The EU (via ECHO and the member states) is by far the biggest foreign aid provider. Your numbers don't add up, or how do you define charity? Also, it should be added that per capita the US contribution of foreign aid is one of the lowest among the industrialized countries (a substantial reduction was made during the Clinton term).
Furthermore, it does not have laws regulating what can go into a sausage. It does however make use of commonly agreed upon definitions. This is necessary in international trade.
How you can blame the EU for the Britishfoot and mouth fiasco is beyond me. Except if you suggest that the EU should have quarantined the UK during the last outbreak.
There is nothing in the Nice Treaty making it illegal to criticize the EU. That's plain BS.
That's a lot of bullshit in very little space. I'm usually not this insulting but it really upsets me when people state their ridiculous unfounded illusions as fact.
First of all, there is no law making it illegal to use English measurements. However, given that the EU is supposed to be a single common market, vendors must also provide some other measurements. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, as far as I know, the issue of software patents is yet to be decided upon. Even if such patents will be allowed, it hardly reflects badly upon the EU setup but on the politicians from member states that ultimately may grant the proposal.
"Its commision is unelected, and yet has more power than our sovereign government." The commision merely makes proposals. It's up to member states' governments (Council of Ministers) and the EU Parliament to grant (or not grant) all proposals. You desperately need to learn how the EU institutions work. Please march along to the EU website and learn before you spout nonsense again.
Good point. And then we have the IRC protocol, made by Jarkko Oikarinen in Finland. The internet (TCP/IP) itself is certainly a US invention but without the web it would be useless for most people. In summary -- I would say the bits and pieces making up the technology people use over the internet are truly international.
It seems to me that you place a number of requirements on the term "representative democracy" that are not generally applied. For example, is a country not a representative democracy because some or most of its institutions are appointive? Or because smaller states weigh more in elections, for the purpose of minority protection and so forth? No, I definitely do not think so. All countries or unions considered to be representative democracies fulfill at least one of these criteria. For example, in the European Union small states are overrepresented in the parliament, and the votes of their representatives weigh more in the commision and parliament in relation to their population size. On national level there are often similar restrictions. Not to mention the presence of a formidable constitution in most western countries that further restrict the popular view for the protection of what is considered basic human rights.
True enough, but it is hardly particularly democratic since it enables officials to vote on behalf of the people. It is an undemocratic element that does no real good -- these officials too can vote for persons based on their "charisma" (to use the word of the original poster). Other constitutional and legal elements such as the protection of fundamental freedoms and minority protections should be used to combat potentially dangerous populistic leaders.
To have other people vote for you in elections pushes people away from the leadership and in essence creates a dictatorship. Charismatic but harmful leaders should be battled constitutionally, not by removing democratic elements.
While democracy originally referred to direct people rule, most people in modern times are taught that democracy can be either representative (as in all the western countries) or direct, or a mix between the two (as in Switzerland and some states of some countries). All dictionaries reflect this practice.
What you are doing is twisting words, trying to claim that you have a monopoly on the "right" definition which certainly is not the case. While I do not argue that your definition is incorrect, it is also not the only definition that can be considered correct.
No matter what definition you prefer, it is a fact that the US government system is a (representative) democratic one (in spirit, if nothing else) and your cheap shots do nothing but evade the very valid arguments presented by the original poster.
IBM believes it would be inappropriate to introduce more liberal conditions coming
closer to the practice in the United States particularly in relation to the patenting of business
methods. As correctly stated in the consultation paper, in the US an invention needs no
technological contribution; it must merely provide a useful, concrete and tangible result. We
argue that to require no more than a "useful, concrete and tangible result" in the broad sense
currently being applied in the USA invites the patenting of ideas that may have been
visualised as desirable but have no foundation in terms of the research or development to turn
them into practical reality.
Your interpretation of the word "democracy" is very US-centric and one that I think most people would not agree with. Certainly, the original Greek-derived word merely implied that the common people are in control. And in modern usage "democracy" is taught to be either direct or representative. The western nations all belong to the second category. Whether they are also a republic, monarchy etc is usually irrelevant.
In Switzerland, laws (including federal laws) can be overturned after the collection of a certain number of signatures -- which according to the constitution forces a binding referendum. Citizens can also legislate in the same manner. The day to day running of the government is however done by elected politicians, just like in other countries.
When the Swiss secret service started acting up and become abusive, the citizens used this way to force a vote on whether the secret service should even be allowed to exist anymore. A majority accepted its existance but this was enough to keep decision makers and politicians on their toes and force immediate radical reform on the organization.
It seems like the ideal government to me. The Swiss constitution is by far the best I've read so far.
