Naw. I'm an English major and I do graphic design, web design and read/.
The problem is when English majors think that their major is directly applicable in real life outside of teaching or some sort of literary field. Cos it's not. (OTOH it's really easy and I took lots of unrelated classes in school and became more well rounded, IMHO)
Well I'm sure some judges may be somewhat more lenient if the guilty party shows honest regret and willingness to change. But since Bill != MS, and MS has an impressive ability to piss off Judge Jackson (JJ to his pals), I don't think that Bill giving away loadsamoney is going to help him out.
My guess is this. The 5th Amendment prevents the government from confiscating property without compensating the owner. (which is good since my father is an eminent domain lawyer and it's a good practice for him;)
In this case it's fairly difficult to say what was gained illegally (exact dollar figure) and what wasn't (99.44% of source code is entirely legal).
MS' illegal gains are mostly just an advantage in the marketplace and are difficult to quantify or take.
Are you sure? I had a prepress job for quite a while (with a really craptastic RIP - flakey as hell, the imagesetter was no better) and while we would discuss sending a job to the RIP, or RIPping it, I can't see how that led to ripping audio. I think it probably _does_ come from 'rip off'
Hard drives capacities are pretty much unrelated to Moore's law (which is more of a guideline - it was originally IIRC 1 year, but they couldn't keep that up - last time I checked Intel's web site they claimed 2 years, so I guess they're having problems with the 1.5 year law;)
Paying for satellite transmissions is also a ripoff IMHO. If they're going to broadcast something into my property, why the hell shouldn't I be able to view it? There's no precedent for that at all - encouraging people to be blind and deaf to things that are out in the open.
It's not a copyright violation - I'm not copying anything (and if I were that may be covered as fair use, but that's not the point).
If it's were a shielded wire at least there's some token effort for it to be private, and that's much more respectable. (and telcos do not always need permission to string wires, depending on circumstances, natch)
OTOH, I don't mind if they encrypt it. I didn't say it had to be easy.
Disclaimer: I have a VHF/UHF antanna and that's it. It's cheap and it gets me The Simpsons which is about all I watch anymore.
Long ago when the Mac/Lisa GUI was under development they considered the idea of having menu bars in each window.
They rejected it for two reasons: 1. It was harder to move to the menu bar, b/c you had to think about it slightly more than you did when you just went up. 2. It behaved stupidly when the window was very narrow (exactly like Windows handles this)
Additionally, they had also screwed around with round windows, and things like that, but they ended up looking bad. Finding the photos of these things is _hard_. MacWeek ran some in a special 10th anniversary (of the Mac, not MacWeek) issue in 1994. Anyone got scans online?
You must not have seen the hilariously funny parking memo from back when Steve first reascended to the throne at Apple. To explain, Steve had just eliminated many perks in order to bring costs back in line. But what really broke the camel's back, and triggered the memo was that he started parking his car in the closest space to his office, which happened to be a handicapped spot.
The memo was: An Even More Entrepreneurial Apple As you can imagine, many of you have expressed your displeasure with our decision regarding the sabbatical program. All I can say is, "You ain't seen nothin' yet." You've all become lazy, and only contribute to Apple's current situation. The only way to save this company is to drive out the loyal employees who have not yet realized their inadequacy.
We are following up with additional steps which will take Apple back to its roots as a more entrepreneurial company. They are:
1. Lay-Offs In lieu of laying people off, we are redeploying unneeded workers as janitorial staff. Salaries will be adjusted accordingly.
2. Sick Time It will not longer be possible to call in sick. Any employee who cannot make it into work due to illness will need take a vacation day or go without pay.
3. Weekly Hours Pay checks will now be issued monthly for four 30-hour work weeks. However, each employee is required to work diligently on Apple business for at least 60 hours each week. Not meeting this requirement is a terminable offense.
4. Parking A daily fee will be charged for parking your car in any Apple lot or garage. Parking garages will cost $5 per day, and parking lots will cost $3.50 per day.
Only I will be allowed to park in handicapped spaces. Any other vehicle found parked in an Apple handicapped parking space will be towed. Persons who are physically disabled will receive a $5 reimbursement for towing expenses upon convincing the Executive Team that they are actually disabled.
Thank you for your support.
