All the knuckleheads tossing $6 bottles of beer at cops in Seattle want "all the nations of the world to come together and sing in perfect harmony..."
I'm not putting you in that bunch, but use them as an example of how to not do things.
You and I could sit down and write a treaty espousing democratic ideals. We'd get some nations to buy off on it, others would be on the fence. Many more would burn it.
It's all about statistics. Yes, US Executives want to make a buck for their shareholders (me and others here, I'm sure), but most of us also realize that it is only in America (ok, Western Nations) that we can go from welfare to affluence in a few years of hard work. We're proud of our nation and willing to do the things to make it possible for others.
The WTO is working to allow a number of the things you mentioned; but ask yourself who will have the greatest benefit to oppressed people -- a journalist who visits China to write a story for the American media (never to be seen by the Chinese people) or a businessman (like me) who will live, work, eat and exchange values on their home turf?
I suggest we not look at who cannot enter a nation under the proposed WTO rules, but look instead to all of those that will get the chance to get in. This all-or-nothing stance on the part of my fellow citizens is not helpful. Try the "half full" view and see if it helps.
Yes, in a perfect world China would allow all sorts of ideas in and out of their borders. In reality, the xenophobia of such regimes in what we now call China is measured in millenia (look to the "Great Wall").
Pushing a set of treaties that attempt to force democratic ideals on a scared government will make a statement to the world that the USA is 100% for human rights; it will also be heard only by the good people of the Western Nations that are allowed to hear it. Such self-gratifying propoganda will help nary one down-trodden Chinese citizen.
As far as secrecy of negotiations goes, how many more people do we want in on this thing?
Dozens of nations, hundreds of companies, thousands of people. All working to get some kind of common denominator. When is the last time you and your friends all agreed on where to eat dinner? You need to draw a line somewhere. The global conspiracy theory only goes so far; these companies are fierce competitors each vying for access to what will become a limited resource: labor and material.
Political principles need time to infuse themselves and mature. Contrary to what you may have heard, Rome did not fall in a day. Neither will China.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response on the matter.:-)
I know I'm stepping on a land mine here, but those who fight free trade should really take a look at this.
Chinese kids did not suddenly wake up one day and wonder if there was a thing called "the Internet"...it was handled to them on a silver platter by we Capitalistic Pigs (TM). Good for us.
Without starting a brou-ha-ha on "Worldwide Governments", let us consider the benefits of open markets: Open Ideas. China cannot enter the mainstream and continually shut their own people out of it.
I've lived in certain Asian third-world, communist societies and was pleased at how many openly thumb their noses at the system. It's in the little things -- like negotiating state-controlled currency for USD or sneaking into "clubs" where people get a chance to explore ideas and exchange information with foreigners. The down side: when Brother Mao wants you back in line, you'd better move fast.
The more we work with the people of China, the more the people will work on their government. Overall, US factories in Asia provide a significant influx of democratic principles -- we only hear about the abuse of some companies. We don't hear about the effects one man I know has had on a small city in Asia that is learning about progression through hard work (what we call raises and bonuses).
Next come the unions, then comes the crackdowns. It's a sad cycle, but each time it happens the government loses a little more.
Oh, and don't sweat the kids working in factories. It may appall you (as it did me), but it's all they got until things change. Large economics require them to work; productive people want to do better for themselves and their families. These are the same kids who grow up to build Internet Cafes.
In the end each of their labors adds to a collective conscience that wants better. The governments would do better keeping them on the farms and teaching them "Remedial Mao" than grouping them together and letting them think aloud.
While Orin Hatch did father the DMCA, he hoped it would provide incentive for media companies to roll out services that allow us to do what we want -- listen/watch for little/no money.
You see, the media companies had complained that the reason they did not have "micropayment" arrangements with external parties was that they were not adequately protected in the online/digital world. Mr. Hatch's subcommittee worked hard (and quickly) to hammer out some protections (as the constitution stipulates they should) to address the business concerns.
Then the good senator got screwed by the media companies.
In the subcommittee hearings a few months back (on CSPAN -- the one with Sean Fanning, Lars Ulrich, etc.) Mr. Hatch laid into the RIAA president (who didn't want to testify -- he threatened to subpeona her instead) on what he considered a betrayal by the RIAA members.
He specifically condemned the fact that the RIAA had not worked to create a system whereby any mom/pop site could provide content for the masses using simple, easy-to-use license schemes. No fancy contracts, just fair use. That was what the DMCA was supposed to do, provide for a legal response in the event one of these sites went too far.
He told the RIAA they had "months" to provide such a system or face the possibility Congress would act in their absence. He specifically warned against an exclusive system of arrangements between the big producers. He wanted to see all of us able to provide this music to our customers for the same cost as the big guys.
