This is not correct. First, in order for you to be liable for damages, you must have made some money from the work you're performing. Second, playing a CD isn't a 'public performance', regardless of where you are. You aren't performing... the artist is. Third, the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law allows you to use, share, quote from, borrow exerpts from, record, and edit copyrighted works as long as you a:don't make any money (or cost the artist any money) and b:give the copyright holder credit for the piece of the work you used.
Removing an amendment would be a massive undertaking, requiring a supermajority in both the House and Senate, the signature of the President, and the ratification by a majority of state lagislatures (both houses of each)in order to become law. Why do you think, in 200+ years we have less than 20 amendments to the original Constitution/Bill of Rights? And one of those repeals another one!
As for Socrates vs. spies, a spy actually puts people in danger, and sometimes gets them killed. Socrates was trying to get people to think in a different way. Nobody is executing Noam Chomsky for his anti-US rants.
FWIW at this late date... -- From: SOT 24/7 Support Team [mailto:support@sot.com] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:04 PM To: tony@bluetree.ie Subject: Re: SOT Office
Hello,
Here are the differences you have asked about.
Differences between OpenOffice and SOTO:
*Finnish language support: - graphical user interface - manual - spellchecker *Set of primitive templates *More advanced online help *Latest Microsoft filters *Easy access to applications from menu, like word processing, spreadsheet
and graphic applications modules *Easy installation/deinstallation on Linux by RPM package *Hyphenation support
On CD: Both versions for Linux and Windows Both versions for English and Finnish languages Sources available SOTO manual for English and Finnish language in pdf format
Best regards, Roman Rudenko
-- SOT 24/7 Support Team support@sot.com tel. +372 6419875 http://www.sot.com Web page https://www.sot.com Online Shop
When you look at this bill and the DRM bill he's proposed, on thing is clear: this bill is the legislative equivalent of getting a big kiss on the lips right before you take it up the bum.
Re:For the Cheap ones among us
on
WineX 2.0
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA makes it illegal to crack the copy protection on games you own, because you don't own the games. You just own a plastic circle and a licence to play the game, subject to whatever restrictions the authors place on you. That's the justification behind DeCSS being illegal, even if you want to use it to play DVDs you own.
It's not just in the USA either... much of Europe is adopting similar measures.
Right... I'll note that you didn't bother to quote what I said about abuse. The fact is, you'd have jumped off a bridge because of fear of beatings, not because you were being monitored. Let's talk about the real issue here and not cloud it with spillover from other areas. A child who's parents don't abuse him has wou;dn't be driven to suicide by constant monitoring. Likewise, a child that can be trusted not to shoot heroin (Heroin! For fuck's sake, is that *ever* okay?) doesn't need constant monitoring.
MAybe if your friend's parents had been able to find her smoking at age 11, she might not be so mentally disturbed that she might kill herself if her parents could find her shooting heroin on the street at age 13. For fuck's sake, can we have some priorities? Assuming your friend's parents aren't abusive, they ought to have an eye on her 100% of the time, for her own good, until she can demonstrate she's able to control her own life.
The fact is, the entire site hasn't been relisted at all...
Reposted from Declan McCullough's Politech mailing list:
----- Forwarded message from Erik Moeller -----
From: Erik Moeller Subject: Xenu.net is -still- censored by Google To: p2pj@infoanarchy.org Cc: timothy@slashdot.org, declan@politechbot.com, ahl@xenu.net Date: 22 Mar 2002 06:43:18 +0100
When I read that Xenu.net was relisted I was skeptical, and this was quickly confirmed. Contrary to popular reports, the URLs that Scientology complained about can still not be found in Google's index, except for the root site, http://www.xenu.net...
{snip}
Let's pick randomly one of the URLs, www.xenu.net/archive/tonelevel.html, and enter the phrase "The numbers preceding the emotional tone indicate the arbitrary level of the tone." in Google. Another document with the same content shows up, but not the censored one.
A different methodology, let's search all documents on xenu.net for the word "leaflet". Xenu.net has this leaflet in various translations.
As of this moment, only the Spanish and Italian leaflet show up, which are both NOT in the list of URLs scientology wanted to be censored. In other words, Google has relisted the main site, probably because they find the copyright claims spurious and found it an effective way to quell the bad publicity to do so.
Hidden censorship is much worse than when it's obvious. The publicity needs to go one until Google reindexes all URLs, especially since visitors will otherwise miss information when doing *targeted* searches, as opposed to untargeted ones for Scientology in general.
Well, to start off, I'm guessing (guessing because I don't know) that Gates isn't socking away reams of cash in Swiss bank accounts. If so, well, that's good for the Swiss economy (but not really good for the US). I do remember reading reports detailing the hit Gates took when the stock market crashed, so I feel like I'm pretty safe saying he's using his money to re-inject capital into the US economy (while also making a profit whenever he can).
Of course it's bad for a country if large amounts of wealth flow out of the national borders (except for the fact that Gates still pays assloads of tax on all that money... you get raped by the IRS if you don't invest your liquid assets). It's clearly better for the US economy if money stays inside the US. Socking your cash away in a Swiss account is ignorant if you want it to keep working for you (and judging by the size of Gates's bankroll, I'd say he has a good handle on making his money work for him).
Which parts of history don't agree with the idea that having lots of money is good for the economy?
With regards to the Japanese effort to wreck our steel market, what has that got to do with anything? That's totally related to profit being good for the economy in general. The Japanese aren't making a profit on the steel they're dumping here... they're subsidized by the Japanese govt. and losing their shirts on the exports so they can kill the US market, after which they planned to jack up the price. Luckily, a 200% tariff tends to discourage such actions.
