exceedingly beneficial to the U.S. economy and capital class. Should we be recommending it to developing nations? I'm not saying that nations won't progress through stages, but you should understand that the corporations that invest in foreign markets don't sit idly by on these issues. Just as they did in the U.S., they use their economic power to slow the progress of reform. Given that many of the cases are places where the U.S. props up the country's leaders as well, you can bank on a bleak outlook for labor and the environment.
It is US that did not enforce Kioto's pollution regulations not Europe or Japan.
You read far too much into my statement. The U.S. industries have a horrible record on pollution, and the government an aqually abysmal record on enforcing it. My only point is that many developing nations -- not all, but many -- have even worse records. That's an accomplishment to be sure, but it sucks, and the U.S. is not helping the situation.
Better than really really bad is still bad, but it is better than something.
But on other points the U.S. labor movement has had a profound effect: the right to strike (though violated many times throughout our history), benefits, etc. You cannot look at Mexico or China and say they have better conditions for workers in general. While it is true that the U.S. government has sent in the national guard to attack strikers and their families, on the other hand I don't have to pack heat to make sure I get my sick pay or worry about being fired outright or worry that I might be "disappeared" if I vote in favor of unionization.
Exactly which principles or freedoms are you defending by not buying from companies that use overseas workers?
The U.S. has laws governing polution, working conditions, benefits, etc. When American investors take their money and invest in overseas operations that aren't bound by those rules, people in both countries suffer. Locals lose jobs, and the country that takes on the work continues its policies instead of making the lives of workers better.
As well, the more a country depends on exports -- especially in the case where the investors are foreign -- the less it will focus on improving the working and living conditions internally. This also keeps the internal market from improving.
Keep in mind that the main reason for increased mobility of labor is to benefit the capital class of investors. First, they have access to depressed labor markets and lower costs due to fewer restrictions on their behavior. Some of that "trickles down" to the consumer, but not much. Second, local workers are forced to accept lower wages and fewer benefits to compete with foreign workers. This is the real win for capital as they can force all workers to the lowest common denominator.
The above is one main reason that our border with Mexico is so lax yet the rhetoric about the evil migrant worker is so crazed. Seriously, if we really wanted the border to be secure, it would be secure. But the investors here want all that cheap labor to make local labor even cheaper. And thus NAFTA was born.
If the cost/benefit of the product is the same then it doesn't matter if it's made in New York USA, Newcastle UK, Nalanda India, or Nanjing China.
That would possibly be true if consumers actually knew what the cost/benefit analysis was. But are you aware of the true costs of the shoes you're wearing? Do you know how many pollutants are pumped into the ecosystem to make them here versus in China? Do you know how the Chinese workers are treated?
Of course, if you did know... would you even care?
...email was invented and a widespread standard before the web appeared. Seriously, all the cool new applications on the net are completely fractured, competing with each other for eyeballs to bombard with advertisements.
I can only hope that we, the net citizens, will eventually push back on these mega sites to get some standards produced.
Imagine if each ISP ran a standards-compliant IM server for its users. No more "Do you use Yahoo or MSN? No, oh well, we can't chat." Instead, each IM server vendor would compete to have ISPs install their server but work with all other vendors' products instead of segregating users into disparate networks.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, others have gone the other route and decided that if it entertains without controversy, then it clearly cannot be "art."
Both camps need to learn how to accept and value diversity and appreciate the wealth of art that exists today, whatever form it takes.
Regarding the SonicStage player, my mother always told me to say nothing if I had nothing nice to say. So, "nothing." ;)
This might apply if you ignore all but that past decade. When you go back to 1948 when England declared 70% of the Palestinian land to be used to create a Jewish state -- current inhabitants be damned -- things don't look so self-inflicted. You might argue that it was the fault of the Palestinians to believe England's promises that they would pull out of Palestine in exchange for their help against Germany, but that would be a bit short-sighted.
