My Android phone displays PowerPoint just fine thanks to Documents to Go. I'm fairly positive that they iPhone version as well..
I didn't mean to imply you couldn't do that, hence the smiley face... I was more sniping a little at the whole "PC vs Mac" joke and how people use the devices.
Many of the people buying smartphones specifically didn't want to do "business" activities. It is Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, not spreadsheets and concalls. The things like editing playlists was more important to them.
So, now everybody is finally realizing that most people use a computer differently than the traditional "word processing/spreadsheet/powerpoint" corporate model of computers over the last bunch of years. This is how Apple has tried to differentiate themselves by giving a software experience that was geared to media and people.
Portable devices and touch screens almost bring in a new paradigm of doing different things on "computery devices" -- a modern smartphone does things that were literally science fiction 20 years ago, possibly not even imagined.
If RIM didn't shift from being about business apps to media and consumer apps, they would fast become irrelevant.
I do. I seriously would never buy a phone with a Microsoft OS on it. Because I have a great, irrational fear (based on almost 20 years of Microsoft products) of something going horribly wrong or generally not being what I'd hoped.
For the same reason that I cringe when I see Ford commercials touting a Window experience in my car.
They have gotten better over the years, but there are certain kinds of consumer devices I'd rather not leave to Microsoft just yet.
Notice how the blackberry adds have shifted from being about business apps and security to how cool it is that you can edit a MP3 playlist.
Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Well, initially the Black Berry was a corporate device. Then a lot of consumers decided they want one so they could do messaging and email.
However, Apple and other manufacturers have been making smart phones which have way more consumer features than business and have been correspondingly taking a lot of market share away from RIM. In fact, I heard analysts saying the other week that while sales of BlackBerries are growing, they're not growing as fast as Apple and Android phones are. So, their corresponding market share is decreasing even while their sales are increasing -- they're just not increasing as fast as the rest of the market.
I'd say that they're getting very desperate. Like 'em or hate 'em, the iPhone and its ilk have become hugely popular for non business users -- arguably, a much larger market.
Of course, if you want to schedule a meeting or use powerpoint, get a Black Berry (or a PC;-).
Can someone explain to me how giving animals antibiotics promotes growth of the animals?
Basically, they use them as a broad-spectrum prophylactic against things that might otherwise affect them and make them less productive/healthy animals.
Essentially to compensate for industrial farming practices which are more or less awful conditions (cows enclosed in a stall standing in their own shit for hours at a stretch) they inoculate them against everything. They're also feeding them stuffthatwould make you cringe... mad cow came from feeding sheep-parts (brains) to the cows (herbivores) for instance to put more protein in their diet. The prions in the sheep brain crossed into the cow in a way that would never have happened without people intervening -- when was the last time you saw a bunch of cows standing around the carcass of a sheep?
Small scale farming (the way it was done for thousands of years) didn't have these problems because the conditions were different. Yes, cows could still get sick, and probably did. But, people weren't putting them in unsanitary conditions and feeding them part of other animals.
The antibiotics help to mitigate (in a non-specific way) some of the effects.
Well since nobody's invented what I will call "consumer-variable sound adjustment"
I'm not 100% sure of that.
As I understand it, the Dolby Digital spec actually included a definition for user selectable dynamic range compression. This allows for things like "midnight theatre" mode on DVD players. On my DVD player and Yamaha amp, both allow me to adjust the dynamic range compression to tweak it for my listening needs.
Contrast this with DTS, which AFAIK doesn't support any form of dynamic range compression... I can't use DTS on my amplifier, because my big-honking Yamaha amp wants to basically run at peak output, and is way too damned loud. (Once tried to watch Gladiator, I think... the background sounds were hella loud, and the dialog was quiet because it was tuned for movie theater volumes.) Some say DTS is "better" because it's a more "theater sound", but on my amp it is just way too loud since it doesn't support any form of compression to tone it down. I don't want to unleash all 700 watts or whatever it is.
So, either you're talking about the volume control (in which case I apologize for missing the sarcasm;-)... or, I will point out that Dolby Digital for DVDs actually did implement your "consumer-variable sound adjustment". Obviously TV and CDs don't seem to have the same setting, but someone did attempt to solve the problem.