You know, i was going to moderate this comment, but I decided to reply instead:
Jesus fucking Christ, get some Economics 101 under your belt, buddy! Just because he isn't blowing cash at the mall doesn't mean it's not in curculation. You think Gates has all his money under his fucking mattress?
Every cent he has is flowing back into the economy somehow, whether it's in stock (which provides capital for businesses who can spend it on stuff like paying your dumb ass) or ot er investments, or in savings, or wherever. Unless he's got the baddest motherfucking coin collection on the planet, his cash is permanently attached to the economy.
Majestic had gameplay problems like crazy
on
Goodbye, "Majestic"
·
· Score: 2
I only played through EP1 and 2 before I gave up, but it wasn't because of the chatbots (which were pretty pathetic) or the puzzles (which were incredibly easy, requiring EA to 'suggest' you check out fansites containing MUCH better puzzles than the real game) but because of the WAITING. It was maddening to wait around for as long as 3 days for something new to happen in the game, only to spend 20 minutes solving a puzzle. I spent 1/10 of my time in 'Acquire' or 'Act' modes, and the entire rest of the two months waiting for something to happen.
Also, they tried to foster comminuty amongst the gamers, but since different people were at different points in the game, and the puzzles were pathetic, there was nothing to talk about except spoilers and what the fansites were doing. It was tragic to see the implementation of what might have been a good idea go all to hell.
Okay, so I want to go point-by-point through some of this, but before that there's an overall thing that we're disagreeing on here, and I don't know that it's surmountable at all: It's not a lose-lose situation, it's a tradeoff, it's a choice. But who said freedom was the only goal. In the US worldview, freedom is not a goal. It is a fact of human existance which must not be infringed upon. The goal is to achieve the best result without infringing upon the inherent freedom of the individual. Freedom is not a goal, not an end which can be achieved to a greater or lesser degree based on the decisions of government. Freedom is not a commodity gifted to the people by the rulers or by the political documents which describe the system. It is an inherent quality of humanity which cannot be restricted by other humans without the consent of the individual.
You spoke frequently of trade-offs. You can't have a 'trade' unless both parties consent, and empowering a government to restrict my freedom in exchange for your convenience or happiness is fundamentally wrong, even if the government compensates me after the fact.
This fundamental difference in what freedom is shades the entire discussion. Your lawsuit/regluation comparison for example: If someone lies to me about a car, I can sue them after the fact. That's one individual calling up judgement against another for a dishonest act, arbitrated by an impartial member the government. If you regulate honesty before the fact, however, you must restrict personal freedom to acomplish it.
If freedom is a commodity, that's fine. The govt. can force you to relinquish some of that commodity, and gift it to others in the form of a guarantee. But if Freedom is a basic human right, then you cannot allow the government to diminish the right of one person for the benefit of another. Punishing dishonesty protects freedom, enforcing truth diminishes it.
I don't think it's possible to go beyond that difference in view, but onward to the rest of your comment:
Regulation begets LESS democracy, less individual freedom, and more govt. control.
No. The more and more the government has power, the more and more my vote is worth. And my goal might not be to maximize my freedom, but to get enough freedom AND safety so that I feel happy. And I have different wishes than you.
First off: with no inherent personal freedom, what's to stop the majority from trading ALL their freedom for safety? I certainly have different wishes than THAT, but individual freedom having no sanctity and no protection, I guess I'd just be fucked in that case, eh?
As government gains power, you gain power over others, but THEY also gain power over YOU.
Again, if freedom is a commodity, than maximizing it might not be your goal. But if it is a basic human right, then my different wishes are just as valid as yours, and you shouldn't be able to restrict my basic human rights for your convenience, even if everyone else in the country agrees with you. Protection of individual freedom is the only way to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
don't seem able to grasp the concept of "tradeoff". I grasp it well enough. When you're talking about a welfare system, it's perfectly legitimate to discuss. IMHO, it's an outrage to take HALF of what I work every day to earn, and give it to someone who is unwilling to work at all. To me, that seems like a disincentive to work at all... or at least, to make sure I stay medium enough to avoid the taxman. If medium-ness is your eventual societal goal, then I guess that's good... but I believe that government should create equality of opportunity and let the chips fall where they may, without regard to how even the wealth ends up.
BUT When you're talking about the government, through the engine of a frightened, ignorant, greedy, or uncaring majority, forcing a reduction in my inherent personal freedom in exchange for a percieved 'good' level of happiness, convenience, or safety, IT'S NOT A TRADE! It's a tyranny, and it's no different in principle than the French government forcing you to allow a soldier to live in your house, to "protect" your family against a potential "threat", even if 99% of Frenchmen believe it's a good idea.
I doubt a 3 month freeze is big deal First, regardless of whether it's a 'big deal' or not, It's still bad for the govt. to play the workers against the middle class... which is exactly what that does.
Second, I'd hope you were CERTAIN (not just doubtful) that it was no big deal before you used your majority power to bludgeon the retail sector into doing it. Since they can't protect themselves from you because their freedom is a commodity which can sometimes be ripped from them without their individual consent, I hope you make sure to vote wisely...
If regulation is bad (i.e. the tradeoff changes), the governement changes the regulation or remove it. OF COURSE! No snowball effect, if the ball is to big, we suppress it. No, your govt tries to supress it (not you). We all know, government is woefully sluggish and rarely able to act rapidly to changing market conditions, which means your regulations will always be a bit behind the curve, and someone will ALWAYS be getting screwed somewhere by the government, to the detriment of their business and their rights. That has a depressing effect on the entire economy.
At least, in an unregulated market economy, you don't get businesses punished by the government with bad regulation until they can convince someone that they're getting creamed in the market by companies that are unfetterd by government interference. If you loose your arse, it's generally your own fault, not that of an uninformed majority or a slow beurocratic engine.
