Maybe you should try RTFA or at least RTFS. This is not about bending to the will of America, it is about complying with international treaties. If the US ignored an international treaty like this you'd be on here jumping up & down about how evil America & Bush are because they ignore "international law" (a pure BS term by the way). At the same time when Canada just complies with an international treaty you don't like... all of the sudden it's "American Imperialism".
You do have a point.
However, it strikes me as very interesting that this same government which is more than willing to break the Kyoto treaty is willing to go above and beyond WIPO. I guess our commitment to treaty obligations varies on who the beneficiaries are...
Now that they have made almost everyone else adopt these laws, they've started to lobby the government to harmonize US laws with everyone else. So, they managed to get everyone else's laws updated so they could then get domestic laws updated.
That's not quite right. I suspect the real strategy is to get every subsequent government to enforce laws that are incrementally stronger than what is required by WIPO. Once the first cycle of legislation is complete, it can start over again with the first lot.
But you know what, I'm far more saddened than angered about this. What can I possibly do, when my government is passing legislation that is written by corporations from another country...
I think the real problem is the WTO. They are unelected, and apparently unaccountable, yet they draft treaties that affect hundreds of millions of people who had no say in any of it...
I say we start holding people under water. If they survive they are obviously alien and then we can burn them at the stake.
No, no - that's completely wrong!
Let's approach this scientifically:
If aliens can be burned, they must be made of wood.
All thing that are made of wood float upon water
Ducks also float upon water
So logically, anything that weighs as much as a duck must be made of wood
So, the true test of whether (or not) a person is an alien is to see if they weigh as much as a duck. Anyone who does is obviously made of wood, and therefore a witch^D^D^D^D^Dalien!
Anyone failing this simple test can safely be burned at the stake, as their extra-terrestrial nature has been conclusively demonstrated.
If you are not voting then you are implicitly delegating your vote to those who do. Your hands are not clean unless you are actively giving them a different option. Are you standing in elections, or actively looking for someone to stand who you would vote for?
In my case, it's not apathy - I refuse to participate in the current political system.
I believe that the act of voting provides a thin veneer of legitimacy to a process that otherwise does not warrant one.
The current system is broken. One of the parties can "win" a majority by attracting only 38% of the votes cast. Even though most of the votes were cast against the "winner", that party has the moral authority to govern as it sees fit until the next election. Adding further insult to injury, the other parties are accused of thwarting the will of the electorate if they oppose any of the governing party's legislation.
As one who refuses to vote, it would be the height of hypocracy for me to stand for elected office and ask for anyone else to vote for me. Besides which, I will not lower myself to participate in something as base and contemptible as politics. I have no lust for power, and I do not trust anyone who does.
So, it's fine by me that successive majority governments are chosen by fewer and fewer people. Politicians will never reform the system willingly. The system needs to fall into further disrepute before that happens.
Until then, we will continue to get the governments we deserve.
But many people are not interested anymore. They are uninformed, inactive and don't vote.
I am interested. I follow the news of the day and am informed about current political issues. I have belonged to a political party in the past and have volunteered on a number of election campaigns in a variety of capacities.
But I don't vote anymore, and I intend not to in the future. I learned a great deal from my past experiences, but the most important thing I learned is that the political elites have a vested interest in ensuring that the political system serves their own interests, rather than the interests of the citizenry. The best we can hope for is that those interests intersect at some point, but there are no guarantees.
I believe that the act of voting is like playing those games at a carnival. They are subtly rigged in favour of the people who run the carnival. By playing the game, you consent to be taken advantage of.
This way, politicians who do not care about the public good, get away with bad decisions.
I do not believe that there are any successful politicians who truly care about the public good.
My own observation is that the people who do care, and get involved for the right reasons are terribly disappointed by the way the political system really works. There is no place for principles and integrity and the most successful politicians are burdened with neither. So, once they get there, those people essentially have two choices: sell out and become part of the system they once vowed to reform, or return to private life and find other ways to contribute to the public good outside of the political system.
Sadly, the reality is that long-term politicians are the least fit to govern. They are petty little power mongers, more interested in looking after their own perceived interests than the interests of those they are supposed to represent.
Ultimately, the voters are to blame. Politicians who make unrealistic promises, are rewarded. We elect politicians who make poor decisions based on short-term political gain with no regard for the long-term consequences of those decisions. Why vote for the candidate who promises no short term benefits but moderate benefits down the line when the other guy is saying we can have our cake and eat it too?