As I said, I disagree with Arafat's violent policies, but I absolutely understand their position. Not only are they fighting against insurmountable odds, but they've got the world's leading superpower backing up their aggressor. Israel has been using tanks and gunships against rock-throwing demonstrators for decades with support from the U.S. What effect is sitting down for the abuse going to have at this point? I haven't studied India much, but one of my Indian coworkers explained that it wasn't really Ghandi that brought about the retreat of the Brittish. Apart from Ghandi, it was an extremely violent mess that began costing England more than it was worth to hang on.
If you actually look at the body counts, Israel is far, far in the lead. The reason it looks like the Palestinians are over-reacting is that, for the most part, their violence is reported while that of Israel must be sought out in other channels. Again, I do not condone their use of violence, but it's minor compared to the damage caused by the IDF.
I would question your use of "easy" here. Can you provide examples of the policies of semi-democratic governments being easily changed? If you look at the polls in Israel you will find much support for changing Israeli policies, yet the military pretty much runs things there, similar to the U.S. (though it's more oil and corporate interests here, which merge very neatly with the military). Average Israeli citizens are for returning the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and ending the violence. The policies, however, remain the same.
The international consensus for decades has been for Israel to cease new settlements, return to its 1967 borders and allow Palestinian refugees the right of return (guaranteed by the Geneva Convention). The only states to block this path continue to be Israel and the United States of America. Tell me, what percentage of world opinion is necessary to affect "easy" change in Israel's democratic policies?
Similarly, if the U.S. continues to support Israel's murderous policies, this will only lead to more violence against Israel and the U.S. Please, can we stop paying Israel to slay "hapless school children"?
That's just it. The average Palestinian (again according to polls) doesn't support Arafat's policies. The problem is that that entire area has been subjected to so much terror that it allows a man like him to take and hold power. The same can be said of the U.S., although I have no idea what our excuse would be. Three thousand people killed? That pales in comparison to the terror the U.S. has meeted out directly or through its junior partners throughout the past century. And when the world extended its compassion and understanding toward
For the record, I am against the policies of the IDF and Israeli leadership (if you don't know the policies of which I speak you need to read more than the NYT). I am also against the PLO's use of violence in retaliation, yet I understand their position of powerlessness and frustration. In my view, the solution of a two-state settlement with Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, highly regarded in international discussions, is a good place to start.
Israel's insistance on its current policies of violence and humiliation is leading the world to a very serious clash in the near future. Fine, you believe you're God's chosen people. That's all well and good; you're free to be chosen in your own home. But the moment you feel this gives you the right to inflict pain and suffering on other people is the moment I cry foul. Unfortunately, the U.S. administration continues to follow right along (with billions of tax-payer funding per year) in order to maintain chaos in the Middle East.
Clearly, we all have some work to do to bring a peaceful end to this conflict. And no, killing and displacing all the "Araboushim" is not a peaceful solution. These are people with cares and love and feelings just like all other people.
I would be most curious how one could value the lives of one people over the lives of another and still claim to be reasonable or enlightened. I'm sure that if you explain how you arrived at that opinion, we would all immediately understand your wise insights.
Rinse. Repeat. Patent. Profit!
That was pretty interesting (sorry, posted in this discussion already, so no mod points for you). Did that come from a larger article somewhere? If so, could you post a link please?
It's possible that SWG's CS department could suck while Connect's could be really good. I'm not saying it is -- just that a failing in one does not preclude the other from being good.
Yes, you can burn to standard CDs and ATRAC format minidiscs.
Yes. They're behind (as with the music store itself), but you only have to wait until this fall.
Another article ("Feds: Patriot [sic] Act not used in probe") purportedly refutes her allegations. Reading from the top, I am again reminded of why I so very much love the news industry and the DoJ.
See? It was all a big misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion by tree huggers and ACLU lovers. Clearly, the DoJ is following both the letter and intent of the PATRIOT Act. I feel much better now.