In fact there are three issues: control of production, regulation, and redistribution This is an interesting way to frame it, and one I hadn't heard before. At least here, we can agree to part ways in an amiable fashion, withut stomping on the rights of the individual too terribly much. Since it's clear that controlling production is a dumb idea, we're really just back to the welfare question anyway.
100% redistribution (i.e. the State gets all wages company willingly to pay for employes, and redistributes all the wages - possibly all equal for all) IMHO, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome. It's wrong to ask a brilliant brain surgeon to take the same compensation for his work that a garbage man takes, and it devalues everyone in the society. Equality of outcome guarantees a systemic lack of ambition for your population and an eventual spiral into debt and ruin for the whole country.
He won't lose millions, and that's exactly why the law was passed. If this assumption get wrong, the law changes True enough, but in the meantime he's had to forcibly submit to the government and hope for redress at some later date. It's the principle that's important, not the financial loss... Freedom is not a commodity. When the govt takes your freedom and your money, you might get your money back but it's practically impossible to get back your freedom.
Since you can't argue abuses are cool, you are focusing on the 0.01% losses First, I would argue that abuses of that sort are just fine! Caveat Emptor! Let the retailer ruin himself with dishonesty.
Second, I'm not focusing on the financial loss really, I'm focusing on the constriction of a basic human right and the lack of protection of individual freedom that the act highlights. So what if it's only a few cents, for a few months. It's not so bad, right?
That was George III's argument, too. It's the freedom you lose that can't be regained without a fight.
Of course, if freedom is a tradeable commodity, then perhaps you can get some of it given back to you... if enough other people agree, of course. Because if freedom is a commodity, and unprotected as a basic fact of human existance, then you only have as much of it as you can convince others you should have. God help you if the others decide you shouldn't have any, because in that system, no one else is going to.
No. I can tell you exactly why: I trust my government more than corporations. That's because I vote for it of course. Ask yourself: how is it possible that you hate so much your governement, although you vote for it. What are the real reasons? Americans generally don't hate government, but they have a deep-seated systemic distrust of it. This comes from the fact that we had to throw off a government system and construct a new one. Americans want their government to act in the spirit of that revolution, and we've designed a system that prevents the government from being able to interfere in the affairs of the people any more than is absolutely necessary to maintain order.
Now, that goal is of course a constant struggle and a constantly shifting balance.
In my view, Europeans tend to see their government as an engine for social reformatting, with a series of disasterous consequences as a result.
And we're not talking about corporations here... nobody trusts a corporation to be an engine for social change... they're supposed to be engines for making a profit. Nobody in the US expects a corp to better society (although it's nice when they do, which is pretty often). People in the US expect the people to better society.
Maybe it's a matter of size. It's almost better to talk about US State govt. when comparing to European national government. The US Federal government is different in structure and in philosophy from any European national system, in large part because it's designed to be a strong structural framework by which the "several States" can act in concert, a body which can resolve State disputes, and a system by which the people have protection from the potential for governmental abuse.
The idea of abuse of power seems not to enter the European mind... which is one reason, I suppose, why we differ in governmental systems so strongly.
Also, some regulation of industry is often necessary, but enforcing price controls on the entire retail market is IMHO WAAAAY over the top.
I prefer to be ruled by Spain, German, Danish type of laws, than American ones... Perhaps this is a language issue, but I find your use of the word 'rule' very interesting. Americans prefer not to be ruled at all, whenever they can avoid it. The American system is designed such that the people rule themselves, and the system is designed to prevent tyranny by the govt. or the majority. Most European democracies are shaped such that the people pick which group they want to be ruled by, and surrender many protections and personal freedoms under the assumption that the ruling party's people know best. Talk about tyranny of the majority! Why in the world must I submit to being constantly filmed as a walk down a street, because you believe I might commit a crime!
The US system isn't "Free Markets and the consequences be damned!". But it does have, at it's core, a reverence for the rights of the individual. It is from this idea, described in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but not deriving from those documents, that the US system flows. The US system IS the solution to the tyranny (dictatorship was your word... I think tyranny fits better) of the majority. The free market economic system exists not as a solution to political problems, but as a seperate thing that the political system tries to avoid mucking around in as much as possible. It is, at it's root, the reverence for individual freedom that prevents the government from enacting price controls on local shopkeepers because the majority of people want things kept simple. Europe (and France in particular) does not share this bias toward the individual.
From where I stand, this is more than a little scary.
...nor are there dictators at the head of the EU. Fair enough, but neither are there accountable representatives of the people at the head of the EU. Only a group which you hope will deal with you fairly, but against whom you have little defense should they do otherwise, especially if the national government and the ruling party remain uninterested in protecting your personal freedom.
It is NOT the job of the govt. to support me indefinitely me if I give up, nor is it the job of govt. to force other, successful people to support me in my decision to just be a long-term failure.
Wrong. It's the job of the governement, if people vote so.
No!
No, No, NO! It is WRONG to allow a greedy and lazy majority to deal out economic torture to a productive and successful minority. It is wrong to force a member of your society to offer up the fruits of his labor to support those who refuse to contribute to that society if he does not wish it.
You have to let people succeed or fail as they will, without enforcing 'medium-ness' on everyone, even if most everyone is happy with being medium. The only way to truly be fair is to not get involved. Any other path pits the society against itself and is necessarily unfair to someone. You end up making value judgements about who is hurt less by unfairness... but by extension, you're really deciding who's rights are more important. Everyone's rights should be equally important, and that means you have to protect the individual regardless of whether it sucks for everyone else in the country.