It seems to me the only sensible thing left is to opt out of the system. Perhaps when enough people refuse to participate, there will be a crisis of confidence in the political system and the politicians will be compelled to make changes to improve the system.
Or perhaps not...
But I often notice that those people who complain the most, are the ones that don't vote.
Like I said before, I refuse to vote and my hands are completely clean. I am not responsible for who gets elected - that is the fault of the people who did vote. However, I am affected by the decisions those politicians make and that gives me every right to complain.
There are laws, and there is a functional, respected justice system. If terror suspects are accused of breaking a law, let the justice system do it's job. if the suspects are found to be guilty then they should be subjected to the appropriate punishment.
Justify to me why anything less is appropriate and/or acceptable.
I draw the line, though, at the release of documents that could in some way harm our troops and national security. THAT is traiterous and should be punished as such.
I simply do not understand:
Guantanamo Bay is a gulag where individuals are sent for indefinite detention and are subjected to torture.
Shame might explain the desire for secrecy, but I do not understand how decent people can justify the existence of such a place.
A lie is a statement, true or false, with an intent to deceive. That is now what happened.
I'm not so sure...
Bush has plausible deniability because he is as arrogant as he is ignorant. Such a person is easily manipulated.
The real decision makers (with all due respect to 'the decider') called for the invasion of Iraq years before the 9/11 attacks. If anything, the election of GWB made the invasion of Iraq a foregone conclusion. The only remaining detail was to justify such an invasion to the American public.
So, you have knowingly false statements and a demonstrated intent to deceive. What else do you need before you admit that the world was lied to?
It happened during the witchhunt, but it was a result of him perjuring himself. If he hadn't done that, there would not have been any impeachment, witchhunt or no.
Clinton lied to cover up the fact that he got a hummer from an intern. Bush/Cheney lied to start an unprovoked war of convenience.
Clinton was subjected to a political show trial that was (to borrow a phrase) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush/Cheney continue to operate as if the laws of the land do not apply to them.
The human cost of Clinton's lies are utterly insignificant. The same cannot cannot be said to be even remotely true for Bush/Cheney.
Yet Clinton was the president who was impeached...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same "scientific" field that once labeled homosexuality as a mental illness? That once advocated lobotomies for women who slept around?
Doctors used to treat their patients with leeches, or punch holes in a patient's skull to let the evil spirits out. I don't think that would justify equating modern medical professionals with witch-doctors. Of course, I am interested in a rational discussion - you may have other intentions.
Psychology is a very young discipline which involves the study of the most complex and intricate organ in the human body. Like any other scientific field, theories and beliefs which were considered to be true in the past have been refuted and replaced by better theories. Those theories are rigorously tested according to the scientific method, subject to strict ethical controls.
If you want to rant, go ahead and rant. If you want to challenge the science of psychology, leave the flamebait behind and offer some real arguments.
That invented electro-shock therapy, among other horrors?
Despite what you have seen at the movies, ECT is an effective treatment for some patients. It can be controversial for lay-people, but that is generally due false perceptions and misinformation. For patients at extreme risk, it would be un-ethical not to prescribe ECT.
BTW - what other "horrors" has psychology invented?
That produced "scientists" like Timothy Leary?
So, if one member of a group is discredited, one is entitled to discredit all members of that group?
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
America ain't communist, and communism seems to be on the decline. So it is kind of hard to disprove that the red-scare tactics didn't work.
I don't know if any reputable historians would agree with your implied premise that there was an actual, credible "communist" threat to the United States at any point in the past. If the threat never existed in the first place, it is kind of hard to disprove that drinking milk every day wasn't have an equivalent (or superior) deterrence against communism.
Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?
Assuming of course that there is an actual, credible terrorist threat...
I think a sense of proportionality is required here: there are thousands of aircraft flights in the United States every day. Over the past 10 years, exactly four flights were hijacked. On any given day in recent history, more people are killed by impaired drivers in the United States than are killed by terrorists.
And yet, some people applaud insulting and ineffectual security measures because it give the appearance that the government is doing something to protect them.
Sorry to break it to you dude, but terrorists are criminals, and the way to catch criminals is with boring, methodical police work. It's not glamorous, but it is effective. I (for one) find it hard to believe that making everyone remove their shoes at the airport has saved so much as a single life. At best, it might have given a woody to someone with a foot fetish, but that's about all that has been accomplished...