Continuing with the article...
To quote Jack Valenti, un-fucking-believable. What part of "the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information" leads to the conclusion "Patriot Act not used in probe"? Sure, it wasn't used to intercept communications. I'd also bet it wasn't used to wipe their asses either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used for other purposes!
Given that the average American with a thirty-second attention span reads the headline and maybe the first one or two paragraphs, they'd be left believing the DoJ's claim that it wasn't used in the probe. Period. Which is not true. No wonder people think all is well and we'd be okay if it weren't for some disgruntled Arabs on the other side of the world.
The trick is, the ones that are doing this to sell devices have absolutely no incentive to use a format compatible with other devices. For one thing, they make a trivial amount on the music sale itself. For another, once they've hooked you they want to keep you.
For the music execs, however, it's all about music sales. So clearly it would be better if a consumer could go to any store and have all that music in their combined library. I for one would prefer that, too. It would be so much nicer to have a single media library application that could search and buy from any store simply by installing a plugin.
How can we get them to go in that direction?
That's hardly arguing semantics. If someone says, "Killing is a bad thing," to which you reply, "Not all violence is bad," you have misunderstood and twisted his argument. When he corrects you by saying, "I said 'killing' -- not 'all violence'," he is hardly arguing semantics. He's correcting you.
If, on the other hand, you replied, "Not all murder is bad, e.g. murdering someone to keep them from murdering your whole family," and he said, "I said 'killing' -- not 'murder'," now he's arguing semantics.
Money, however, is not even remotely synonymous with IPO. That doing an IPO involves money doesn't make them the same thing at all.
Of course, in that corner case you don't have to answer to them. But seriously, how many companies IPO with only 1% of their stock? Using the 0.00001% case as the cornerstone of your argument is pointless.
True, but use some good judgment. If your whole objection to the OP's post is a single word, and you feel offended, you need to chill out and not take things so personally. Troll is for posts that are clearly trying to offend without providing any other value.
Exactly. From the Moderator Guidelines:
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
I totally disagree. I've found many arguments to be insightful and interesting and yet still disagreed with their conclusion. Moderating is a responsibility that requires some thought. It's not a free hand to promote your beliefs. Use it wisely, please.
Right. It's not about control of oil -- that's a red herring. Clearly, Bush wants the Iraqi people to run their own affairs. Oh, so long as it's not the majority of Iraqis that have that say (the Shi'ite majority, the ones that rebelled against Saddam but the U.S. effectively destroyed). No, that wouldn't be democratic. Instead, it should be a few elite that will benefit from playing junior partner to the U.S. and capital interests.
Hmm, that looks just like the democracy we have in the U.S. I guess it is about bringing them democracy -- our kind of democracy. I bet they're so excited.
That's pretty meaningless, shown below.
And your data on this is where? If Mexican businesses had been created using capital from Mexican investors, then perhaps you could say that as a whole Mexicans are wealthier. Sure, it would still be the wealthy capital classes that gained over the poor Mexican laborers and farmers, but as a whole it's a net gain in wealth. It's up to you to decide if this hypothetical situation would be acceptable.
However, the capital came from U.S. corporations and investors. And thus the profits from those new "Mexican" businesses flow directly to the U.S. as NAFTA freed up the flow of foreign capital. So Mexicans workers labor, the farmers lose their livelihood, and some wealthy foreigners get wealthier. How does this benefit Mexicans as a whole?
And this only looks at the money aspects. Keep in mind that much of the biodiversity in crops comes from the Campesinos, along with very old traditions and techniques. These will be lost so that the rich can get richer until the whole system collapses and we're left with one strain of corn that's been engineered to not create seeds, meaning you have to continue manufacturing and buying seeds from Monsanto. This is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, of course you do. The winners tend to be quite happy about winning. Duh.
Well now you're just being ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that out of a total population near 290M Americans, that half of them will buy a new DVD player every year? Please, put the crack pipe down.