Quite funny were his quetions to the RIAA on what constitutes "fair use"...basically he told them they were wrong. When the RIAA president tried to argue that "the law" sided with them, he reminded her that he (or at least his committee) sets the law and he'd have to make some changes to get things straightened out.
Mentioned during the hearing was the fact that Mr. hatch is a musician himself and actually distributes his music over the Internet. I think I recall him saying that he's made enough money to "buy me dinner once or twice".
He also spent most of the morning listening to Metallica and teased Lars a bit about his style.
Now I read that Mr. hatch is on the prowl. Specifically quoted in the CNN article, he said that he'd given them time and they'd produced no deal. He warned 'em...
A clone is not a twin, religious zealots will be sure to differentiate between those "created by God" and those created by nerd. In Vitro uses mechanical manipulation of what is arguably a natural process. Doctors today cannot pre-determine the complete genetic makeup of an in vitro child (although certain traits are attempted ala mail/female selectivity).
Ideaology can be dealt with. I'm more concerned about the practical implications of gentic mirroring. Consider that insurance comapanies today have no qualm using a family's genetic/disease history against them -- it's a matter of mathmatics/statistics for them.
I have quite pointedly been taught the lesson that genetics can affect your life -- we have buried four close relatives of similar age for similar cancers in the last year. I'd be a fool to hope that this is an environmental/coincidental. The clock says I got 25 more years before it is my turn. Go Science!!
Now we have the possibility of seeing into the future of a child with an uncanny prescience of thought. A twin at least has the comfort that her sister cannot foretell her outcome (they are the same age, after all).
If momma creates daughter clone and eventually suffers Breast/Cervical cancer (both of which have significant genetic factors) it can (and will) be argued that we are seeing into the future of the child.
We can argue for all the protective legislation we want, the fact will remain that the child is damned by "sins of the mother".
Also, please don't dismiss cloning as a missive of vanity by the "rich" elite. No medical technology remains within those realms for long: witness Lasik, Cosmetic Surgery and transplants. The industry will want to maximize availability to offset research costs. We're not talking about an expensive procedure once you get down to the "CGAT" of it.
A childless couple will do what it takes for progeny. Cloning (or at least the concept) offers a reliable, reproducible product. You can bet it will take hold in the mainstream (even though there are still the same issues with implantation).
Also, scientifically speaking, I have read of significant mitochondrial damage resulting from cloned cells. They tossed dozens of "Dollys" before they got one they liked. In a society where research using stem cells from dead fetuses is an issue what will happen when 38 "Susies" get dumped because it wasn't "quite right"?
It will happen. Don't sweat the larger issues (ethics, religion): nobody ever wins those arguments. Look to the details. The trees for the forest, so to speak.
Slashdot Mirror
All the knuckleheads tossing $6 bottles of beer at cops in Seattle want "all the nations of the world to come together and sing in perfect harmony..." I'm not putting you in that bunch, but use them as an example of how to not do things.
You and I could sit down and write a treaty espousing democratic ideals. We'd get some nations to buy off on it, others would be on the fence. Many more would burn it.
It's all about statistics. Yes, US Executives want to make a buck for their shareholders (me and others here, I'm sure), but most of us also realize that it is only in America (ok, Western Nations) that we can go from welfare to affluence in a few years of hard work. We're proud of our nation and willing to do the things to make it possible for others.
The WTO is working to allow a number of the things you mentioned; but ask yourself who will have the greatest benefit to oppressed people -- a journalist who visits China to write a story for the American media (never to be seen by the Chinese people) or a businessman (like me) who will live, work, eat and exchange values on their home turf?
I suggest we not look at who cannot enter a nation under the proposed WTO rules, but look instead to all of those that will get the chance to get in. This all-or-nothing stance on the part of my fellow citizens is not helpful. Try the "half full" view and see if it helps.
Yes, in a perfect world China would allow all sorts of ideas in and out of their borders. In reality, the xenophobia of such regimes in what we now call China is measured in millenia (look to the "Great Wall").
Pushing a set of treaties that attempt to force democratic ideals on a scared government will make a statement to the world that the USA is 100% for human rights; it will also be heard only by the good people of the Western Nations that are allowed to hear it. Such self-gratifying propoganda will help nary one down-trodden Chinese citizen.
As far as secrecy of negotiations goes, how many more people do we want in on this thing?
Dozens of nations, hundreds of companies, thousands of people. All working to get some kind of common denominator. When is the last time you and your friends all agreed on where to eat dinner? You need to draw a line somewhere. The global conspiracy theory only goes so far; these companies are fierce competitors each vying for access to what will become a limited resource: labor and material.
Political principles need time to infuse themselves and mature. Contrary to what you may have heard, Rome did not fall in a day. Neither will China.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response on the matter. :-)
Chinese kids did not suddenly wake up one day and wonder if there was a thing called "the Internet"...it was handled to them on a silver platter by we Capitalistic Pigs (TM). Good for us.