Re:objection against the mod
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
I didn't get moderated... I'm just cool enough to post at +2
That's a completely inaccurate statement, and I'd love to see the link that supports it. I can't wait to see which countries constitute 'Europe' for the purpose of getting those numbers, and how many EU countries aren't included in the counting.
Re:who manipulates the market ?
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
Because the Japanese steel industry was dumping steel into the USA at obscenely low prices, and losing millions of dollars on the deals, in order to impact the US market and run US steelmakers out of business. In this effort, they were subsidized by the Japanese government, who was providing financial assistance so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In the US, we can't enact an import tax on goods from only one country unless they have certain other political restrictions already placed on them (Cuba for example), so we have to tax it all.
It was a punishment against Japan for trying to destroy the US steel market to their advantage. There's a big difference between regulating a free market system and combating a government-subsidized cartel acting in concert to demolish the industry of another country.
Besides all that, I never said the USA is perfect... but they're Constitutionally prohibited from the kind of manipulation that Europeans seem to favor and European markets seem not to survive without. I think that's a Good Thing.
On this, I'll agree with you completely. It's a good function for government to rescue those who have failed utterly, or who are unable to sustain themselves... but it's dishonest and (IMHO) even cruel to continue handing out assistance to those same people instead of teaching them, training them, and getting them off welfare whenever and however possible.
Of course not per capita... but that doesn't matter! In raw money, we give away more than anyone else... and that doesn't even factor in the international aid the US government provides. We hand out trillions of dollars in relief, aid, grants, loans, and debt forgiveness. Also, redistribution of wealth is a great way to end up as a socialist society instead of a democratic one. Also, isn't it better to give my money to those I consider deserving of it? It is MY money, you know. Why is it better that I be forced to give it to those on whom I feel it's wasted?
Your view is it's better to have many rich people AND not to tax them to much... Our view is it's better to have fewer poorest people.
This is incorrect. Our view (generally... there's plenty of "discussion" about this) is that it's better to give people the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits, and not to restrict either overly much. Your view is that the failures should be suported by the society, no matter how little they've tried to succeed. To accomplish this, it's required to redistribute vast amounts of wealth... which is a Bad Thing. See my other replies in this thread...
You want the truth? I don't care a little bit about how many rich there are. Not how they will be forced to downgrade from a Ferrari to a mere Mercedes because of the taxes.
Ahh, but you DO care! If you didn't, you wouldn't have made that comment. It does highlight what I've been saying, though, which is that class warfare is rife here, and rich people are undeserving of their wealth when there are poor lazy bastards on the dole who 'need' it more. You ought to care about taxes on rich people , if only because you might become one day. It's more likely, though, that you'll lose out on a job a rich person might have given you, because he's lost too much money via wealth redistribution to hire anyone else.
Not exactly my idea of a robust economic and social system...
Okay, briefly: Check out some of my other response to another comment regarding playing the society against itself. I feel pretty confident in assuming that the retail industry either a) didn't want the price freeze at all, or b) went along with it because they knew no one would trust them otherwise. That's using govt to divide a society, instead of getting the regulatory bodies out of the way in favor of consumers makine informed choices. That is... bad!
Next: What do you mean, who am I to decide? I'm the same as you, and that's what I think. It's not religion... but I think your complacency and desire to have somebody else do it for you erodes your freedom in ways you'll eventually find particularly unpleasant. And, of course, you aren't a shopkeeper... so your opinion is better.
I do notice that free-market parties tend to get beaten soundly, and regularly. It's got to be a tough sell to try and get a population that's comfortable with handouts to get up and do for themselves... especially when the govt. creates a culture in which success is not to be trusted.
Next: So what? So, wouldn't it be better to educate your people, rather than ask the government to save you from ourselves? (side note: you're arguing against yourself by saying on the one hand that your population is intelligent enough to make good decisions about the desirability of heavy government regulation, and on the other that it recognizes it's inability to convert a Franc to a Euro and accepts the need for drastic government intervention as a result)
Says me, if I'm a shopkeeper. Why does your ignorance make you more deserving of government intervention? Why are you more important than me, the shopkeep? Why the hell should you be able to tell me what I think the price of a steak should be? If you don't like it, don't buy it! Either I'll figure out I'm charging too much, or I'll go broke. It's not the job of government to act as a cudgel beating me into submission so that you don't get cheated out of 50 cents. Caveat Emptor! The result is more individual freedom. Can that be bad?
Next: Wasn't that the stated goal of the Euro Zone? To create a powerful economic base, to unite Europe into a trading power that rivals the US market? What the hell are you doing this for anyway?
Next: Actually, I think I think lots of things would be better than £30K a year and lots of time at home. For example:
I think it'd be better to be so successful as a shopkeep that I can stay home and hire someone to mind the store, making $60K a year or more and working hardly at all.
Or maybe better to work constantly to make 300K a year and send the kids to Harvard.
Or best of all: To not have to settle for 'quite decently' if I don't think that's enough. The point? It's so hard to get to 'stupid crazy rich' in Europe that hardly anyone tries, even if that's their fondest wish. Regulation, taxation, and the acceptability of welfare create a culture where you're punished for wanting great financial success, and practically prevented from getting it no matter how hard you try. In the states, if you wanna love on $30K a year, bully for you. It's easy to do in 90% of the country. But if you want to strike it rich, it's at least relatively possible... and certainly not demonized by a lazy and jealous welfare class who refuse to admit how much they depend on the success of the relative few, with the tacit complicity of the govt. itself.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not correct. First, in order for you to be liable for damages, you must have made some money from the work you're performing. Second, playing a CD isn't a 'public performance', regardless of where you are. You aren't performing... the artist is. Third, the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law allows you to use, share, quote from, borrow exerpts from, record, and edit copyrighted works as long as you a:don't make any money (or cost the artist any money) and b:give the copyright holder credit for the piece of the work you used.