Good sources for those interested in reading up on the topic include the book The Referendum - Direct Democracy in Switzerland by Kris Kobach and the website of Direct Democracy League, an organization fighting for direct democracy in the United States.
As the referring page states, this was an analysis of the replies by an independant contractor so I think it's premature to say what the EU commision's views will be (and don't forget that the council and usually the EU parliament too must also pass the commision's proposals for them to become law).
As for the points you make about how to advocate, I couldn't agree more. I reacted to the "Micro$oft" quote in the report too and it makes a really bad impression.
First of all, most nations had no intention of ratifying Kyoto until after the planned summit where nations would come to an agreement about how to interpret the treaty and enforce the details. That was supposed to happen in Hague last year but due to disagreement was postponed. But the agreement finally came through in Bonn a few weeks ago and now the governments are indeed preparing for parliamentary ratification. The timetable differs between nations but the EU has said it is aiming for full ratification before a summit next year.
As for "crippling" the economy, this can be debated. Clearly there will be a short term economic hit, but that is the price we -- as in all industrialized nations -- must pay for making a mess of the environment and our own future living conditions. The more we postpone it, the more potential human suffering and long-term economic problems we will face.
Millions of people risk their lives to get into other industrialized nations, too (millions seek asylum in the EU, for example). But those people are from heavily war-torn or dictatorial nations and hardly the places the US should compare itself with.
I wasn't aware of their behaviour myself until the mid 90s when I got access to the internet and got some perspective from other media than the swedish state controlled.
Given the vast international audience of this site, I think it needs to be pointed out that most media and industry in Sweden is indeed private. The internet made no difference in this regard except increase accessibility to non mainstream media.
BTW, you imply that Swedish state controlled media -- I assume you are referring to SVT has been modifiying the truth. This definitely is not my perception -- I think they are every bit as "impartial" as the private media. How the state media is run is controlled in detail in laws and I don't see a way for the government to step in and control news reporting as is done in dictatorships and other repressive regimes.
SVT has some of the best mud diggers available anywhere. They have made public a lot of the most uncomfortable information about the government resulting in political scandals and numerous resignations. I think they in fact are much more efficient than the private media.
Sometimes small-scale like the enormous amount of complaints about government abuses to the EU
What exactly are those complaints? I have heard about a handful, none of which I considered serious (example: complaint to the EU court that the Swedish government retains monopoly on alcoholic sales).
Sweden is actually one of the countries in the world with most abuses by the government.
While I have no illusions about our country and acknowledge that problems arise on occasion, I think you are so eager to see problems with it (and the social democratic government that due to its popularity has led it for decades) that you go too far in the other direction loosing perspective entirely.
It certainly has not been my impression that Sweden has more cases of government abuse than other western countries. In fact I think its laws and constitution make it one of the most transparency governments anywhere. (I am particularly fond of offentlighetsprincipen, the principle that has been part of the constitution since 1766 and guarantees that communication with and between government agencies and almost all documents handled by them are routinely made public.)
> The secret police (sapo) decided who should be allowed to work there (and therefore influense all its viewers), they also fired anyone drifting away from the correct "truth" (socialist truth that is).
Socialist truth? This is extremely misleading, if not an intentional lie. What SÄPO has done is denied security clearance for some types of jobs when they had established a link between the individual in question and communist activities (such as membership in communist organizations).
Sweden's law enforcement unfortunately was a victim of the commie scare, just like in the US and other countries. Wherever you get the idea that SÄPO was acting as socialists, I have no idea, I think the opposite holds true.
Very well said, and I agree with your points.
Switzerland, the country with my favourite constitution, expands upon this concept further by giving citizens the right (through collection of a certain number of signatures) to have a binding referendum on laws -- and to even create new ones in the same way.
It's a very intriguing concept. There are individual states in Germany and the US and other countries with similar mechanisms but in Switzerland the federal laws and constitution are included.
Lost of interesting info about direct democracy concepts can be found on the website of the US organization Direct Democracy League.
Do you or anyone else have access to official statistics on how much each participating nation spends on the ISS?
Perhaps ESA spending really only accounts for 5 % but I am skeptic until I see some official statistics.
ESA is making a number of contributions that I would consider "significant", such as the Columbus laboratory. Other nations provide significant parts also. I would be surprised if ESA's spending on the ISS is significantly below that of NASA.
You might want to look at "C++ Primer Plus" by Stephen Prata (and its various translations to other languages). It's the best book I've found by far for C++, both for newbies and as a reference. Also, you should know that it's important to understand the language itself before trying to proceed with things like sockets, graphical user interfaces, etc. The best way is probably to start with text based command line applications until you are fully comfortable with the C++ language.