I really feel sorry that there are people out there who are so afraid that bogus security theater makes them feel safer. I hope that some day, they will realize that effective national security policies are not based on lame Hollywood movie plots.
>Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.
If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is something to be proud of...
We've liberated the French two times
FWIW, French intervention was required in order for the American Revolution to succeed.
Besides, the Americans were YEARS late joining WWI and WWII. The US made an important contribution, but why the delay in getting involved, if these wars were so important? I believe it was Churchill who said that the Americans never get involved in a war until they have determined which side is going to win...
and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam
So? It is speculated that GWB's grandfather made his fortune selling ammunition to the Nazis. Arms manufacturers will sell to anyone with money. If they were ethically inclined in the first place, they would probably not be dealing in weaponry.
during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
Fraud larger than Enron or Worldcom? I hope not, because the oil-for-food program was overseen by American administrators...
You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?
So, because they do something bad, it's OK for your government to do something bad too?
Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.
What a witty retort. I was going to make a remark that all neo-cons were inbred rednecks, but I suppose that would be equally understood as well.
Speaking of sex, I always wondered why there were no Upper Plane equivalent of Succubus. I mean, flirty fishing works and would be a perfect fit for Chaotic Good outsiders
In the Forgotten Realms pantheon, there is a goddess called Sharess who fits that bill.
I would have thought that Sune might be a contender, but her adherents are not unbridled hedonists.
Let's try a little experiment. Replace the jokes you thought I was over-reacting to with jokes that rely on out-of-date and false stereotypes about a religious or ethnic minority group. Are the jokes still funny? If I objected, would you still tell me to lighten up?
I have a daughter. My lady works part time so she can be home with the wee one most days. We didn't base this on gender, we based it on income. If she made more I'd be home.
And your point is?
I'm sorry, but your personal choices have no bearing on how the original post in this thread should be interpreted.
Oh wah.
That's what I like about/., the enlightened and insightful debate:)
I showed my lady the post and she laughed. It was a joke, nothing more, nothing less.
I understand that the post was probably intended to be funny. Back in the day, white vaudeville performers wearing black facepaint were intended to be funny too, but times have changed...
Considering that astrology was chief among those ancient endeavors that brought a whole raft of sciences into existence over time, I wouldn't be so quick to call it stupid.
I know that this was meant to be funny, but it really isn't.
Although I would like to think we have evolved a bit, there are a few too many guys around here that view slashdot as their private tree-house, and are afraid that girls will give them cooties.
I was going to give this post a pass, but the misogyny in some of the comments in this thread is simply unacceptable.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I had a daughter, I would want her to be able to choose the career she wants, rather than be limited to ones that society determines are gender-appropriate. I would like everyone else's daughter to have the same choice.
Before anyone flames me, I would like to point out that men and women are indeed different, and there's nothing wrong with finding humour in those differences. Jokes like the ones above should have died out with the rest of dinosaurs...
Slashdot Mirror
Rumour has it that those expenses are listed under more pedestrian line entries like "Catering" and/or "Fruit and Flowers".
As such, they become tax-deductible expenses!
Please don't use a term without defining it first:
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman
You do have a point.
However, it strikes me as very interesting that this same government which is more than willing to break the Kyoto treaty is willing to go above and beyond WIPO. I guess our commitment to treaty obligations varies on who the beneficiaries are...
That's not quite right. I suspect the real strategy is to get every subsequent government to enforce laws that are incrementally stronger than what is required by WIPO. Once the first cycle of legislation is complete, it can start over again with the first lot.
But you know what, I'm far more saddened than angered about this. What can I possibly do, when my government is passing legislation that is written by corporations from another country...
I think the real problem is the WTO. They are unelected, and apparently unaccountable, yet they draft treaties that affect hundreds of millions of people who had no say in any of it...
No, no - that's completely wrong!
Let's approach this scientifically:
So, the true test of whether (or not) a person is an alien is to see if they weigh as much as a duck. Anyone who does is obviously made of wood, and therefore a witch^D^D^D^D^Dalien!
Anyone failing this simple test can safely be burned at the stake, as their extra-terrestrial nature has been conclusively demonstrated.
In my case, it's not apathy - I refuse to participate in the current political system.
I believe that the act of voting provides a thin veneer of legitimacy to a process that otherwise does not warrant one.
The current system is broken. One of the parties can "win" a majority by attracting only 38% of the votes cast. Even though most of the votes were cast against the "winner", that party has the moral authority to govern as it sees fit until the next election. Adding further insult to injury, the other parties are accused of thwarting the will of the electorate if they oppose any of the governing party's legislation.