Not my scenario at all. Because I feel that workers in developing nations have as much right to be treated fairly and with respect doesn't mean that I insist on no foreign trade. Welcome to Conclusions; did you have a nice jump?
You might want to ask a few peasant farmers who have had their livelihood destroyed due to urbanization. Most were quite happy to continue thousands of years of tradition growing and selling their own food. But you somehow know what they really want, and you'll make them take it no matter what the cost. Nice.
Actually, you are the first person I have ever seen express that statement. I can only claim RTFA -- did the article really claim that? That's absolutely preposterous for the reasons you stated. These laws and worker benefits exist in the U.S. and other countries solely by the people exercising their will over that of the capital class, rare as that may be.
Historical situations, yes. Tens of thousands of years? Um, no. I do not believe that the differences in wages and standard of living that exist now were directly caused by events in the Mesapotamia Valley at the time farming and animal husbandry were invented.
That is pretty much the last step to accepting that there is nothing to be done and the developing nations should shut up and accept their position in the global order. If that is not your stance, please clarify.
History has shown a continuing trend in the opposite direction. What makes you conclude that this is going to suddenly change without taking some corrective action? For centuries the rich have extended the gap between them and the poor. The U.S.'s primary export is poverty. We work very hard to ensure that the rest of the world will become our lower class.
This is another reason why the U.S. works so hard to keep nations from developing fully: in a class-based society, not everyone can be upper class.
We don't have to outsource jobs in order for that to happen. India had a vibrant and growing IT industry before the U.S. began outsourcing jobs there. Don't pretend that we need to save the developing nations from their own plight. We don't really help them in the end (we hold them back); we only help the capital classes.
While U.S. firms with access to more capital hiring Indians locally does benefit those hired with higher wages, and some of that "trickles down" into the poorer people in the society, this stifles the rest of the IT industry and other industries as well. IT wages in general rise, locking out competition in the higher pay scales and making it harder for local companies to hire Indian IT people.
This is very common, and yes, it is called imperialism. You export the mindless grunt work to the colonies and keep the creative, high paying jobs at home, along with the majority of the profits. Not only does the capital class make more money, but the effect is to make this easier to do the next time.
Yes, the cattle should be happy they have a barn at all, but now it's that much harder for them to create better barns themselves and eventually start their own farm. This is one method imperialists use to maintain their control.
It is far from an equal playing field. If it were equal, we'd be outsourcing vertical industries along with the capital to invest. Instead, we outsource only the commodity labor while keeping the ownership of capital and management here. The developing nations can certainly compete "as equals" against each other (note that much of the call center work is now being moved to Indonesia) as junior partners, but this only locks them in to that position.
Once again, people choose to be rich rulers of poor states rather than equal citizens of flourishing ones.
Only if you restrict yourself to thinking about "sweatshops." You'd be likely to forget about nice-to-haves such as
G. W. doesn't read the newspaper, but he reads /. ... who'da thunkit.
So you're willing to accept that certain groups within one country could be screwed while other groups benefit, but when you consider each country as a whole group, both groups benefit? While this is possible, I don't see that one can accept both premises in all cases. For example, when the U.S. pushed for NAFTA and Mexico was forced to drop its tariff on U.S. tomatoes while the U.S. kept its own, the Mexican farmers got screwed but the consumers won (cheaper American tomatoes), and thus Mexico as a country benefited. This makes it acceptable?
When did I say this? Each country uses tariffs in an attempt to protect its local industries. The U.S. uses its economic might to impose its will more effectively and in many cases is far more protectionist than developing nations -- the ones who need to be protectionist but give in, usually because this keeps the leaders in power. Yes, the country as a whole benefits. The citizens suffer while the U.S. props up the dictator who lives lavishly while U.S. investors profit, so it's a win-win. Bring in the cheerleaders!