See the latest Godzilla movie for the ephemeral nature of 'hype', at any cost.
Removing an amendment would be a massive undertaking, requiring a supermajority in both the House and Senate, the signature of the President, and the ratification by a majority of state lagislatures (both houses of each)in order to become law. Why do you think, in 200+ years we have less than 20 amendments to the original Constitution/Bill of Rights? And one of those repeals another one!
As for Socrates vs. spies, a spy actually puts people in danger, and sometimes gets them killed. Socrates was trying to get people to think in a different way. Nobody is executing Noam Chomsky for his anti-US rants.
Fun fun fun! I suppose you could call that 'fixed'...
FWIW at this late date...
--
From: SOT 24/7 Support Team [mailto:support@sot.com]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:04 PM
To: tony@bluetree.ie
Subject: Re: SOT Office
Hello,
Here are the differences you have asked about.
Differences between OpenOffice and SOTO:
*Finnish language support:
- graphical user interface
- manual
- spellchecker
*Set of primitive templates
*More advanced online help
*Latest Microsoft filters
*Easy access to applications from menu, like word processing, spreadsheet
and graphic applications modules
*Easy installation/deinstallation on Linux by RPM package
*Hyphenation support
On CD:
Both versions for Linux and Windows
Both versions for English and Finnish languages
Sources available
SOTO manual for English and Finnish language in pdf format
Best regards,
Roman Rudenko
--
SOT 24/7 Support Team support@sot.com
tel. +372 6419875
http://www.sot.com Web page
https://www.sot.com Online Shop
When you look at this bill and the DRM bill he's proposed, on thing is clear: this bill is the legislative equivalent of getting a big kiss on the lips right before you take it up the bum.
The DMCA makes it illegal to crack the copy protection on games you own, because you don't own the games. You just own a plastic circle and a licence to play the game, subject to whatever restrictions the authors place on you. That's the justification behind DeCSS being illegal, even if you want to use it to play DVDs you own.
It's not just in the USA either... much of Europe is adopting similar measures.
Right... I'll note that you didn't bother to quote what I said about abuse. The fact is, you'd have jumped off a bridge because of fear of beatings, not because you were being monitored. Let's talk about the real issue here and not cloud it with spillover from other areas. A child who's parents don't abuse him has wou;dn't be driven to suicide by constant monitoring. Likewise, a child that can be trusted not to shoot heroin (Heroin! For fuck's sake, is that *ever* okay?) doesn't need constant monitoring.
MAybe if your friend's parents had been able to find her smoking at age 11, she might not be so mentally disturbed that she might kill herself if her parents could find her shooting heroin on the street at age 13. For fuck's sake, can we have some priorities? Assuming your friend's parents aren't abusive, they ought to have an eye on her 100% of the time, for her own good, until she can demonstrate she's able to control her own life.
By virtue of Godwin's Law, you automatically lose.
Don't cheapen your arguments by referencing Nazis.
The fact is, the entire site hasn't been relisted at all...
a fl et+-dirty&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&start= 0&sa=N
Reposted from Declan McCullough's Politech mailing list:
----- Forwarded message from Erik Moeller -----
From: Erik Moeller
Subject: Xenu.net is -still- censored by Google
To: p2pj@infoanarchy.org
Cc: timothy@slashdot.org, declan@politechbot.com, ahl@xenu.net
Date: 22 Mar 2002 06:43:18 +0100
When I read that Xenu.net was relisted I was skeptical, and this was
quickly confirmed. Contrary to popular reports, the URLs that
Scientology complained about can still not be found in Google's index,
except for the root site, http://www.xenu.net...
{snip}
Let's pick randomly one of the URLs, www.xenu.net/archive/tonelevel.html, and enter the phrase "The numbers preceding the emotional tone indicate the arbitrary level of the tone." in Google. Another document with the same content shows up, but not the censored one.
A different methodology, let's search all documents on xenu.net for the word "leaflet". Xenu.net has this leaflet in various translations.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:xenu.net+le
As of this moment, only the Spanish and Italian leaflet show up, which are both NOT in the list of URLs scientology wanted to be censored.
In other words, Google has relisted the main site, probably because they find the copyright claims spurious and found it an effective way to quell the bad publicity to do so.
Hidden censorship is much worse than when it's obvious. The publicity needs to go one until Google reindexes all URLs, especially since visitors will otherwise miss information when doing *targeted* searches, as opposed to untargeted ones for Scientology in general.
Sincerely,
Erik Moeller
I read it.
Left the page up all weekend and reloaded when I got back to work.
And I had to be offsite all day today. Congratulations, you two! It's work, but it's sooooo worth it.
So, when are you expecting little ones?
I saw it.
Well, to start off, I'm guessing (guessing because I don't know) that Gates isn't socking away reams of cash in Swiss bank accounts. If so, well, that's good for the Swiss economy (but not really good for the US). I do remember reading reports detailing the hit Gates took when the stock market crashed, so I feel like I'm pretty safe saying he's using his money to re-inject capital into the US economy (while also making a profit whenever he can).
Of course it's bad for a country if large amounts of wealth flow out of the national borders (except for the fact that Gates still pays assloads of tax on all that money... you get raped by the IRS if you don't invest your liquid assets). It's clearly better for the US economy if money stays inside the US. Socking your cash away in a Swiss account is ignorant if you want it to keep working for you (and judging by the size of Gates's bankroll, I'd say he has a good handle on making his money work for him).
Which parts of history don't agree with the idea that having lots of money is good for the economy?