As one who refuses to vote, it would be the height of hypocracy for me to stand for elected office and ask for anyone else to vote for me. Besides which, I will not lower myself to participate in something as base and contemptible as politics. I have no lust for power, and I do not trust anyone who does.
So, it's fine by me that successive majority governments are chosen by fewer and fewer people. Politicians will never reform the system willingly. The system needs to fall into further disrepute before that happens.
Until then, we will continue to get the governments we deserve.
I am interested. I follow the news of the day and am informed about current political issues. I have belonged to a political party in the past and have volunteered on a number of election campaigns in a variety of capacities.
But I don't vote anymore, and I intend not to in the future. I learned a great deal from my past experiences, but the most important thing I learned is that the political elites have a vested interest in ensuring that the political system serves their own interests, rather than the interests of the citizenry. The best we can hope for is that those interests intersect at some point, but there are no guarantees.
I believe that the act of voting is like playing those games at a carnival. They are subtly rigged in favour of the people who run the carnival. By playing the game, you consent to be taken advantage of.
I do not believe that there are any successful politicians who truly care about the public good.
My own observation is that the people who do care, and get involved for the right reasons are terribly disappointed by the way the political system really works. There is no place for principles and integrity and the most successful politicians are burdened with neither. So, once they get there, those people essentially have two choices: sell out and become part of the system they once vowed to reform, or return to private life and find other ways to contribute to the public good outside of the political system.
Sadly, the reality is that long-term politicians are the least fit to govern. They are petty little power mongers, more interested in looking after their own perceived interests than the interests of those they are supposed to represent.
Ultimately, the voters are to blame. Politicians who make unrealistic promises, are rewarded. We elect politicians who make poor decisions based on short-term political gain with no regard for the long-term consequences of those decisions. Why vote for the candidate who promises no short term benefits but moderate benefits down the line when the other guy is saying we can have our cake and eat it too?
It seems to me the only sensible thing left is to opt out of the system. Perhaps when enough people refuse to participate, there will be a crisis of confidence in the political system and the politicians will be compelled to make changes to improve the system.
Or perhaps not...
Like I said before, I refuse to vote and my hands are completely clean. I am not responsible for who gets elected - that is the fault of the people who did vote. However, I am affected by the decisions those politicians make and that gives me every right to complain.
Your post is complete and utter nonsense.
There are laws, and there is a functional, respected justice system. If terror suspects are accused of breaking a law, let the justice system do it's job. if the suspects are found to be guilty then they should be subjected to the appropriate punishment.
Justify to me why anything less is appropriate and/or acceptable.
I simply do not understand:
Guantanamo Bay is a gulag where individuals are sent for indefinite detention and are subjected to torture.
Shame might explain the desire for secrecy, but I do not understand how decent people can justify the existence of such a place.
I'm not so sure...
Bush has plausible deniability because he is as arrogant as he is ignorant. Such a person is easily manipulated.
The real decision makers (with all due respect to 'the decider') called for the invasion of Iraq years before the 9/11 attacks. If anything, the election of GWB made the invasion of Iraq a foregone conclusion. The only remaining detail was to justify such an invasion to the American public.
So, you have knowingly false statements and a demonstrated intent to deceive. What else do you need before you admit that the world was lied to?
If gulags like Guantanamo Bay are required in order to win, is victory worth it?
Clinton lied to cover up the fact that he got a hummer from an intern. Bush/Cheney lied to start an unprovoked war of convenience.
Clinton was subjected to a political show trial that was (to borrow a phrase) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush/Cheney continue to operate as if the laws of the land do not apply to them.
The human cost of Clinton's lies are utterly insignificant. The same cannot cannot be said to be even remotely true for Bush/Cheney.
Yet Clinton was the president who was impeached...
Honestly - what's wrong with you people?
No offense dude, but membership in the grammar patrol isn't going to improve your prospects for getting laid...
Doctors used to treat their patients with leeches, or punch holes in a patient's skull to let the evil spirits out. I don't think that would justify equating modern medical professionals with witch-doctors. Of course, I am interested in a rational discussion - you may have other intentions.
Psychology is a very young discipline which involves the study of the most complex and intricate organ in the human body. Like any other scientific field, theories and beliefs which were considered to be true in the past have been refuted and replaced by better theories. Those theories are rigorously tested according to the scientific method, subject to strict ethical controls.