Those developed here because the citizens had the desire and conviction to fight and the country had the capital to do it. When a nation depends heavily on foreign capital, a higher percentage of the profits leave the country. Yes, the countries are very productive, but they keep far less of that productivity in which to further invest to build their own industry.
As well, A Chinese citizen has less desire to enact environmental legislation knowing that many investors will move the plants to other countries, affecting their livelihood. In contrast, when our legislation was put through, it was still more cost effective to keep plants here than to move them, and thus workers were not cutting their own throats by pushing for the measures. Yes, their wages decreased slightly, but they still had jobs. Of course, now we're seeing mass flights as it finally becomes cheaper and easier for each industry to relocate.
When NAFTA was first being punted around, corporations talked about free movement of labor like it would be so great for workers. What that means is freedom to exploit labor in the best market. Workers calling for a pay increase? You mention to the union leaders that the plant might just have to be closed and reopened in Mexico. The workers, of course, are now free to move there and compete with the Mexicans.
Slavery was exceedingly beneficial to the U.S. economy and capital class. Should we be recommending it to developing nations? I'm not saying that nations won't progress through stages, but you should understand that the corporations that invest in foreign markets don't sit idly by on these issues. Just as they did in the U.S., they use their economic power to slow the progress of reform. Given that many of the cases are places where the U.S. props up the country's leaders as well, you can bank on a bleak outlook for labor and the environment.
They sure do.
You read far too much into my statement. The U.S. industries have a horrible record on pollution, and the government an aqually abysmal record on enforcing it. My only point is that many developing nations -- not all, but many -- have even worse records. That's an accomplishment to be sure, but it sucks, and the U.S. is not helping the situation.
Better than really really bad is still bad, but it is better than something.
But on other points the U.S. labor movement has had a profound effect: the right to strike (though violated many times throughout our history), benefits, etc. You cannot look at Mexico or China and say they have better conditions for workers in general. While it is true that the U.S. government has sent in the national guard to attack strikers and their families, on the other hand I don't have to pack heat to make sure I get my sick pay or worry about being fired outright or worry that I might be "disappeared" if I vote in favor of unionization.
The U.S. has laws governing polution, working conditions, benefits, etc. When American investors take their money and invest in overseas operations that aren't bound by those rules, people in both countries suffer. Locals lose jobs, and the country that takes on the work continues its policies instead of making the lives of workers better.
As well, the more a country depends on exports -- especially in the case where the investors are foreign -- the less it will focus on improving the working and living conditions internally. This also keeps the internal market from improving.
Keep in mind that the main reason for increased mobility of labor is to benefit the capital class of investors. First, they have access to depressed labor markets and lower costs due to fewer restrictions on their behavior. Some of that "trickles down" to the consumer, but not much. Second, local workers are forced to accept lower wages and fewer benefits to compete with foreign workers. This is the real win for capital as they can force all workers to the lowest common denominator.
The above is one main reason that our border with Mexico is so lax yet the rhetoric about the evil migrant worker is so crazed. Seriously, if we really wanted the border to be secure, it would be secure. But the investors here want all that cheap labor to make local labor even cheaper. And thus NAFTA was born.
That would possibly be true if consumers actually knew what the cost/benefit analysis was. But are you aware of the true costs of the shoes you're wearing? Do you know how many pollutants are pumped into the ecosystem to make them here versus in China? Do you know how the Chinese workers are treated?
Of course, if you did know ... would you even care?
I can only hope that we, the net citizens, will eventually push back on these mega sites to get some standards produced.
Imagine if each ISP ran a standards-compliant IM server for its users. No more "Do you use Yahoo or MSN? No, oh well, we can't chat." Instead, each IM server vendor would compete to have ISPs install their server but work with all other vendors' products instead of segregating users into disparate networks.
Mars is actually a pan-dimensional Bag of Holding. All the sentient species that survived the Billion Years War have been hiding inside it.
(I know, "informative" would have been more appropriate, but this is /. after all.)