However, I am glad that someone is finally enforcing that the car commercial shouldn't be louder than the action film I was watching. That is just plain wrong.
They said the tablet was running a brand new OS developed by QNX.
Meaning, this isn't the QNX you got on floppy, it's an OS built by those same people, but specifically for RIM for a tablet.
And, really, if someone is going to write an OS for a tablet, it should be somebody who created an OS that had a multiple tasking, windowing system with a web browser that could fit on a 1.4" floppy. It means that the overhead of the OS can fit into a small footprint.
'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels."
The CRIA was the ones who whined and lobbied so that all blank media in Canada has a surcharge on it to pay them for piracy. The led to the widespread conclusion that since we're already paying for it, we're allowed to. The courts have backed us up on this too.
And this is just hilarious:
The agency that collects music royalties in Canada on behalf of record companies and performing artists wants to charge web-based music sites that stream to mobile devices the greater of two figures: 45 per cent of the site's gross revenues in Canada or 7.5-tenths of a cent for every song streamed.
So, if it was a 99 cent song, they would either want 1 cent, or 45 cents -- since 45 cents is bigger, they'll take that.
Just how much money do they think they're entitled to? I don't download music, but I have little sympathy for these organizations. It's gotten to the point that I will burn a CD of MP3s for friends and not feel even a little guilty for it -- I've bought the CD, and I've paid the media tax... er, levy.
Hmm. Sounds like someone is trying to rationalize their contributions to the death of open computing.
*laugh* Or, like a pioneer who by buying a product that I want... I am enabling the flood of copycat products to reach the market which will allow you to tinker and have more choice.
I'm actually increasing your freedoms by making the market realize that people want touch screen tablets now dammit. Some of those will be open products that you can tweak as you fit. Someone will likely port Linux to it, even.
In the short term, I get the freedom of a product that does what I want and serves my needs. In the long term, we all get better tablet computing and people start making more products, expanding your personal and market options making you more free.
Thank me, bitches!! I'm helping pave the road for innovation.:-P
Not really owning or controlling your own hardware has some serious practical implications that are more than just "politics".
In what way don't I own my iPad? In what way can't I control it -- oh, you mean that since I can't run Apache on it or Linux I don't control it?? Are we still ranting over that old saw? Really? Just because you want to put Linux on your toaster and watch doesn't mean that all of us do.
The iTunes approach to interacting with the device is main reason why.
What, with buttons? Now you're bordering on incoherent... do you mean the iTunes store? The iTunes app? In what way am I restricted by iTunes that offends your sensibilities? Could it be the DRM that I don't use on the MP3s that I'm not supposed to be able to use?
Or do you mean the nice convenient app store instead of downloading a tar-ball, running autoconf and going through the tedious process of compiling and installing my own software, including resolving my own dependencies? The closest I get to that these days is the Ubuntu package manager. I have no interest in wading into that level of stuff -- I've done it for far too long.
Of course those of us with a clue are going to sound the warning bells. People like you want to swindle them.
Well, those of you who think you have a clue to the exclusion of the rest of us will continue to be rabid tools who think that the rest of us are wrong beyond redemption. Basically, you sound like a shrieking monkey. Do you know what "swindle" even means? I'm not "stealing" your alarm bells, I'm telling you that you might want to tone down the rhetoric a little. Or is disagreeing that we're all going to die because of Apple an act of dishonesty and sedition? In which case, you are officially batshit crazy.
Do you really think the "walled garden" of Apple is the death knell for individual rights and we're all being groomed for something nefarious? I just don't see it that way. In fact, I see it as a damned sight more convenient than the old days.
Mostly I hear people shrieking about how my choice to buy an iPad is a great sign of the apocalypse and soon we're going to have cats living with dogs and no remaining personal freedoms.
Why don't you just leave us to decide if it's a useful tool for us, and get over it? You're ranting on about some bogeyman and throwing around some innuendo, but you're not saying anything. You're just shouting your own inflexible position over and over.
