We're part of the technological and economic elite. We want to help other countries only so long as it doesn't hurt us. Aprrently it now does. So down with capatalism and so on until I can post on slashdot 7.5h a day and check the server logs for 30 min each day and get 120k a year as a sys admin.... like in the late 90's.
Universal health care is expensive, but not that bad. Canada has it. It eats up our budget liek defence spedning eats up your but the ones who benifit are largly the ones who contribute. Why? because the poor don't knwo how to use it well, and the rich pay to use your system. So while we spend a lot of money on health care, we get it back in services. You spend a ass load on weapons and get back infrequent wars set to happen right when the bombs are about to expire.
I'd say "rpivatize" and "deregulate" are horrible things the gov is trying to convice us is a great thing. See california power industry. Rampant profiteering. All due to the lovly privatization. Same up here in canada. the gov wants to divest itself because someone will profit. some industries are so vital you don't want them run by just anyone.
Don't forget, Canada and the US have a free trade agreement. They will use any and all excuse to violate it (softwood tarrifs, pork tarrifs, corn tarrifs, beef tarrifs), while using the same agreements to shove their products down our throats. Even when the WTO rules againstt he US (softwood import tax decisions) they ignore it.
It's only through blind luck that canada is "up" in the deal (we trade a lot of resources down and also have a robust it industry), and because we have so much oil (33% of all the oil on earth). They don't want to push us too far, or else they'll have to invade to take that oil.
There's that nasty little statistic that people making 50k-100k a year (professionals and tradesmen) make up about 80% of the tax contributions. due to
1- Theres more of them 2- They don't have any real power as a group 3- Their not rich enough to dodge taxes and not poor enough to get sympathy formt he authorities
This supposed "corprate tax" doesn't really make much of a difference. Lets say the net income of all americans dropped by 500/year, thats going to affect tax revenue more then if GM/IBM/Ford/Coke/Pepsi dropped thier net profits by 500 million each.
I'm from edmonton, I'm desprately looking for a job in my field. I had one but the pay was unstable, the checks late and a whole slew of other problems. So now I work or telus is a less glorious job.
PS. Revenue canada investigates better thent he RCMP. I have seen them work, and their like wolves. Nothing you do can escape them. If you wanna catch osama, just tell revenue canada he owes canadian back taxes.
Your bank can honors those at their descretion. If they chose not to it's up to your bank. Laws vary state to state though, some states still allow any draft to carry legal weight.
Except 99.999% of banks makes you sign an agreement you will only use bank issued checks for any transactions. So you could not make a check out of say, your first born. And expect the bank to honor it.
You just said "your wrong" using bigger words. How am I incorrect. NA/European Feminists and enviromentalists fight the easy causes and spend efforts in the worng place. This earns my distain. You haven't said why? Look at your arguement, your restating an opinion.
I unsertand the pragmatic reason why they choose the easy causes. Look at the movements, you'll notice it's generally the easy causes that get media attention and support. Now how is my generalization incorrect? Do you see many colledge activists going to the amazon to protest logging? How about the Arm chair feminists, do you see them going to iran? You see them support laws that stop them from logging the old growth forest, but my old ecology prof think thats insane because the demand for wood is there, if you can't fufill it here they go somewhere else and those forests are pretty but generally worthless to the ecology of earth.
I have no distain for feminists liek the iranian author who is fighting for the rights of women in iran. I distain NA/European feminist and enviromentalists who fight the easy battles and lets the important ones go bye. But I understand why they do this.
North American/European Feminists are like North American/European enviromentalists, they pick easy targets that get a lot of press an attention but do almost nothing for the real cause. Why? because although they value a certain point of view, their lazy and cowards. Not that I can blame them too much. It's one thing to tie yourself to a tree in front of law abiding, and generally nice american loggers, it's another to do so in front of Brazillian loogers who don't give a shit if you die. It's one thing to champion the cause of players of a video game but a very very different thing to champion the rights of iranian women. I wouldn't do the hard stuff myself either but if your foaming at the mouth for this cause, think for a moment...
is the american spotted owl really worth the effort when theres a wholesale slaughter of animals and plants goign on in brazil is a small side effect of not cutting down the owls tree?