Steve and the Executive Team
Steve's reply was not as funny: While we all enjoy a good joke, the email sent to every Apple employee titled "An Even More Entrepreneurial Apple" was not sent by me. And it was not very funny.
Fraudulently using someone else's name is not a joke, and any employee found doing so will be immediately terminated.
Thanks,
Steve
However, it seems that Steve no longer parks (AFAIK) in the handicapped spot. Instead he got a helicopter which ferries him from his house to work. At least that's what I heard. So maybe Steve came up with the idea while cruising over the valley;) Any Apple employees willing to discuss this (anonymously perhaps)?
I wonder if CBS knows at all, given that it's probably the affiliate and not the network that just sold JAG. CBS will probably be pissed off when they find out though;)
Minor nit. Corporations, by their existence are giving up their right to free enterprise in exchange for certain special priviledges from the government (e.g. the much-vaunted limited liability).
If Joe Blow wants to sell tires out of his house, I say more power to him. But if he wants the added advantages that corporations get, IMHO he'd better not fuck the people (from whom all powers of the government and therefore all the special privileges of the corporation derive).
Going into business as an individual is admirable, and I encourage it completely. Creating a fictional individual to get the perks just has strings attached. There is no natural right to create such individuals, nor has there ever been in history.
Actually, and I hate to rain on your parade given that I also dislike the WTO over concerns of soverignty, the constitution explicity states that treaties (which are federal only) override state constitutions and laws.
The problem lies basically at the federal level however, and not with the Constitution. As I see it corporations have managed to find a nice loophole in the rule of law for and by the people. Corporations are frequently against popular laws, like those relating to environmental protection (for example). They have little hope of overturning them in an election, try though they do, and less hope of buying enough officials to do it.
But if they can get the officals to knuckle under to the WTO, their problem becomes a simpler one of controlling a largely anonymous, secretive international organization which is not accountable to anyone.
So now corporations can use the WTO (which has no actual power other than what our own leaders weld in it's name) like a boogeyman. If they don't like a law, get the WTO to rule against it. Will politicians oppose the ruling? No, of course not, and that's where the WTO actually gets its' power from.
IMHO, corporations should recieve special priviledges normally not given to non-actual people only in return for their acting in the best interests of all the communities in which they do business. Should a community no longer feel that the corporation is acting acceptably it would lose it's ability to exist in that area. In fact, this is as I understand, on the books, it's just been conveniently forgotten for a hundred years. But corporations no longer operate in the way that has benefits for the people at large, the people from whom they derive their very existance. Man what I wouldn't give for a change.
He may still find a loophole in 'adhering.' Can someone with an OED (I seem to have left mine in the pocket of my other coat;) check up on the meaning of adhere during the 18th century?
If it means that he is deliberately trying to help enemies that's quite different than helping them as a side effect (e.g. attacking Iraq probably helped Iran but that wasn't the intent, just a secondary result)
While UNIT has acted admirably on several occassions, they're hardly saints. Just look at the way that they massacred a bunch of Silurians when there was no need for it. Besides, the real threat is not asteroids crashing into the Earth, but time-traveling spaceships controlled by the inhabitants of the tenth planet.
I'll say. As I understand it the weird faceted shape was primarily governed by the poor computer models they had back when they were designing it. It's pretty stealthy, but is supposed to have the handling characteristics of a brick. Can't wait to see the new stuff.
Did I understate that I feel that powerful Americans are also responsible for this lousy state of affairs? They think that they WTO has power, and they respond accordingly. Unfortunately for us, those dopes themselves have power here and we get screwed over.
But I don't like there being a body which has very great and nearly-unassailiable power over me, but which is not accountable to me. The WTO is representative of governments (and largely of corporations), but that's not the same as being representative of the people. It should be, but it's not.
I don't care if Foosylvania imposes a tarriff on US goods for something. Because hopefully, that's what the people of Foosylvania want. But no one has the right to override Foosylvania's decision. There are consequences and ramifications to any act, and that one's not somehow exempt; you have to be prepared to live with the results of your actions. But I wouldn't want every other country in the world to suddenly tell them that they can go to hell unless that's actually what each and every one of them, on an individual basis, each representing the will of their people, wants. The WTO as it presently stands seems to not be doing this. That's my problem with them.