ZOMG teh iPads are taking our freedoms away! Hide the women folk.
I bet you have them indexed and labelled with Roman numerals, too.:)
Nope. I do try to keep the stack chronological though. And, I wouldn't do it with roman numerals anyway -- just date ranges.:-P
But, for me having the notes to refer back to is actually helpful. Again, YMMV on how you track such stuff -- I like the notes to jog my memory or record decisions.
That said, the amount of paper I had to lug around sucked, so definitely an iPad or similar device would help. If I went back to school now, I can honestly say I would definitely try an electronic solution first, but if I felt any slower or that I couldn't get all the notes down, I would switch back.
After 15 years in the software industry, the old-fashioned black lab-book is still my preferred method of taking notes. I literally have a stack of them going back to the mid 90's, and occasionally dig out something to refer back to it.
YMMV, but for me, I still prefer to keep paper notes in parallel to things like email and whatever other electronic things I'm also using.
Convince everyone as they go through school that restrictive, vendor controlled platforms are the way things should be, and you'll make them all the more amenable to heavy DRM.
Or, you know, give people a device that does what they need in a more convenient form factor and leave the politics of free software out of it and stop whining about the purchasing choices other people make. Maybe even accept that their decisions are valid even if you don't get them.
But, hey, feel to paint issues in black and white as you see fit. God forbid someone thinks you're being alarmist and that they don't find the experience to be restrictive and limiting. Or, you know, I could go spend hours trying to find get a device working under Linux like I used to.
You know, 10 years ago the average person backed away from the rabid OSS people as they ranted on about more or less the same things because they came across as fanatical nut-jobs.
Thus far, I don't have any more DRM on my iPad as I do anywhere else, and I've only gotten free software -- of which there's tons of it out there.
Cheap advertising for McDonalds or does it transcend merely being a company and is more like a cultural identification in the USA?
Sadly, I think it is.
Probably in France the equivalent would be "how far are you from a Michelin starred restaurant?"
I don't think most French people regularly dine in Michelin starred restaurants. More like historically, even the peasants in France cooked really good, simple food that led to a food culture being fairly entrenched. That and the wine.
Mind you here in the UK it might be "how far are you from the nearest chippie?" to be fair.....
I swear to got, at least 1/3 if the country is physically addicted to Tim Horton's coffee here. (Though, that dreck that is Starbucks is growing in popularity.)
I'll answer your question with a question, because maybe, just maybe we don't hear about it via the mainstream US media: What good has the UN done for the USA lately?
How often has the US gone to the UN to apply sanctions to another country? How often has the US basically said "fuck it", and gone to war as a "coalition of the willing" when they had no evidence or reason to do it? You've been in Iraq for 8 years now, what has that done for anybody and in what way was it related to the stated goals? Has it actually made the world safer?
The US has the most individual freedoms (for now) and (in theory) one of the highest standards of living in the entire world -- other than legitimizing your foreign policy, what do you want the UN to do for you that is pressing? Does America need anybody fighting for their rights or to help their corporations get any richer?
The UN is for everybody. Saying that it hasn't uplifted your life this week doesn't get us anywhere. I'm not saying it's not flawed... we just don't have anything better, and getting rid of it puts us back to square one. But, hey, they haven't improved your life this week, so they're useless. Without the UN, the economic stability and political position of the US would be far diminished as a lot of other countries decide they don't want to play by your rules.
You don't really think the US would stick around if the UN passes a resolution that takes away or unnecessarily limits our freedom of speech, do you?
God, I would hope not. If the US doesn't keep fighting for rights (even within your own country I fear, for they're being eroded) then we're all screwed. Same goes for all countries which have tried to move forward on rights and freedoms. That's not what I'm advocating here.
If the UN truly does become a race to the bottom whereby we all get the most restrictive rights, I'll be right there with you in calling for its downfall.
Sounds like you are the buffoon here, bub.
Maybe. I've been called far worse by people I care far more about... but, my question still stands as to why I see a whole lot of blind reaction that amounts to "UN Bad" but I never see if explained or justified.