With regards to the Japanese effort to wreck our steel market, what has that got to do with anything? That's totally related to profit being good for the economy in general. The Japanese aren't making a profit on the steel they're dumping here... they're subsidized by the Japanese govt. and losing their shirts on the exports so they can kill the US market, after which they planned to jack up the price. Luckily, a 200% tariff tends to discourage such actions.
You know, i was going to moderate this comment, but I decided to reply instead:
Jesus fucking Christ, get some Economics 101 under your belt, buddy! Just because he isn't blowing cash at the mall doesn't mean it's not in curculation. You think Gates has all his money under his fucking mattress?
Every cent he has is flowing back into the economy somehow, whether it's in stock (which provides capital for businesses who can spend it on stuff like paying your dumb ass) or ot er investments, or in savings, or wherever. Unless he's got the baddest motherfucking coin collection on the planet, his cash is permanently attached to the economy.
I only played through EP1 and 2 before I gave up, but it wasn't because of the chatbots (which were pretty pathetic) or the puzzles (which were incredibly easy, requiring EA to 'suggest' you check out fansites containing MUCH better puzzles than the real game) but because of the WAITING. It was maddening to wait around for as long as 3 days for something new to happen in the game, only to spend 20 minutes solving a puzzle. I spent 1/10 of my time in 'Acquire' or 'Act' modes, and the entire rest of the two months waiting for something to happen.
Also, they tried to foster comminuty amongst the gamers, but since different people were at different points in the game, and the puzzles were pathetic, there was nothing to talk about except spoilers and what the fansites were doing. It was tragic to see the implementation of what might have been a good idea go all to hell.
Okay, so I want to go point-by-point through some of this, but before that there's an overall thing that we're disagreeing on here, and I don't know that it's surmountable at all: It's not a lose-lose situation, it's a tradeoff, it's a choice. But who said freedom was the only goal.
In the US worldview, freedom is not a goal. It is a fact of human existance which must not be infringed upon. The goal is to achieve the best result without infringing upon the inherent freedom of the individual. Freedom is not a goal, not an end which can be achieved to a greater or lesser degree based on the decisions of government. Freedom is not a commodity gifted to the people by the rulers or by the political documents which describe the system. It is an inherent quality of humanity which cannot be restricted by other humans without the consent of the individual.
You spoke frequently of trade-offs. You can't have a 'trade' unless both parties consent, and empowering a government to restrict my freedom in exchange for your convenience or happiness is fundamentally wrong, even if the government compensates me after the fact.
This fundamental difference in what freedom is shades the entire discussion. Your lawsuit/regluation comparison for example: If someone lies to me about a car, I can sue them after the fact. That's one individual calling up judgement against another for a dishonest act, arbitrated by an impartial member the government. If you regulate honesty before the fact, however, you must restrict personal freedom to acomplish it.
If freedom is a commodity, that's fine. The govt. can force you to relinquish some of that commodity, and gift it to others in the form of a guarantee. But if Freedom is a basic human right, then you cannot allow the government to diminish the right of one person for the benefit of another. Punishing dishonesty protects freedom, enforcing truth diminishes it.
I don't think it's possible to go beyond that difference in view, but onward to the rest of your comment:
Regulation begets LESS democracy, less individual freedom, and more govt. control.
No. The more and more the government has power, the more and more my vote is worth. And my goal might not be to maximize my freedom, but to get enough freedom AND safety so that I feel happy. And I have different wishes than you.
First off: with no inherent personal freedom, what's to stop the majority from trading ALL their freedom for safety? I certainly have different wishes than THAT, but individual freedom having no sanctity and no protection, I guess I'd just be fucked in that case, eh?
As government gains power, you gain power over others, but THEY also gain power over YOU.
Again, if freedom is a commodity, than maximizing it might not be your goal. But if it is a basic human right, then my different wishes are just as valid as yours, and you shouldn't be able to restrict my basic human rights for your convenience, even if everyone else in the country agrees with you. Protection of individual freedom is the only way to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
don't seem able to grasp the concept of "tradeoff".
I grasp it well enough. When you're talking about a welfare system, it's perfectly legitimate to discuss. IMHO, it's an outrage to take HALF of what I work every day to earn, and give it to someone who is unwilling to work at all. To me, that seems like a disincentive to work at all... or at least, to make sure I stay medium enough to avoid the taxman. If medium-ness is your eventual societal goal, then I guess that's good... but I believe that government should create equality of opportunity and let the chips fall where they may, without regard to how even the wealth ends up.
BUT
When you're talking about the government, through the engine of a frightened, ignorant, greedy, or uncaring majority, forcing a reduction in my inherent personal freedom in exchange for a percieved 'good' level of happiness, convenience, or safety, IT'S NOT A TRADE! It's a tyranny, and it's no different in principle than the French government forcing you to allow a soldier to live in your house, to "protect" your family against a potential "threat", even if 99% of Frenchmen believe it's a good idea.
I doubt a 3 month freeze is big deal
First, regardless of whether it's a 'big deal' or not, It's still bad for the govt. to play the workers against the middle class... which is exactly what that does.
Second, I'd hope you were CERTAIN (not just doubtful) that it was no big deal before you used your majority power to bludgeon the retail sector into doing it. Since they can't protect themselves from you because their freedom is a commodity which can sometimes be ripped from them without their individual consent, I hope you make sure to vote wisely...
If regulation is bad (i.e. the tradeoff changes), the governement changes the regulation or remove it. OF COURSE! No snowball effect, if the ball is to big, we suppress it.
No, your govt tries to supress it (not you). We all know, government is woefully sluggish and rarely able to act rapidly to changing market conditions, which means your regulations will always be a bit behind the curve, and someone will ALWAYS be getting screwed somewhere by the government, to the detriment of their business and their rights. That has a depressing effect on the entire economy.