I disagree. I'm very much against going to war against anyone that doesn't go to war with us first. But how could I possibly look at myself in the mirror if I protested against actions taken by some other country which I had some issue with, but at the same time also conducted business as usual.
If someone wants to act in a way that Americans will react negatively to, they'd be kind of foolish to base their entire economy on trade with us. I'm not going to stop them from trading normally with anyone else, but at least I can use the voice of my wallet. It sometimes has a curious ability to be heard when my own voice is ignored.
Well here's the catch. I still believe in a representative democratic government, but I lean more towards the democratic side than the representative side. As far as I see it, the reasons for the US (at least) being a republic are based more in logistical issues and the idea that various elected government officials will do what's right for the people, taking into account their highly developed senses of morals and justice, et al. The first is no longer entirely a valid point, and I have severe doubts about the second in a lot of cases.
I don't really like the WTO because it's yet another step up, away from actual people. I don't believe that it can actually or accurately help or represent people being as far up in the clouds as it is. Instead the WTO's constituency seems to consist of governments and corporations, neither of which can be safely relied upon to preserve the best interests of the people whom they are supposed to be serving, IMHO.
As for American Imperialism, I personally don't care for it much. I'm actually a bit more of an isolationist. I think that America should lead by example, and not by bullying other nations and peoples around.
But this doesn't mean that we have to love tyrannical (for example) countries either. If Americans decide not to conduct business as usual with some country, then that's our call to make. If some country Foo decides that trade is more important than oppressing their people, they'll change. If not, they can do without.
Nor do I have no problem with America being subjected to the same criteria by others - we're hardly perfect, but I'd like to see if we could be.
You are totally missing the point, I think. I agree that no one should place tarriffs or other taxes or trade barriers on Internet-mediated commerce.
The problem is actually with the WTO. Their behavior has pretty solidly been to erode the soverignty that you and I enjoy (remember that 'We the People' thing?) in favor of self-serving multinational corporations.
Imagine that you have a good reason - a really DAMN good reason to impose a tariff on commerce, including that over the net. For instance some other country is directly or indirectly polluting the US, they killed your dog with it, and you want to make them stop. Or they kill their workers if they attempt to unionize. Or attempt to hold democratic elections. Or attempt to not get killed just because some fascist soldier didn't like their face.
Is this terribly far-fetched? Do you sincerely believe that it's morally okay to 1) accept other people doing that and not even care; or 2) protest on one hand but not back it up with any actions on the other? Do you think that you have the right to call yourself an American if you're willing to have your rights taken away? That you'd prefer it if other people couldn't enjoy the same kinds of freedoms we do?
Well, if the WTO says no tarriffs, then guess what? Your vote to establish tarriffs, your protests to do something that can realistically make things better, your fscking soverignty just went down the crapper. Thanks to a combination of over-powerful corporations, stupid politicians/bureaucrats and the WTO itself, your soverignty has been overridden.
In my book, no one, and I mean but no one should get away with ensuring that you and I no longer have a say in how our own damn country should function. That our votes and our god-given freedoms are ultimately worthless. If the framers of our government could hear this they'd probably regard it as the highest treason imaginable.
So while I am all for not having tarriffs on the net, that is small potatoes compared to some organization telling me that if every single enfranchised American votes to establish a tarriff we STILL can't have it.
MS is not doing us a favor, man. They are sugar-coating a knife so that we let them stick it in our backs. We need to radically change, or abolish, or leave the WTO altogether. There may have been good intentions in its' founding, but gee, guess what the road to hell is paved with?
This is _important_. MS is once again on the WRONG SIDE here. While what they propose seems to be a good idea to many of us here (who are fed up with governmental interference with the net), things would be much, much worse if MS succeeds.
The WTO has an abominable amount of power. Far too much, IMHO. Though it is not their original purpose, they basically exist now to overturn the sovereignty of the various (many) nations which are members in favor of international corporations.
If the WTO rules that US antitrust law, for instance, somehow harmed international trade and was in violation of the treaty, the US would have _no option_ but to revoke the law and submit to the WTO.
The WTO is a jillion times worse than our governments, because at least we have some hope of changing the way that our governments work. We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed.
Sure it sucks to have trade regulations on the net. But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns? Not only could a moritorium prevent cessession of trade with nations which had such practices or harmful effects on the planet or even yourself, but they have already done so in the past.