I'm not trying to bash you or the US, I'm legitimately trying to understand a very negative reaction I see a lot but can't quite piece together the source of it. It's usually in a context that implies that everything the UN does is bad and the whole thing has to go.
You may want to take protective measures (like arming yourself). You just pissed off a lot of people (if they read slashdot that is).
Only if they explicitly believe in the tooth fairy or embrace living in the stone age. I specifically didn't highlight any one group -- so, they would have to believe those things to be true of themselves before they could take offense.
And, if they do, good. If you have the critical reasoning skills to apply what I said to you, and take offense, then you're twice the idiot. (Not "you", but the expansive 3rd party you... I'm not asserting that *you* are an idiot; merely that there exist idiots.)
For all of its flaws, exactly how do you see the world without it? In what way would it be better?
The US pushed for the abolition of the predecessor League of Nations and pushed for the establishment of the UN. If we sever the only on-going diplomatic relations forum we have, what do you think will happen? Is the US going to take its ball and go home and try to force yet another organization on everybody so they can try to run the show?
Seriously, I want to know. Because, saying you should GTFO of the UN makes you sound like an uneducated buffoon who thinks the US should just go it alone and tell everybody else to piss off. The US is far from an island unto themselves, and as dependent on the workings of the UN as everybody else. The UN is the only way to try to get nations to at least work together without resorting to war.
If you're going to whine about the US giving up its sovereignty to the UN (which is bullshit), I might point out that the US is the one pushing Free Trade and ACTA on everybody else -- precisely so that everybody else will more or less be subject to US laws.
This whole "UN Bad" reaction from Americans has got to be the most bizarre knee-jerk reaction I see here on Slashdot (a lot actually). The rest of us just don't get it -- it sounds completely irrational and not founded in anything other than some ramblings of Rush Limbaugh.
So saying "The Russian government is wrong on this issue" could be considered an attack. Maybe that is taking it to the extreme, but what if it's "The Russian government is wrong and the Russian people shouldn't stand for it". And then there is the slightly more blunt "...and the Russian people should rise up against it". So at what point does that become aggression? I ask in all honesty, I feel like this could have a major chilling effect on negotiations between nations where legitimate arguments could be construed as aggression.
Sadly ever ass-hat oppressive regime who doesn't like to be criticized, and every stupid idiot who believes in the tooth fairy wants to remove my right to criticize them or point out that they're idiots. People who embrace living in the stone age want to make it illegal for me to say that they're stupid for doing so.
So, allow me to preemptively say... your country sucks if it takes away people's freedoms, your religion sucks if it confers an obligation on those of us who don't believe, your government sucks... well, your government probably sucks no matter where you are. I retain my right to give offense, and if you don't like it, too damned bad.
Any religion or government which can't stand some criticism should be banned.
I'm all for the UN, but increasingly the backwards and the stupid are pushing an agenda that wants to wipe out the last thousand years of progress in human endeavors.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to imply you couldn't do that, hence the smiley face ... I was more sniping a little at the whole "PC vs Mac" joke and how people use the devices.
Many of the people buying smartphones specifically didn't want to do "business" activities. It is Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, not spreadsheets and concalls. The things like editing playlists was more important to them.
So, now everybody is finally realizing that most people use a computer differently than the traditional "word processing/spreadsheet/powerpoint" corporate model of computers over the last bunch of years. This is how Apple has tried to differentiate themselves by giving a software experience that was geared to media and people.
Portable devices and touch screens almost bring in a new paradigm of doing different things on "computery devices" -- a modern smartphone does things that were literally science fiction 20 years ago, possibly not even imagined.
If RIM didn't shift from being about business apps to media and consumer apps, they would fast become irrelevant.
I do. I seriously would never buy a phone with a Microsoft OS on it. Because I have a great, irrational fear (based on almost 20 years of Microsoft products) of something going horribly wrong or generally not being what I'd hoped.
For the same reason that I cringe when I see Ford commercials touting a Window experience in my car.
They have gotten better over the years, but there are certain kinds of consumer devices I'd rather not leave to Microsoft just yet.