"Push comes to shove, anyway you look at it, any biologist will tell you that males are naturally stronger in nature and therefore are naturally considered superior without making exceptions to humans."
You really should say human males because in nature females have the tendancy to be a- the only useful sex in the species. b- stronger, bigger and better suited to their environ. c- not be expendable while males are completely expendable.
"Ghandi did this, and at least once a month you hear about a union doing it. It's called a strike, and as I'm sure you can attest to is very effective. The world's most effective way of getting what you want is through direct, non-violent protest."
err. slight revisionist history there. Violence is the most effective way to get what you want in "most" circumstances If you have the right force, a strike or protest is effective in some cases. Ghandi was one force amongst many that drove the british out, but another were the indian terrorists. The holocaust was one reason Isreal was made, another were the jewish terrorists. Martin Luthur King was one reason the civil rights movement advanced, Malcom X and the threat of nation wide rioting was another.
It's more splitting hairs then anything. A law or a theory doesn't have a official test for one to graduate to the other. The "law" of gravity is wrong in most cases due to quantum effects in large scale or minute scales. It's more about tradition then it is about classification.
Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
You do realise the neo cons have wanted iraq for a long long time. How convienient that all this terrorists shit should happen at the start or a republican presidents reign.
The bush party managed to discredit richard clarke at home but as a citizen of Canada it wasn't convincing. It does seem a bit too convient to ignore.
"Was there anything wrong in June 13, 2004, when 156 million people voting with pen and paper elected 732 Members of the European Parliament to represents 450 million citizens? I quote those numbers to menonstrate that simple pen and paper can scale enormously. I don't think that Americans are less skilled than Europeans and cannot count paper ballots in an election on much lower scale such as the US presidential election."
Given the result of the last election I'd say the assertion that americans are less skilled then europeans at voting and vote counting seems to be true. At the very least in florida.
That was enlightening, thanks. I have nothing against the japanese people. I admire the fact that that Yamoto could even hold off the US fleet with all their communications compromised. I despise the leaders who would allow something as horrible as Nanking and it is the censoring of information reguarding Nanjing that I feel is one of the current generations/governments worst crime, just as I feel the lack of information regauding the canadian native residential schools to something Canada can be ashamed of currently.
I know civillians rarley want a war, they'd rather live in peace like Germany, The US, Japan, and Britian has now.
Germany was also a country to admire, resource strapped in both wars, they managed to hold off all the developed countries for 10 years at a time through ingenuity and tactical brilliance.
As for the nukes, The british and the americans killed fare more with their phororous bombs. The impact of the nukes was far greater psychologically. 1 bomb could destroy a city. But more people died in dresden then in Nagasaki.
I agree, targetting civillians causes undue sufferign and doesn't advance the cause. They can hide military factories (or protect them) but civillian masses are much harder to protect and it doesn't serve a very big tactical atvantage.
If your don't awknolege your mistaks you repeat them. The germans and the japanese were commiting genocide, the Americans (which I am not) and the british were out to win a war, and a seemingly defensive one. The americans rebuilt japan, the japanese annihalated several dozen asian countries. The germans rapaged across europe. The british helped the germans become a industrial power again after bombing them to bits. The nukes killed no more then the conventional bomings did and much less then the japanese killed. All japanese casualties in WWII is fully eclipsed by the number of chinese civilians they massacred.
They have yet to say sorry officially while the germans have be guilt wracked for a generation. There are WWII apologists all over america, where are the japanese apologists?
"Too bad you can't buy them online...and ironically the page is hosted by a Japanese company, one of the North's most despised "enemies" "
A great many people still despise japan. They were much worse then the Nazi's in many ways, they killed far more innocent people and behaved much much worse to everybody they conquered. They also never apologized and didn't really care that they are some of the greatest villians in modern history.