At least, in an unregulated market economy, you don't get businesses punished by the government with bad regulation until they can convince someone that they're getting creamed in the market by companies that are unfetterd by government interference. If you loose your arse, it's generally your own fault, not that of an uninformed majority or a slow beurocratic engine.
In fact there are three issues: control of production, regulation, and redistribution
This is an interesting way to frame it, and one I hadn't heard before. At least here, we can agree to part ways in an amiable fashion, withut stomping on the rights of the individual too terribly much. Since it's clear that controlling production is a dumb idea, we're really just back to the welfare question anyway.
100% redistribution (i.e. the State gets all wages company willingly to pay for employes, and redistributes all the wages - possibly all equal for all)
IMHO, equality of opportunity should be the goal, not equality of outcome. It's wrong to ask a brilliant brain surgeon to take the same compensation for his work that a garbage man takes, and it devalues everyone in the society. Equality of outcome guarantees a systemic lack of ambition for your population and an eventual spiral into debt and ruin for the whole country.
He won't lose millions, and that's exactly why the law was passed. If this assumption get wrong, the law changes
True enough, but in the meantime he's had to forcibly submit to the government and hope for redress at some later date. It's the principle that's important, not the financial loss... Freedom is not a commodity. When the govt takes your freedom and your money, you might get your money back but it's practically impossible to get back your freedom.
Since you can't argue abuses are cool, you are focusing on the 0.01% losses
First, I would argue that abuses of that sort are just fine! Caveat Emptor! Let the retailer ruin himself with dishonesty.
Second, I'm not focusing on the financial loss really, I'm focusing on the constriction of a basic human right and the lack of protection of individual freedom that the act highlights. So what if it's only a few cents, for a few months. It's not so bad, right?
That was George III's argument, too. It's the freedom you lose that can't be regained without a fight.
Of course, if freedom is a tradeable commodity, then perhaps you can get some of it given back to you... if enough other people agree, of course. Because if freedom is a commodity, and unprotected as a basic fact of human existance, then you only have as much of it as you can convince others you should have. God help you if the others decide you shouldn't have any, because in that system, no one else is going to.
No. I can tell you exactly why: I trust my government more than corporations. That's because I vote for it of course. Ask yourself: how is it possible that you hate so much your governement, although you vote for it. What are the real reasons?
...nor are there dictators at the head of the EU.
Americans generally don't hate government, but they have a deep-seated systemic distrust of it. This comes from the fact that we had to throw off a government system and construct a new one. Americans want their government to act in the spirit of that revolution, and we've designed a system that prevents the government from being able to interfere in the affairs of the people any more than is absolutely necessary to maintain order.
Now, that goal is of course a constant struggle and a constantly shifting balance.
In my view, Europeans tend to see their government as an engine for social reformatting, with a series of disasterous consequences as a result.
And we're not talking about corporations here... nobody trusts a corporation to be an engine for social change... they're supposed to be engines for making a profit. Nobody in the US expects a corp to better society (although it's nice when they do, which is pretty often). People in the US expect the people to better society.
Maybe it's a matter of size. It's almost better to talk about US State govt. when comparing to European national government. The US Federal government is different in structure and in philosophy from any European national system, in large part because it's designed to be a strong structural framework by which the "several States" can act in concert, a body which can resolve State disputes, and a system by which the people have protection from the potential for governmental abuse.
The idea of abuse of power seems not to enter the European mind... which is one reason, I suppose, why we differ in governmental systems so strongly.
Also, some regulation of industry is often necessary, but enforcing price controls on the entire retail market is IMHO WAAAAY over the top.
I prefer to be ruled by Spain, German, Danish type of laws, than American ones...
Perhaps this is a language issue, but I find your use of the word 'rule' very interesting. Americans prefer not to be ruled at all, whenever they can avoid it. The American system is designed such that the people rule themselves, and the system is designed to prevent tyranny by the govt. or the majority. Most European democracies are shaped such that the people pick which group they want to be ruled by, and surrender many protections and personal freedoms under the assumption that the ruling party's people know best. Talk about tyranny of the majority! Why in the world must I submit to being constantly filmed as a walk down a street, because you believe I might commit a crime!
The US system isn't "Free Markets and the consequences be damned!". But it does have, at it's core, a reverence for the rights of the individual. It is from this idea, described in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but not deriving from those documents, that the US system flows. The US system IS the solution to the tyranny (dictatorship was your word... I think tyranny fits better) of the majority. The free market economic system exists not as a solution to political problems, but as a seperate thing that the political system tries to avoid mucking around in as much as possible. It is, at it's root, the reverence for individual freedom that prevents the government from enacting price controls on local shopkeepers because the majority of people want things kept simple. Europe (and France in particular) does not share this bias toward the individual.
From where I stand, this is more than a little scary.
Fair enough, but neither are there accountable representatives of the people at the head of the EU. Only a group which you hope will deal with you fairly, but against whom you have little defense should they do otherwise, especially if the national government and the ruling party remain uninterested in protecting your personal freedom.
It is NOT the job of the govt. to support me indefinitely me if I give up, nor is it the job of govt. to force other, successful people to support me in my decision to just be a long-term failure.
Wrong. It's the job of the governement, if people vote so.
No!
No, No, NO! It is WRONG to allow a greedy and lazy majority to deal out economic torture to a productive and successful minority. It is wrong to force a member of your society to offer up the fruits of his labor to support those who refuse to contribute to that society if he does not wish it.