If you don't like the behavior of your government, fine. But for God's sake, wouldn't you rather have YOUR government listen to you and not to some faceless corporation-serving committee.
So let's not only encourage the WTO to take no action whatsoever, but encourage it's dissolution or at least an extreme change to a body which is founded on not just money but ethics as well.
Re:Did anyone see the Dinosaur preview?
on
Review:Toy Story 2
·
· Score: 1
The Dinosaur trailer had both real and CG elements. (but yeah, real water _is_ rendered nicely;)
Think back to what state of the art military technology was in the late 18th century. Muskets. Cannons. Ships that had thicker hulls than other ships. Forts with breastworks. There was not a hell of a lot of difference between the army and the militia.
And local militias with little or no training, awful morale, low if any pay and primitive guerilla tactics won against the British army, arguably one of the best in the world at the time.
Today the 2nd amendment is still actually valid. It is not enough to simply bomb a place, ultimately infantry must move in to hold it. The infantry, no matter what kind of technology they have backing them up as the Vietnamese War illustrated, are going to have problems with determined local guerillas. THAT'S why it's still good to have armed civilians.
Especially since it's quite rare for civilians to be the target of military actions, especially if they're your own civilians. It's a very counterproductive way of doing things.
The real key in case of armed rebellion of course would be to get some or all of the military on the side of the rebels _and_ once the rebellion is over have them keep their position as the servants of the people and not the lords. Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the military is not held in very high esteem anymore. They don't really deserve the poor treatment they've gotten in recent years. But alienating them from the people is a bad plan, IMHO.
Meanwhile, at Disco Stu's "Can't Stop the Learnin' Disco Academies"...
Disco Stu: [making indescribable body motions] Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!
[kicks his feet up on his desk wearing see-through platforms with water and fish inside]
Homer: Uh, your fish are dead.
Disco Stu: Yeah, I know. I... can't get them out of there.
Okay, so the NSA is complaining that they're overburdened. Good. Now let's treble the noise introduced into the system and write our congressmen to keep them from getting any additional funding.
We mustn't get satisfied here - If noise is constant then Moore's law alone will help them out. And this may all be misinformation, since if anyone would be aware of the utility of that it would be the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw. I'm an English major and I do graphic design, web design and read /.
The problem is when English majors think that their major is directly applicable in real life outside of teaching or some sort of literary field. Cos it's not. (OTOH it's really easy and I took lots of unrelated classes in school and became more well rounded, IMHO)
Well I'm sure some judges may be somewhat more lenient if the guilty party shows honest regret and willingness to change. But since Bill != MS, and MS has an impressive ability to piss off Judge Jackson (JJ to his pals), I don't think that Bill giving away loadsamoney is going to help him out.
My guess is this. The 5th Amendment prevents the government from confiscating property without compensating the owner. (which is good since my father is an eminent domain lawyer and it's a good practice for him
In this case it's fairly difficult to say what was gained illegally (exact dollar figure) and what wasn't (99.44% of source code is entirely legal).
MS' illegal gains are mostly just an advantage in the marketplace and are difficult to quantify or take.
IANAL
Yeah, but if we break him does candy come out?
I rather enjoyed:
It's Time For Lo-Tech Culture
Spiritual Cinema and Intellectual Property: The Movie
The Interactive Internet War - It's About Time
but my favorite was:
Why Do MP3s Feel Pain?
(So is the RIAA just acting humanely or what?)
Are you sure? I had a prepress job for quite a while (with a really craptastic RIP - flakey as hell, the imagesetter was no better) and while we would discuss sending a job to the RIP, or RIPping it, I can't see how that led to ripping audio. I think it probably _does_ come from 'rip off'
Hard drives capacities are pretty much unrelated to Moore's law (which is more of a guideline - it was originally IIRC 1 year, but they couldn't keep that up - last time I checked Intel's web site they claimed 2 years, so I guess they're having problems with the 1.5 year law ;)
Paying for satellite transmissions is also a ripoff IMHO. If they're going to broadcast something into my property, why the hell shouldn't I be able to view it? There's no precedent for that at all - encouraging people to be blind and deaf to things that are out in the open.
It's not a copyright violation - I'm not copying anything (and if I were that may be covered as fair use, but that's not the point).