One of the best and most easy to understand guides to socket programming is Beej's Guide To Network Programming. Have a look at that, I think you will find it very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU (via ECHO and the member states) is by far the biggest foreign aid provider. Your numbers don't add up, or how do you define charity? Also, it should be added that per capita the US contribution of foreign aid is one of the lowest among the industrialized countries (a substantial reduction was made during the Clinton term).
Furthermore, it does not have laws regulating what can go into a sausage. It does however make use of commonly agreed upon definitions. This is necessary in international trade.
How you can blame the EU for the Britishfoot and mouth fiasco is beyond me. Except if you suggest that the EU should have quarantined the UK during the last outbreak.
There is nothing in the Nice Treaty making it illegal to criticize the EU. That's plain BS.
That's a lot of bullshit in very little space. I'm usually not this insulting but it really upsets me when people state their ridiculous unfounded illusions as fact.
First of all, there is no law making it illegal to use English measurements. However, given that the EU is supposed to be a single common market, vendors must also provide some other measurements. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Secondly, as far as I know, the issue of software patents is yet to be decided upon. Even if such patents will be allowed, it hardly reflects badly upon the EU setup but on the politicians from member states that ultimately may grant the proposal.
"Its commision is unelected, and yet has more power than our sovereign government."
The commision merely makes proposals. It's up to member states' governments (Council of Ministers) and the EU Parliament to grant (or not grant) all proposals. You desperately need to learn how the EU institutions work. Please march along to the EU website and learn before you spout nonsense again.
Good point. And then we have the IRC protocol, made by Jarkko Oikarinen in Finland. The internet (TCP/IP) itself is certainly a US invention but without the web it would be useless for most people. In summary -- I would say the bits and pieces making up the technology people use over the internet are truly international.
Well, AAA doesn't fit the pattern "??AA" (at least according to AmigaDOS wildcard conventions).
It seems to me that you place a number of requirements on the term "representative democracy" that are not generally applied. For example, is a country not a representative democracy because some or most of its institutions are appointive? Or because smaller states weigh more in elections, for the purpose of minority protection and so forth? No, I definitely do not think so. All countries or unions considered to be representative democracies fulfill at least one of these criteria. For example, in the European Union small states are overrepresented in the parliament, and the votes of their representatives weigh more in the commision and parliament in relation to their population size. On national level there are often similar restrictions. Not to mention the presence of a formidable constitution in most western countries that further restrict the popular view for the protection of what is considered basic human rights.
True enough, but it is hardly particularly democratic since it enables officials to vote on behalf of the people. It is an undemocratic element that does no real good -- these officials too can vote for persons based on their "charisma" (to use the word of the original poster). Other constitutional and legal elements such as the protection of fundamental freedoms and minority protections should be used to combat potentially dangerous populistic leaders.
To have other people vote for you in elections pushes people away from the leadership and in essence creates a dictatorship. Charismatic but harmful leaders should be battled constitutionally, not by removing democratic elements.
You are the miinformed one.
While democracy originally referred to direct people rule, most people in modern times are taught that democracy can be either representative (as in all the western countries) or direct, or a mix between the two (as in Switzerland and some states of some countries). All dictionaries reflect this practice.
What you are doing is twisting words, trying to claim that you have a monopoly on the "right" definition which certainly is not the case. While I do not argue that your definition is incorrect, it is also not the only definition that can be considered correct.
No matter what definition you prefer, it is a fact that the US government system is a (representative) democratic one (in spirit, if nothing else) and your cheap shots do nothing but evade the very valid arguments presented by the original poster.
You make a good point. The impression I get is that the Swiss constitution has not been compromised in that way however -- not yet, anyway.
It looks like you are right. From the document:
IBM believes it would be inappropriate to introduce more liberal conditions coming closer to the practice in the United States particularly in relation to the patenting of business methods. As correctly stated in the consultation paper, in the US an invention needs no technological contribution; it must merely provide a useful, concrete and tangible result. We argue that to require no more than a "useful, concrete and tangible result" in the broad sense currently being applied in the USA invites the patenting of ideas that may have been visualised as desirable but have no foundation in terms of the research or development to turn them into practical reality.
Your interpretation of the word "democracy" is very US-centric and one that I think most people would not agree with. Certainly, the original Greek-derived word merely implied that the common people are in control. And in modern usage "democracy" is taught to be either direct or representative. The western nations all belong to the second category. Whether they are also a republic, monarchy etc is usually irrelevant.
In Switzerland, laws (including federal laws) can be overturned after the collection of a certain number of signatures -- which according to the constitution forces a binding referendum. Citizens can also legislate in the same manner. The day to day running of the government is however done by elected politicians, just like in other countries.