You have to let people succeed or fail as they will, without enforcing 'medium-ness' on everyone, even if most everyone is happy with being medium. The only way to truly be fair is to not get involved. Any other path pits the society against itself and is necessarily unfair to someone. You end up making value judgements about who is hurt less by unfairness... but by extension, you're really deciding who's rights are more important. Everyone's rights should be equally important, and that means you have to protect the individual regardless of whether it sucks for everyone else in the country.
I didn't get moderated... I'm just cool enough to post at +2
That's a completely inaccurate statement, and I'd love to see the link that supports it. I can't wait to see which countries constitute 'Europe' for the purpose of getting those numbers, and how many EU countries aren't included in the counting.
Because the Japanese steel industry was dumping steel into the USA at obscenely low prices, and losing millions of dollars on the deals, in order to impact the US market and run US steelmakers out of business. In this effort, they were subsidized by the Japanese government, who was providing financial assistance so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In the US, we can't enact an import tax on goods from only one country unless they have certain other political restrictions already placed on them (Cuba for example), so we have to tax it all.
It was a punishment against Japan for trying to destroy the US steel market to their advantage. There's a big difference between regulating a free market system and combating a government-subsidized cartel acting in concert to demolish the industry of another country.
Besides all that, I never said the USA is perfect... but they're Constitutionally prohibited from the kind of manipulation that Europeans seem to favor and European markets seem not to survive without. I think that's a Good Thing.
On this, I'll agree with you completely. It's a good function for government to rescue those who have failed utterly, or who are unable to sustain themselves... but it's dishonest and (IMHO) even cruel to continue handing out assistance to those same people instead of teaching them, training them, and getting them off welfare whenever and however possible.
Of course not per capita... but that doesn't matter! In raw money, we give away more than anyone else... and that doesn't even factor in the international aid the US government provides. We hand out trillions of dollars in relief, aid, grants, loans, and debt forgiveness. Also, redistribution of wealth is a great way to end up as a socialist society instead of a democratic one. Also, isn't it better to give my money to those I consider deserving of it? It is MY money, you know. Why is it better that I be forced to give it to those on whom I feel it's wasted?
Your view is it's better to have many rich people AND not to tax them to much... Our view is it's better to have fewer poorest people.
This is incorrect. Our view (generally... there's plenty of "discussion" about this) is that it's better to give people the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits, and not to restrict either overly much. Your view is that the failures should be suported by the society, no matter how little they've tried to succeed. To accomplish this, it's required to redistribute vast amounts of wealth... which is a Bad Thing. See my other replies in this thread...
You want the truth? I don't care a little bit about how many rich there are. Not how they will be forced to downgrade from a Ferrari to a mere Mercedes because of the taxes.
Ahh, but you DO care! If you didn't, you wouldn't have made that comment. It does highlight what I've been saying, though, which is that class warfare is rife here, and rich people are undeserving of their wealth when there are poor lazy bastards on the dole who 'need' it more. You ought to care about taxes on rich people , if only because you might become one day. It's more likely, though, that you'll lose out on a job a rich person might have given you, because he's lost too much money via wealth redistribution to hire anyone else.
Not exactly my idea of a robust economic and social system...
Okay, briefly: Check out some of my other response to another comment regarding playing the society against itself. I feel pretty confident in assuming that the retail industry either a) didn't want the price freeze at all, or b) went along with it because they knew no one would trust them otherwise. That's using govt to divide a society, instead of getting the regulatory bodies out of the way in favor of consumers makine informed choices. That is... bad!
Next: What do you mean, who am I to decide? I'm the same as you, and that's what I think. It's not religion... but I think your complacency and desire to have somebody else do it for you erodes your freedom in ways you'll eventually find particularly unpleasant. And, of course, you aren't a shopkeeper... so your opinion is better.
I do notice that free-market parties tend to get beaten soundly, and regularly. It's got to be a tough sell to try and get a population that's comfortable with handouts to get up and do for themselves... especially when the govt. creates a culture in which success is not to be trusted.
Next: So what? So, wouldn't it be better to educate your people, rather than ask the government to save you from ourselves? (side note: you're arguing against yourself by saying on the one hand that your population is intelligent enough to make good decisions about the desirability of heavy government regulation, and on the other that it recognizes it's inability to convert a Franc to a Euro and accepts the need for drastic government intervention as a result)
Says me, if I'm a shopkeeper. Why does your ignorance make you more deserving of government intervention? Why are you more important than me, the shopkeep? Why the hell should you be able to tell me what I think the price of a steak should be? If you don't like it, don't buy it! Either I'll figure out I'm charging too much, or I'll go broke. It's not the job of government to act as a cudgel beating me into submission so that you don't get cheated out of 50 cents. Caveat Emptor! The result is more individual freedom. Can that be bad?
Next: Wasn't that the stated goal of the Euro Zone? To create a powerful economic base, to unite Europe into a trading power that rivals the US market? What the hell are you doing this for anyway?
Next: Actually, I think I think lots of things would be better than £30K a year and lots of time at home. For example:
I think it'd be better to be so successful as a shopkeep that I can stay home and hire someone to mind the store, making $60K a year or more and working hardly at all.
Or maybe better to work constantly to make 300K a year and send the kids to Harvard.
Or best of all: To not have to settle for 'quite decently' if I don't think that's enough. The point? It's so hard to get to 'stupid crazy rich' in Europe that hardly anyone tries, even if that's their fondest wish. Regulation, taxation, and the acceptability of welfare create a culture where you're punished for wanting great financial success, and practically prevented from getting it no matter how hard you try. In the states, if you wanna love on $30K a year, bully for you. It's easy to do in 90% of the country. But if you want to strike it rich, it's at least relatively possible... and certainly not demonized by a lazy and jealous welfare class who refuse to admit how much they depend on the success of the relative few, with the tacit complicity of the govt. itself.