Don't assume the curve is exponential, it is more likly to be a logrithmic curve and we're just on the psuedo exponential portion. there are limits to everything, nothing is truly exponential.
What gets me is that you think that the leaders aren't these killers. History has shown us that they usually are the worst of them, and that leadership selects against the nurse Brantts who let morals get in the way of power and obedience.
Now I didn't say anything about who the killers were. Good Leaders are nessacarily semi-A morale (the good ones at least) and gets done what needs to be done. Good leaders do this for their people and partly for themselves bad leaders either can't do this or do things for themselves more then for the people they lead. How is having a killer as a leader bad? I'm not talking Moa or Stalin I'm talking Sun Tsu and Alexander. I don't get this "nurse brantts" allusion? was it part of the article?
There is no selection for good leaders directly. It's more a selection for good followers and also the presence of "leader" genes in the gene pool.
Libertarians think we are all intelligent automous entities when most of us are marginally self aware dependants. Thats why libertarian ideas tend to be so ludicrously dumb. For some the ideas might work but the dumb ass who sued Mcdonalds for scalding herself with coffee royally cock up a libertarian society and they are the majority.
Remember that classic experiment where volenteers are hired and think their aids in a study, the study is applying electrical shocks to a unseen but "heard" party. Remember how the vast majority of people will blindly follow orders and "kill" the test subject. Thats how people are, mindless automitons to authority. Mindless automotons to their ideology (think demo vs repubs), mindless automotons to their vices (video game addicts like me or the other true addicts as well as consumerism).
We aren't truly logical intellegent people on the whole. Just a collection of followers peppered by a few leaders.
"To say that "the US" is capable of doing anything, that is pawning off responsibility."
How so? I am not a US citizen or a person who could influence Us policy so the US invasion of Iraq was not my responsibility or even vaguely a action that I would be directly affeted by.
Slashdot Mirror
We're part of the technological and economic elite. We want to help other countries only so long as it doesn't hurt us. Aprrently it now does. So down with capatalism and so on until I can post on slashdot 7.5h a day and check the server logs for 30 min each day and get 120k a year as a sys admin.... like in the late 90's.
Universal health care is expensive, but not that bad. Canada has it. It eats up our budget liek defence spedning eats up your but the ones who benifit are largly the ones who contribute. Why? because the poor don't knwo how to use it well, and the rich pay to use your system. So while we spend a lot of money on health care, we get it back in services. You spend a ass load on weapons and get back infrequent wars set to happen right when the bombs are about to expire.
I'd say "rpivatize" and "deregulate" are horrible things the gov is trying to convice us is a great thing. See california power industry. Rampant profiteering. All due to the lovly privatization. Same up here in canada. the gov wants to divest itself because someone will profit. some industries are so vital you don't want them run by just anyone.
Don't forget, Canada and the US have a free trade agreement. They will use any and all excuse to violate it (softwood tarrifs, pork tarrifs, corn tarrifs, beef tarrifs), while using the same agreements to shove their products down our throats. Even when the WTO rules againstt he US (softwood import tax decisions) they ignore it.
It's only through blind luck that canada is "up" in the deal (we trade a lot of resources down and also have a robust it industry), and because we have so much oil (33% of all the oil on earth). They don't want to push us too far, or else they'll have to invade to take that oil.
There's that nasty little statistic that people making 50k-100k a year (professionals and tradesmen) make up about 80% of the tax contributions. due to
1- Theres more of them
2- They don't have any real power as a group
3- Their not rich enough to dodge taxes and not poor enough to get sympathy formt he authorities
This supposed "corprate tax" doesn't really make much of a difference. Lets say the net income of all americans dropped by 500/year, thats going to affect tax revenue more then if GM/IBM/Ford/Coke/Pepsi dropped thier net profits by 500 million each.
I'm from edmonton, I'm desprately looking for a job in my field. I had one but the pay was unstable, the checks late and a whole slew of other problems. So now I work or telus is a less glorious job.