When the Swiss secret service started acting up and become abusive, the citizens used this way to force a vote on whether the secret service should even be allowed to exist anymore. A majority accepted its existance but this was enough to keep decision makers and politicians on their toes and force immediate radical reform on the organization.
It seems like the ideal government to me. The Swiss constitution is by far the best I've read so far.
Good sources for those interested in reading up on the topic include the book The Referendum - Direct Democracy in Switzerland by Kris Kobach and the website of Direct Democracy League, an organization fighting for direct democracy in the United States.
I couldn't agree more.
As the referring page states, this was an analysis of the replies by an independant contractor so I think it's premature to say what the EU commision's views will be (and don't forget that the council and usually the EU parliament too must also pass the commision's proposals for them to become law).
As for the points you make about how to advocate, I couldn't agree more. I reacted to the "Micro$oft" quote in the report too and it makes a really bad impression.
You are misinformed on several accounts.
First of all, most nations had no intention of ratifying Kyoto until after the planned summit where nations would come to an agreement about how to interpret the treaty and enforce the details. That was supposed to happen in Hague last year but due to disagreement was postponed. But the agreement finally came through in Bonn a few weeks ago and now the governments are indeed preparing for parliamentary ratification. The timetable differs between nations but the EU has said it is aiming for full ratification before a summit next year.
As for "crippling" the economy, this can be debated. Clearly there will be a short term economic hit, but that is the price we -- as in all industrialized nations -- must pay for making a mess of the environment and our own future living conditions. The more we postpone it, the more potential human suffering and long-term economic problems we will face.
Millions of people risk their lives to get into other industrialized nations, too (millions seek asylum in the EU, for example). But those people are from heavily war-torn or dictatorial nations and hardly the places the US should compare itself with.
Given the vast international audience of this site, I think it needs to be pointed out that most media and industry in Sweden is indeed private. The internet made no difference in this regard except increase accessibility to non mainstream media.
BTW, you imply that Swedish state controlled media -- I assume you are referring to SVT has been modifiying the truth. This definitely is not my perception -- I think they are every bit as "impartial" as the private media. How the state media is run is controlled in detail in laws and I don't see a way for the government to step in and control news reporting as is done in dictatorships and other repressive regimes.
SVT has some of the best mud diggers available anywhere. They have made public a lot of the most uncomfortable information about the government resulting in political scandals and numerous resignations. I think they in fact are much more efficient than the private media.
What exactly are those complaints? I have heard about a handful, none of which I considered serious (example: complaint to the EU court that the Swedish government retains monopoly on alcoholic sales).
Sweden is actually one of the countries in the world with most abuses by the government.
While I have no illusions about our country and acknowledge that problems arise on occasion, I think you are so eager to see problems with it (and the social democratic government that due to its popularity has led it for decades) that you go too far in the other direction loosing perspective entirely.
It certainly has not been my impression that Sweden has more cases of government abuse than other western countries. In fact I think its laws and constitution make it one of the most transparency governments anywhere. (I am particularly fond of offentlighetsprincipen, the principle that has been part of the constitution since 1766 and guarantees that communication with and between government agencies and almost all documents handled by them are routinely made public.)
> The secret police (sapo) decided who should be allowed to work there (and therefore influense all its viewers), they also fired anyone drifting away from the correct "truth" (socialist truth that is). Socialist truth? This is extremely misleading, if not an intentional lie. What SÄPO has done is denied security clearance for some types of jobs when they had established a link between the individual in question and communist activities (such as membership in communist organizations). Sweden's law enforcement unfortunately was a victim of the commie scare, just like in the US and other countries. Wherever you get the idea that SÄPO was acting as socialists, I have no idea, I think the opposite holds true.
Very well said, and I agree with your points. Switzerland, the country with my favourite constitution, expands upon this concept further by giving citizens the right (through collection of a certain number of signatures) to have a binding referendum on laws -- and to even create new ones in the same way.
It's a very intriguing concept. There are individual states in Germany and the US and other countries with similar mechanisms but in Switzerland the federal laws and constitution are included.
Lost of interesting info about direct democracy concepts can be found on the website of the US organization Direct Democracy League.
Do you or anyone else have access to official statistics on how much each participating nation spends on the ISS? Perhaps ESA spending really only accounts for 5 % but I am skeptic until I see some official statistics.
ESA is making a number of contributions that I would consider "significant", such as the Columbus laboratory. Other nations provide significant parts also. I would be surprised if ESA's spending on the ISS is significantly below that of NASA.
I recently registered my own .org domain with a web hotel and had no trouble. I do not represent an organization of any sort.
One of the best and most easy to understand guides to socket programming is Beej's Guide To Network Programming. Have a look at that, I think you will find it very useful.