Well, initially the Black Berry was a corporate device. Then a lot of consumers decided they want one so they could do messaging and email.
However, Apple and other manufacturers have been making smart phones which have way more consumer features than business and have been correspondingly taking a lot of market share away from RIM. In fact, I heard analysts saying the other week that while sales of BlackBerries are growing, they're not growing as fast as Apple and Android phones are. So, their corresponding market share is decreasing even while their sales are increasing -- they're just not increasing as fast as the rest of the market.
I'd say that they're getting very desperate. Like 'em or hate 'em, the iPhone and its ilk have become hugely popular for non business users -- arguably, a much larger market.
Of course, if you want to schedule a meeting or use powerpoint, get a Black Berry (or a PC ;-).
Basically, they use them as a broad-spectrum prophylactic against things that might otherwise affect them and make them less productive/healthy animals.
Essentially to compensate for industrial farming practices which are more or less awful conditions (cows enclosed in a stall standing in their own shit for hours at a stretch) they inoculate them against everything. They're also feeding them stuff that would make you cringe ... mad cow came from feeding sheep-parts (brains) to the cows (herbivores) for instance to put more protein in their diet. The prions in the sheep brain crossed into the cow in a way that would never have happened without people intervening -- when was the last time you saw a bunch of cows standing around the carcass of a sheep?
Small scale farming (the way it was done for thousands of years) didn't have these problems because the conditions were different. Yes, cows could still get sick, and probably did. But, people weren't putting them in unsanitary conditions and feeding them part of other animals.
The antibiotics help to mitigate (in a non-specific way) some of the effects.
I'm not 100% sure of that.
As I understand it, the Dolby Digital spec actually included a definition for user selectable dynamic range compression. This allows for things like "midnight theatre" mode on DVD players. On my DVD player and Yamaha amp, both allow me to adjust the dynamic range compression to tweak it for my listening needs.
Contrast this with DTS, which AFAIK doesn't support any form of dynamic range compression ... I can't use DTS on my amplifier, because my big-honking Yamaha amp wants to basically run at peak output, and is way too damned loud. (Once tried to watch Gladiator, I think ... the background sounds were hella loud, and the dialog was quiet because it was tuned for movie theater volumes.) Some say DTS is "better" because it's a more "theater sound", but on my amp it is just way too loud since it doesn't support any form of compression to tone it down. I don't want to unleash all 700 watts or whatever it is.
So, either you're talking about the volume control (in which case I apologize for missing the sarcasm ;-) ... or, I will point out that Dolby Digital for DVDs actually did implement your "consumer-variable sound adjustment". Obviously TV and CDs don't seem to have the same setting, but someone did attempt to solve the problem.
However, I am glad that someone is finally enforcing that the car commercial shouldn't be louder than the action film I was watching. That is just plain wrong.
Cheers
You are right, I had every intention of doing so and got in a hurry. I'll go stand in the corner if the internet with a pointy hat on.
Oh, god, not the robe and wizard cap again. :-P
Steamboat Willie will still be copyrighted.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry about that. :-P
... who think that QNX is "brand new"???
Nobody said QNX was brand new.
They said the tablet was running a brand new OS developed by QNX.
Meaning, this isn't the QNX you got on floppy, it's an OS built by those same people, but specifically for RIM for a tablet.
And, really, if someone is going to write an OS for a tablet, it should be somebody who created an OS that had a multiple tasking, windowing system with a web browser that could fit on a 1.4" floppy. It means that the overhead of the OS can fit into a small footprint.
So, I'm condescending but you're both condescending and a hypocrite?
Sound about right? :-P
And nothing of value was lost. :-P
Or Gundam suits.
The CRIA was the ones who whined and lobbied so that all blank media in Canada has a surcharge on it to pay them for piracy. The led to the widespread conclusion that since we're already paying for it, we're allowed to. The courts have backed us up on this too.
And this is just hilarious:
So, if it was a 99 cent song, they would either want 1 cent, or 45 cents -- since 45 cents is bigger, they'll take that.