Without starting a brou-ha-ha on "Worldwide Governments", let us consider the benefits of open markets: Open Ideas. China cannot enter the mainstream and continually shut their own people out of it.
I've lived in certain Asian third-world, communist societies and was pleased at how many openly thumb their noses at the system. It's in the little things -- like negotiating state-controlled currency for USD or sneaking into "clubs" where people get a chance to explore ideas and exchange information with foreigners. The down side: when Brother Mao wants you back in line, you'd better move fast.
The more we work with the people of China, the more the people will work on their government. Overall, US factories in Asia provide a significant influx of democratic principles -- we only hear about the abuse of some companies. We don't hear about the effects one man I know has had on a small city in Asia that is learning about progression through hard work (what we call raises and bonuses).
Next come the unions, then comes the crackdowns. It's a sad cycle, but each time it happens the government loses a little more.
Oh, and don't sweat the kids working in factories. It may appall you (as it did me), but it's all they got until things change. Large economics require them to work; productive people want to do better for themselves and their families. These are the same kids who grow up to build Internet Cafes.
In the end each of their labors adds to a collective conscience that wants better. The governments would do better keeping them on the farms and teaching them "Remedial Mao" than grouping them together and letting them think aloud.
You see, the media companies had complained that the reason they did not have "micropayment" arrangements with external parties was that they were not adequately protected in the online/digital world. Mr. Hatch's subcommittee worked hard (and quickly) to hammer out some protections (as the constitution stipulates they should) to address the business concerns.
Then the good senator got screwed by the media companies.
In the subcommittee hearings a few months back (on CSPAN -- the one with Sean Fanning, Lars Ulrich, etc.) Mr. Hatch laid into the RIAA president (who didn't want to testify -- he threatened to subpeona her instead) on what he considered a betrayal by the RIAA members.
He specifically condemned the fact that the RIAA had not worked to create a system whereby any mom/pop site could provide content for the masses using simple, easy-to-use license schemes. No fancy contracts, just fair use. That was what the DMCA was supposed to do, provide for a legal response in the event one of these sites went too far.
He told the RIAA they had "months" to provide such a system or face the possibility Congress would act in their absence. He specifically warned against an exclusive system of arrangements between the big producers. He wanted to see all of us able to provide this music to our customers for the same cost as the big guys.
Quite funny were his quetions to the RIAA on what constitutes "fair use"...basically he told them they were wrong. When the RIAA president tried to argue that "the law" sided with them, he reminded her that he (or at least his committee) sets the law and he'd have to make some changes to get things straightened out.
Mentioned during the hearing was the fact that Mr. hatch is a musician himself and actually distributes his music over the Internet. I think I recall him saying that he's made enough money to "buy me dinner once or twice".
He also spent most of the morning listening to Metallica and teased Lars a bit about his style.
Now I read that Mr. hatch is on the prowl. Specifically quoted in the CNN article, he said that he'd given them time and they'd produced no deal. He warned 'em...
Ideaology can be dealt with. I'm more concerned about the practical implications of gentic mirroring. Consider that insurance comapanies today have no qualm using a family's genetic/disease history against them -- it's a matter of mathmatics/statistics for them.
I have quite pointedly been taught the lesson that genetics can affect your life -- we have buried four close relatives of similar age for similar cancers in the last year. I'd be a fool to hope that this is an environmental/coincidental. The clock says I got 25 more years before it is my turn. Go Science!!
Now we have the possibility of seeing into the future of a child with an uncanny prescience of thought. A twin at least has the comfort that her sister cannot foretell her outcome (they are the same age, after all).
If momma creates daughter clone and eventually suffers Breast/Cervical cancer (both of which have significant genetic factors) it can (and will) be argued that we are seeing into the future of the child.
We can argue for all the protective legislation we want, the fact will remain that the child is damned by "sins of the mother".
Also, please don't dismiss cloning as a missive of vanity by the "rich" elite. No medical technology remains within those realms for long: witness Lasik, Cosmetic Surgery and transplants. The industry will want to maximize availability to offset research costs. We're not talking about an expensive procedure once you get down to the "CGAT" of it.
A childless couple will do what it takes for progeny. Cloning (or at least the concept) offers a reliable, reproducible product. You can bet it will take hold in the mainstream (even though there are still the same issues with implantation).
Also, scientifically speaking, I have read of significant mitochondrial damage resulting from cloned cells. They tossed dozens of "Dollys" before they got one they liked. In a society where research using stem cells from dead fetuses is an issue what will happen when 38 "Susies" get dumped because it wasn't "quite right"?
It will happen. Don't sweat the larger issues (ethics, religion): nobody ever wins those arguments. Look to the details. The trees for the forest, so to speak.