If it's were a shielded wire at least there's some token effort for it to be private, and that's much more respectable. (and telcos do not always need permission to string wires, depending on circumstances, natch)
OTOH, I don't mind if they encrypt it. I didn't say it had to be easy.
Disclaimer: I have a VHF/UHF antanna and that's it. It's cheap and it gets me The Simpsons which is about all I watch anymore.
Long ago when the Mac/Lisa GUI was under development they considered the idea of having menu bars in each window.
They rejected it for two reasons:
1. It was harder to move to the menu bar, b/c you had to think about it slightly more than you did when you just went up.
2. It behaved stupidly when the window was very narrow (exactly like Windows handles this)
Additionally, they had also screwed around with round windows, and things like that, but they ended up looking bad. Finding the photos of these things is _hard_. MacWeek ran some in a special 10th anniversary (of the Mac, not MacWeek) issue in 1994. Anyone got scans online?
The memo was:
An Even More Entrepreneurial Apple
As you can imagine, many of you have expressed your displeasure with our decision regarding the sabbatical program. All I can say is, "You ain't seen nothin' yet." You've all become lazy, and only contribute to Apple's current situation. The only way to save this company is to drive out the loyal employees who have not yet realized their inadequacy.
We are following up with additional steps which will take Apple back to its roots as a more entrepreneurial company. They are:
1. Lay-Offs
In lieu of laying people off, we are redeploying unneeded workers as janitorial staff. Salaries will be adjusted accordingly.
2. Sick Time
It will not longer be possible to call in sick. Any employee who cannot make it into work due to illness will need take a vacation day or go without pay.
3. Weekly Hours
Pay checks will now be issued monthly for four 30-hour work weeks. However, each employee is required to work diligently on Apple business for at least 60 hours each week. Not meeting this requirement is a terminable offense.
4. Parking
A daily fee will be charged for parking your car in any Apple lot or garage. Parking garages will cost $5 per day, and parking lots will cost $3.50 per day.
Only I will be allowed to park in handicapped spaces. Any other vehicle found parked in an Apple handicapped parking space will be towed. Persons who are physically disabled will receive a $5 reimbursement for towing expenses upon convincing the Executive Team that they are actually disabled.
Thank you for your support.
Steve and the Executive Team
Steve's reply was not as funny:
While we all enjoy a good joke, the email sent to every Apple employee titled "An Even More Entrepreneurial Apple" was not sent by me. And it was not very funny.
Fraudulently using someone else's name is not a joke, and any employee found doing so will be immediately terminated.
Thanks,
Steve
However, it seems that Steve no longer parks (AFAIK) in the handicapped spot. Instead he got a helicopter which ferries him from his house to work. At least that's what I heard. So maybe Steve came up with the idea while cruising over the valley ;) Any Apple employees willing to discuss this (anonymously perhaps)?
I wonder if CBS knows at all, given that it's probably the affiliate and not the network that just sold JAG. CBS will probably be pissed off when they find out though ;)
Minor nit. Corporations, by their existence are giving up their right to free enterprise in exchange for certain special priviledges from the government (e.g. the much-vaunted limited liability).
If Joe Blow wants to sell tires out of his house, I say more power to him. But if he wants the added advantages that corporations get, IMHO he'd better not fuck the people (from whom all powers of the government and therefore all the special privileges of the corporation derive).
Going into business as an individual is admirable, and I encourage it completely. Creating a fictional individual to get the perks just has strings attached. There is no natural right to create such individuals, nor has there ever been in history.
Actually, and I hate to rain on your parade given that I also dislike the WTO over concerns of soverignty, the constitution explicity states that treaties (which are federal only) override state constitutions and laws.
The problem lies basically at the federal level however, and not with the Constitution. As I see it corporations have managed to find a nice loophole in the rule of law for and by the people. Corporations are frequently against popular laws, like those relating to environmental protection (for example). They have little hope of overturning them in an election, try though they do, and less hope of buying enough officials to do it.
But if they can get the officals to knuckle under to the WTO, their problem becomes a simpler one of controlling a largely anonymous, secretive international organization which is not accountable to anyone.
So now corporations can use the WTO (which has no actual power other than what our own leaders weld in it's name) like a boogeyman. If they don't like a law, get the WTO to rule against it. Will politicians oppose the ruling? No, of course not, and that's where the WTO actually gets its' power from.