If you want to rant, go ahead and rant. If you want to challenge the science of psychology, leave the flamebait behind and offer some real arguments.
Despite what you have seen at the movies, ECT is an effective treatment for some patients. It can be controversial for lay-people, but that is generally due false perceptions and misinformation. For patients at extreme risk, it would be un-ethical not to prescribe ECT.
BTW - what other "horrors" has psychology invented?
So, if one member of a group is discredited, one is entitled to discredit all members of that group?
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
What difference would that make to the average /.'er? Who around here would notice if sex was taxed?
I don't think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Would you be kind enough to provide some justification for that remark, or should we assume you are just trolling?
Yes, it is an absurd notion. Completely and utterly absurd. Tragically, it appears to be true as well.
This is what passes as insightful nowadays? Feh!
I don't know if any reputable historians would agree with your implied premise that there was an actual, credible "communist" threat to the United States at any point in the past. If the threat never existed in the first place, it is kind of hard to disprove that drinking milk every day wasn't have an equivalent (or superior) deterrence against communism.
Assuming of course that there is an actual, credible terrorist threat...
I think a sense of proportionality is required here: there are thousands of aircraft flights in the United States every day. Over the past 10 years, exactly four flights were hijacked. On any given day in recent history, more people are killed by impaired drivers in the United States than are killed by terrorists.
And yet, some people applaud insulting and ineffectual security measures because it give the appearance that the government is doing something to protect them.
Sorry to break it to you dude, but terrorists are criminals, and the way to catch criminals is with boring, methodical police work. It's not glamorous, but it is effective. I (for one) find it hard to believe that making everyone remove their shoes at the airport has saved so much as a single life. At best, it might have given a woody to someone with a foot fetish, but that's about all that has been accomplished...
I really feel sorry that there are people out there who are so afraid that bogus security theater makes them feel safer. I hope that some day, they will realize that effective national security policies are not based on lame Hollywood movie plots.
I wonder if you might feel the same way if you (or someone you care about) was on the receiving end of such an 'awesome' prank?
What if someone had died? Would it still be awesome?
<sigh>
If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is something to be proud of...
FWIW, French intervention was required in order for the American Revolution to succeed.
Besides, the Americans were YEARS late joining WWI and WWII. The US made an important contribution, but why the delay in getting involved, if these wars were so important? I believe it was Churchill who said that the Americans never get involved in a war until they have determined which side is going to win...
So? It is speculated that GWB's grandfather made his fortune selling ammunition to the Nazis. Arms manufacturers will sell to anyone with money. If they were ethically inclined in the first place, they would probably not be dealing in weaponry.
Fraud larger than Enron or Worldcom? I hope not, because the oil-for-food program was overseen by American administrators...
So, because they do something bad, it's OK for your government to do something bad too?
What a witty retort. I was going to make a remark that all neo-cons were inbred rednecks, but I suppose that would be equally understood as well.
In the Forgotten Realms pantheon, there is a goddess called Sharess who fits that bill.
I would have thought that Sune might be a contender, but her adherents are not unbridled hedonists.
Holy crap!
Does this mean that the scientologists were right all along?
I don't know if I could cope with that. Where's my towel?
Let's try a little experiment. Replace the jokes you thought I was over-reacting to with jokes that rely on out-of-date and false stereotypes about a religious or ethnic minority group. Are the jokes still funny? If I objected, would you still tell me to lighten up?
And your point is?
I'm sorry, but your personal choices have no bearing on how the original post in this thread should be interpreted.
That's what I like about /., the enlightened and insightful debate :)
I understand that the post was probably intended to be funny. Back in the day, white vaudeville performers wearing black facepaint were intended to be funny too, but times have changed...
Sadly, some attitudes towards women have not.
People have been saying that for years, but somehow /. keeps going...
Astronomy != Astrology
I know that this was meant to be funny, but it really isn't.
Although I would like to think we have evolved a bit, there are a few too many guys around here that view slashdot as their private tree-house, and are afraid that girls will give them cooties.
I was going to give this post a pass, but the misogyny in some of the comments in this thread is simply unacceptable.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I had a daughter, I would want her to be able to choose the career she wants, rather than be limited to ones that society determines are gender-appropriate. I would like everyone else's daughter to have the same choice.
Before anyone flames me, I would like to point out that men and women are indeed different, and there's nothing wrong with finding humour in those differences. Jokes like the ones above should have died out with the rest of dinosaurs...