PS. Revenue canada investigates better thent he RCMP. I have seen them work, and their like wolves. Nothing you do can escape them. If you wanna catch osama, just tell revenue canada he owes canadian back taxes.
Your bank can honors those at their descretion. If they chose not to it's up to your bank. Laws vary state to state though, some states still allow any draft to carry legal weight.
Except 99.999% of banks makes you sign an agreement you will only use bank issued checks for any transactions. So you could not make a check out of say, your first born. And expect the bank to honor it.
You just said "your wrong" using bigger words. How am I incorrect. NA/European Feminists and enviromentalists fight the easy causes and spend efforts in the worng place. This earns my distain. You haven't said why? Look at your arguement, your restating an opinion.
I unsertand the pragmatic reason why they choose the easy causes. Look at the movements, you'll notice it's generally the easy causes that get media attention and support. Now how is my generalization incorrect? Do you see many colledge activists going to the amazon to protest logging? How about the Arm chair feminists, do you see them going to iran? You see them support laws that stop them from logging the old growth forest, but my old ecology prof think thats insane because the demand for wood is there, if you can't fufill it here they go somewhere else and those forests are pretty but generally worthless to the ecology of earth.
I have no distain for feminists liek the iranian author who is fighting for the rights of women in iran. I distain NA/European feminist and enviromentalists who fight the easy battles and lets the important ones go bye. But I understand why they do this.
North American/European Feminists are like North American/European enviromentalists, they pick easy targets that get a lot of press an attention but do almost nothing for the real cause. Why? because although they value a certain point of view, their lazy and cowards. Not that I can blame them too much. It's one thing to tie yourself to a tree in front of law abiding, and generally nice american loggers, it's another to do so in front of Brazillian loogers who don't give a shit if you die. It's one thing to champion the cause of players of a video game but a very very different thing to champion the rights of iranian women. I wouldn't do the hard stuff myself either but if your foaming at the mouth for this cause, think for a moment...
is the american spotted owl really worth the effort when theres a wholesale slaughter of animals and plants goign on in brazil is a small side effect of not cutting down the owls tree?
"Push comes to shove, anyway you look at it, any biologist will tell you that males are naturally stronger in nature and therefore are naturally considered superior without making exceptions to humans."
You really should say human males because in nature females have the tendancy to be
a- the only useful sex in the species.
b- stronger, bigger and better suited to their environ.
c- not be expendable while males are completely expendable.
Malakai, derived from the hebrew word MALACHI. Has little to do with Mal-adjusted.
It's hebrew for mesenger. Also commonly used for "angels".
"Ghandi did this, and at least once a month you hear about a union doing it. It's called a strike, and as I'm sure you can attest to is very effective. The world's most effective way of getting what you want is through direct, non-violent protest."
err. slight revisionist history there. Violence is the most effective way to get what you want in "most" circumstances If you have the right force, a strike or protest is effective in some cases. Ghandi was one force amongst many that drove the british out, but another were the indian terrorists. The holocaust was one reason Isreal was made, another were the jewish terrorists. Martin Luthur King was one reason the civil rights movement advanced, Malcom X and the threat of nation wide rioting was another.
Real change takes more then just protests.
It's more splitting hairs then anything. A law or a theory doesn't have a official test for one to graduate to the other. The "law" of gravity is wrong in most cases due to quantum effects in large scale or minute scales. It's more about tradition then it is about classification.
You do realise the neo cons have wanted iraq for a long long time. How convienient that all this terrorists shit should happen at the start or a republican presidents reign.
The bush party managed to discredit richard clarke at home but as a citizen of Canada it wasn't convincing. It does seem a bit too convient to ignore.
"Was there anything wrong in June 13, 2004, when 156 million people voting with pen and paper elected 732 Members of the European Parliament to represents 450 million citizens? I quote those numbers to menonstrate that simple pen and paper can scale enormously. I don't think that Americans are less skilled than Europeans and cannot count paper ballots in an election on much lower scale such as the US presidential election."