Just how much money do they think they're entitled to? I don't download music, but I have little sympathy for these organizations. It's gotten to the point that I will burn a CD of MP3s for friends and not feel even a little guilty for it -- I've bought the CD, and I've paid the media tax ... er, levy.
*laugh* Or, like a pioneer who by buying a product that I want ... I am enabling the flood of copycat products to reach the market which will allow you to tinker and have more choice.
I'm actually increasing your freedoms by making the market realize that people want touch screen tablets now dammit. Some of those will be open products that you can tweak as you fit. Someone will likely port Linux to it, even.
In the short term, I get the freedom of a product that does what I want and serves my needs. In the long term, we all get better tablet computing and people start making more products, expanding your personal and market options making you more free.
Thank me, bitches!! I'm helping pave the road for innovation. :-P
In what way don't I own my iPad? In what way can't I control it -- oh, you mean that since I can't run Apache on it or Linux I don't control it?? Are we still ranting over that old saw? Really? Just because you want to put Linux on your toaster and watch doesn't mean that all of us do.
What, with buttons? Now you're bordering on incoherent ... do you mean the iTunes store? The iTunes app? In what way am I restricted by iTunes that offends your sensibilities? Could it be the DRM that I don't use on the MP3s that I'm not supposed to be able to use?
Or do you mean the nice convenient app store instead of downloading a tar-ball, running autoconf and going through the tedious process of compiling and installing my own software, including resolving my own dependencies? The closest I get to that these days is the Ubuntu package manager. I have no interest in wading into that level of stuff -- I've done it for far too long.
Well, those of you who think you have a clue to the exclusion of the rest of us will continue to be rabid tools who think that the rest of us are wrong beyond redemption. Basically, you sound like a shrieking monkey. Do you know what "swindle" even means? I'm not "stealing" your alarm bells, I'm telling you that you might want to tone down the rhetoric a little. Or is disagreeing that we're all going to die because of Apple an act of dishonesty and sedition? In which case, you are officially batshit crazy.
Do you really think the "walled garden" of Apple is the death knell for individual rights and we're all being groomed for something nefarious? I just don't see it that way. In fact, I see it as a damned sight more convenient than the old days.
Mostly I hear people shrieking about how my choice to buy an iPad is a great sign of the apocalypse and soon we're going to have cats living with dogs and no remaining personal freedoms.
Why don't you just leave us to decide if it's a useful tool for us, and get over it? You're ranting on about some bogeyman and throwing around some innuendo, but you're not saying anything. You're just shouting your own inflexible position over and over.
ZOMG teh iPads are taking our freedoms away! Hide the women folk.
Nope. I do try to keep the stack chronological though. And, I wouldn't do it with roman numerals anyway -- just date ranges. :-P
But, for me having the notes to refer back to is actually helpful. Again, YMMV on how you track such stuff -- I like the notes to jog my memory or record decisions.
After 15 years in the software industry, the old-fashioned black lab-book is still my preferred method of taking notes. I literally have a stack of them going back to the mid 90's, and occasionally dig out something to refer back to it.
YMMV, but for me, I still prefer to keep paper notes in parallel to things like email and whatever other electronic things I'm also using.
Or, you know, give people a device that does what they need in a more convenient form factor and leave the politics of free software out of it and stop whining about the purchasing choices other people make. Maybe even accept that their decisions are valid even if you don't get them.
But, hey, feel to paint issues in black and white as you see fit. God forbid someone thinks you're being alarmist and that they don't find the experience to be restrictive and limiting. Or, you know, I could go spend hours trying to find get a device working under Linux like I used to.
You know, 10 years ago the average person backed away from the rabid OSS people as they ranted on about more or less the same things because they came across as fanatical nut-jobs.
Thus far, I don't have any more DRM on my iPad as I do anywhere else, and I've only gotten free software -- of which there's tons of it out there.
Sadly, I think it is.
I don't think most French people regularly dine in Michelin starred restaurants. More like historically, even the peasants in France cooked really good, simple food that led to a food culture being fairly entrenched. That and the wine.
Here in Canada, it's Tim Horton's :-P
I swear to got, at least 1/3 if the country is physically addicted to Tim Horton's coffee here. (Though, that dreck that is Starbucks is growing in popularity.)