IMHO, corporations should recieve special priviledges normally not given to non-actual people only in return for their acting in the best interests of all the communities in which they do business. Should a community no longer feel that the corporation is acting acceptably it would lose it's ability to exist in that area. In fact, this is as I understand, on the books, it's just been conveniently forgotten for a hundred years. But corporations no longer operate in the way that has benefits for the people at large, the people from whom they derive their very existance. Man what I wouldn't give for a change.
He may still find a loophole in 'adhering.' Can someone with an OED (I seem to have left mine in the pocket of my other coat ;) check up on the meaning of adhere during the 18th century?
If it means that he is deliberately trying to help enemies that's quite different than helping them as a side effect (e.g. attacking Iraq probably helped Iran but that wasn't the intent, just a secondary result)
While UNIT has acted admirably on several occassions, they're hardly saints. Just look at the way that they massacred a bunch of Silurians when there was no need for it. Besides, the real threat is not asteroids crashing into the Earth, but time-traveling spaceships controlled by the inhabitants of the tenth planet.
I'll say. As I understand it the weird faceted shape was primarily governed by the poor computer models they had back when they were designing it. It's pretty stealthy, but is supposed to have the handling characteristics of a brick. Can't wait to see the new stuff.
Did I understate that I feel that powerful Americans are also responsible for this lousy state of affairs? They think that they WTO has power, and they respond accordingly. Unfortunately for us, those dopes themselves have power here and we get screwed over.
But I don't like there being a body which has very great and nearly-unassailiable power over me, but which is not accountable to me. The WTO is representative of governments (and largely of corporations), but that's not the same as being representative of the people. It should be, but it's not.
I don't care if Foosylvania imposes a tarriff on US goods for something. Because hopefully, that's what the people of Foosylvania want. But no one has the right to override Foosylvania's decision. There are consequences and ramifications to any act, and that one's not somehow exempt; you have to be prepared to live with the results of your actions. But I wouldn't want every other country in the world to suddenly tell them that they can go to hell unless that's actually what each and every one of them, on an individual basis, each representing the will of their people, wants. The WTO as it presently stands seems to not be doing this. That's my problem with them.
I disagree. I'm very much against going to war against anyone that doesn't go to war with us first. But how could I possibly look at myself in the mirror if I protested against actions taken by some other country which I had some issue with, but at the same time also conducted business as usual.
If someone wants to act in a way that Americans will react negatively to, they'd be kind of foolish to base their entire economy on trade with us. I'm not going to stop them from trading normally with anyone else, but at least I can use the voice of my wallet. It sometimes has a curious ability to be heard when my own voice is ignored.
Well here's the catch. I still believe in a representative democratic government, but I lean more towards the democratic side than the representative side. As far as I see it, the reasons for the US (at least) being a republic are based more in logistical issues and the idea that various elected government officials will do what's right for the people, taking into account their highly developed senses of morals and justice, et al. The first is no longer entirely a valid point, and I have severe doubts about the second in a lot of cases.
I don't really like the WTO because it's yet another step up, away from actual people. I don't believe that it can actually or accurately help or represent people being as far up in the clouds as it is. Instead the WTO's constituency seems to consist of governments and corporations, neither of which can be safely relied upon to preserve the best interests of the people whom they are supposed to be serving, IMHO.
As for American Imperialism, I personally don't care for it much. I'm actually a bit more of an isolationist. I think that America should lead by example, and not by bullying other nations and peoples around.
But this doesn't mean that we have to love tyrannical (for example) countries either. If Americans decide not to conduct business as usual with some country, then that's our call to make. If some country Foo decides that trade is more important than oppressing their people, they'll change. If not, they can do without.
Nor do I have no problem with America being subjected to the same criteria by others - we're hardly perfect, but I'd like to see if we could be.
No, no, no no no.
No, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no no.
You are totally missing the point, I think. I agree that no one should place tarriffs or other taxes or trade barriers on Internet-mediated commerce.
The problem is actually with the WTO. Their behavior has pretty solidly been to erode the soverignty that you and I enjoy (remember that 'We the People' thing?) in favor of self-serving multinational corporations.