Given the result of the last election I'd say the assertion that americans are less skilled then europeans at voting and vote counting seems to be true. At the very least in florida.
That was enlightening, thanks. I have nothing against the japanese people. I admire the fact that that Yamoto could even hold off the US fleet with all their communications compromised. I despise the leaders who would allow something as horrible as Nanking and it is the censoring of information reguarding Nanjing that I feel is one of the current generations/governments worst crime, just as I feel the lack of information regauding the canadian native residential schools to something Canada can be ashamed of currently.
I know civillians rarley want a war, they'd rather live in peace like Germany, The US, Japan, and Britian has now.
Germany was also a country to admire, resource strapped in both wars, they managed to hold off all the developed countries for 10 years at a time through ingenuity and tactical brilliance.
As for the nukes, The british and the americans killed fare more with their phororous bombs. The impact of the nukes was far greater psychologically. 1 bomb could destroy a city. But more people died in dresden then in Nagasaki.
I agree, targetting civillians causes undue sufferign and doesn't advance the cause. They can hide military factories (or protect them) but civillian masses are much harder to protect and it doesn't serve a very big tactical atvantage.
If your don't awknolege your mistaks you repeat them. The germans and the japanese were commiting genocide, the Americans (which I am not) and the british were out to win a war, and a seemingly defensive one. The americans rebuilt japan, the japanese annihalated several dozen asian countries. The germans rapaged across europe. The british helped the germans become a industrial power again after bombing them to bits. The nukes killed no more then the conventional bomings did and much less then the japanese killed. All japanese casualties in WWII is fully eclipsed by the number of chinese civilians they massacred.
They have yet to say sorry officially while the germans have be guilt wracked for a generation. There are WWII apologists all over america, where are the japanese apologists?
"Too bad you can't buy them online...and ironically the page is hosted by a Japanese company, one of the North's most despised "enemies"
"
A great many people still despise japan. They were much worse then the Nazi's in many ways, they killed far more innocent people and behaved much much worse to everybody they conquered. They also never apologized and didn't really care that they are some of the greatest villians in modern history.
Don't assume the curve is exponential, it is more likly to be a logrithmic curve and we're just on the psuedo exponential portion. there are limits to everything, nothing is truly exponential.
What gets me is that you think that the leaders aren't these killers. History has shown us that they usually are the worst of them, and that leadership selects against the nurse Brantts who let morals get in the way of power and obedience.
Now I didn't say anything about who the killers were. Good Leaders are nessacarily semi-A morale (the good ones at least) and gets done what needs to be done. Good leaders do this for their people and partly for themselves bad leaders either can't do this or do things for themselves more then for the people they lead. How is having a killer as a leader bad? I'm not talking Moa or Stalin I'm talking Sun Tsu and Alexander. I don't get this "nurse brantts" allusion? was it part of the article?
There is no selection for good leaders directly. It's more a selection for good followers and also the presence of "leader" genes in the gene pool.
Libertarians think we are all intelligent automous entities when most of us are marginally self aware dependants. Thats why libertarian ideas tend to be so ludicrously dumb. For some the ideas might work but the dumb ass who sued Mcdonalds for scalding herself with coffee royally cock up a libertarian society and they are the majority.
Remember that classic experiment where volenteers are hired and think their aids in a study, the study is applying electrical shocks to a unseen but "heard" party. Remember how the vast majority of people will blindly follow orders and "kill" the test subject. Thats how people are, mindless automitons to authority. Mindless automotons to their ideology (think demo vs repubs), mindless automotons to their vices (video game addicts like me or the other true addicts as well as consumerism).
We aren't truly logical intellegent people on the whole. Just a collection of followers peppered by a few leaders.
"To say that "the US" is capable of doing anything, that is pawning off responsibility."
How so? I am not a US citizen or a person who could influence Us policy so the US invasion of Iraq was not my responsibility or even vaguely a action that I would be directly affeted by.