Not "crave for it nightly". It's crave it fortnightly -- you know, every two weeks.
And, it was KFC not McD's.
Sadly, no.
How often has the US gone to the UN to apply sanctions to another country? How often has the US basically said "fuck it", and gone to war as a "coalition of the willing" when they had no evidence or reason to do it? You've been in Iraq for 8 years now, what has that done for anybody and in what way was it related to the stated goals? Has it actually made the world safer?
The US has the most individual freedoms (for now) and (in theory) one of the highest standards of living in the entire world -- other than legitimizing your foreign policy, what do you want the UN to do for you that is pressing? Does America need anybody fighting for their rights or to help their corporations get any richer?
The UN is for everybody. Saying that it hasn't uplifted your life this week doesn't get us anywhere. I'm not saying it's not flawed ... we just don't have anything better, and getting rid of it puts us back to square one. But, hey, they haven't improved your life this week, so they're useless. Without the UN, the economic stability and political position of the US would be far diminished as a lot of other countries decide they don't want to play by your rules.
God, I would hope not. If the US doesn't keep fighting for rights (even within your own country I fear, for they're being eroded) then we're all screwed. Same goes for all countries which have tried to move forward on rights and freedoms. That's not what I'm advocating here.
If the UN truly does become a race to the bottom whereby we all get the most restrictive rights, I'll be right there with you in calling for its downfall.
Maybe. I've been called far worse by people I care far more about ... but, my question still stands as to why I see a whole lot of blind reaction that amounts to "UN Bad" but I never see if explained or justified.
I'm not trying to bash you or the US, I'm legitimately trying to understand a very negative reaction I see a lot but can't quite piece together the source of it. It's usually in a context that implies that everything the UN does is bad and the whole thing has to go.
Only if they explicitly believe in the tooth fairy or embrace living in the stone age. I specifically didn't highlight any one group -- so, they would have to believe those things to be true of themselves before they could take offense.
And, if they do, good. If you have the critical reasoning skills to apply what I said to you, and take offense, then you're twice the idiot. (Not "you", but the expansive 3rd party you ... I'm not asserting that *you* are an idiot; merely that there exist idiots.)
For all of its flaws, exactly how do you see the world without it? In what way would it be better?
The US pushed for the abolition of the predecessor League of Nations and pushed for the establishment of the UN. If we sever the only on-going diplomatic relations forum we have, what do you think will happen? Is the US going to take its ball and go home and try to force yet another organization on everybody so they can try to run the show?
Seriously, I want to know. Because, saying you should GTFO of the UN makes you sound like an uneducated buffoon who thinks the US should just go it alone and tell everybody else to piss off. The US is far from an island unto themselves, and as dependent on the workings of the UN as everybody else. The UN is the only way to try to get nations to at least work together without resorting to war.
If you're going to whine about the US giving up its sovereignty to the UN (which is bullshit), I might point out that the US is the one pushing Free Trade and ACTA on everybody else -- precisely so that everybody else will more or less be subject to US laws.
This whole "UN Bad" reaction from Americans has got to be the most bizarre knee-jerk reaction I see here on Slashdot (a lot actually). The rest of us just don't get it -- it sounds completely irrational and not founded in anything other than some ramblings of Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, and the UN is also contemplating a ban on Defamation of Religion.
Sadly ever ass-hat oppressive regime who doesn't like to be criticized, and every stupid idiot who believes in the tooth fairy wants to remove my right to criticize them or point out that they're idiots. People who embrace living in the stone age want to make it illegal for me to say that they're stupid for doing so.
So, allow me to preemptively say ... your country sucks if it takes away people's freedoms, your religion sucks if it confers an obligation on those of us who don't believe, your government sucks ... well, your government probably sucks no matter where you are. I retain my right to give offense, and if you don't like it, too damned bad.
Any religion or government which can't stand some criticism should be banned.
I'm all for the UN, but increasingly the backwards and the stupid are pushing an agenda that wants to wipe out the last thousand years of progress in human endeavors.