Imagine that you have a good reason - a really DAMN good reason to impose a tariff on commerce, including that over the net. For instance some other country is directly or indirectly polluting the US, they killed your dog with it, and you want to make them stop. Or they kill their workers if they attempt to unionize. Or attempt to hold democratic elections. Or attempt to not get killed just because some fascist soldier didn't like their face.
Is this terribly far-fetched? Do you sincerely believe that it's morally okay to 1) accept other people doing that and not even care; or 2) protest on one hand but not back it up with any actions on the other? Do you think that you have the right to call yourself an American if you're willing to have your rights taken away? That you'd prefer it if other people couldn't enjoy the same kinds of freedoms we do?
Well, if the WTO says no tarriffs, then guess what? Your vote to establish tarriffs, your protests to do something that can realistically make things better, your fscking soverignty just went down the crapper. Thanks to a combination of over-powerful corporations, stupid politicians/bureaucrats and the WTO itself, your soverignty has been overridden.
In my book, no one, and I mean but no one should get away with ensuring that you and I no longer have a say in how our own damn country should function. That our votes and our god-given freedoms are ultimately worthless. If the framers of our government could hear this they'd probably regard it as the highest treason imaginable.
So while I am all for not having tarriffs on the net, that is small potatoes compared to some organization telling me that if every single enfranchised American votes to establish a tarriff we STILL can't have it.
MS is not doing us a favor, man. They are sugar-coating a knife so that we let them stick it in our backs. We need to radically change, or abolish, or leave the WTO altogether. There may have been good intentions in its' founding, but gee, guess what the road to hell is paved with?
This is _important_. MS is once again on the WRONG SIDE here. While what they propose seems to be a good idea to many of us here (who are fed up with governmental interference with the net), things would be much, much worse if MS succeeds.
The WTO has an abominable amount of power. Far too much, IMHO. Though it is not their original purpose, they basically exist now to overturn the sovereignty of the various (many) nations which are members in favor of international corporations.
If the WTO rules that US antitrust law, for instance, somehow harmed international trade and was in violation of the treaty, the US would have _no option_ but to revoke the law and submit to the WTO.
The WTO is a jillion times worse than our governments, because at least we have some hope of changing the way that our governments work. We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed.
Sure it sucks to have trade regulations on the net. But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns? Not only could a moritorium prevent cessession of trade with nations which had such practices or harmful effects on the planet or even yourself, but they have already done so in the past.
If you don't like the behavior of your government, fine. But for God's sake, wouldn't you rather have YOUR government listen to you and not to some faceless corporation-serving committee.
So let's not only encourage the WTO to take no action whatsoever, but encourage it's dissolution or at least an extreme change to a body which is founded on not just money but ethics as well.
The Dinosaur trailer had both real and CG elements. (but yeah, real water _is_ rendered nicely ;)
Think back to what state of the art military technology was in the late 18th century. Muskets. Cannons. Ships that had thicker hulls than other ships. Forts with breastworks. There was not a hell of a lot of difference between the army and the militia.
And local militias with little or no training, awful morale, low if any pay and primitive guerilla tactics won against the British army, arguably one of the best in the world at the time.
Today the 2nd amendment is still actually valid. It is not enough to simply bomb a place, ultimately infantry must move in to hold it. The infantry, no matter what kind of technology they have backing them up as the Vietnamese War illustrated, are going to have problems with determined local guerillas. THAT'S why it's still good to have armed civilians.
Especially since it's quite rare for civilians to be the target of military actions, especially if they're your own civilians. It's a very counterproductive way of doing things.
The real key in case of armed rebellion of course would be to get some or all of the military on the side of the rebels _and_ once the rebellion is over have them keep their position as the servants of the people and not the lords. Personally, I think it's unfortunate that the military is not held in very high esteem anymore. They don't really deserve the poor treatment they've gotten in recent years. But alienating them from the people is a bad plan, IMHO.
Disco Stu: [making indescribable body motions] Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!
[kicks his feet up on his desk wearing see-through platforms with water and fish inside]
Homer: Uh, your fish are dead.
Disco Stu: Yeah, I know. I... can't get them out of there.
Okay, so the NSA is complaining that they're overburdened. Good. Now let's treble the noise introduced into the system and write our congressmen to keep them from getting any additional funding.
We mustn't get satisfied here - If noise is constant then Moore's law alone will help them out. And this may all be misinformation, since if anyone would be aware of the utility of that it would be the NSA.