Yes, the problem is when you've got 10 locals with college degrees in computer engineering who are unemployed and you bring in 90 "outsiders" with computer engineering degrees, the 10 original individuals are very unlikely to want to flip burgers for a living just because Omnicorp Inc. decided it would be cheaper to hire a bunch of foreigners.
There still better off flipping burgers (or whatever), than being unemployed. However you'll notice I hedged my comment with "in theory." That's because in the RealWorld(tm), what would probably happen is that 10 locals with college degrees AND computer engineering jobs, will be replaced by 5 foreigners from whom Omnicorp (even if they don't pay lower salaries per se) will be able to squeeze out twice the amount of labour.
Still, in theory, it's all roses. And to be fair, the foreigners will inevitably stimulate some level of local demand for goods and services. What is debatable is whether that demand will create more jobs than they are removing and that is an empirical question which we cannot resolve here by recourse to mere reason.
If you have 10 people and none of them have jobs, you have 100% unemployment. If you then bring in 90 people with jobs and keep the 10 people with no jobs, you have 100 people and only 10% unemployment.
OK, you made me laugh. But...
Theoretically you should get an even lower UE rate. You see those 90 people with jobs will need someone to serve them burgers when they go McDonalds. If 3 of the original 10 unemployed get jobs serving the needs of those 90, leaving you with a 7% UE rate, and, more importantly, with a lower number of unemployed people. That, at least in theory, is how bringing in skilled labour is meant to reduce unemployment.
Yup a language invented by Dutch guy living in the US, can't get much more British than that can we?;) Yes, yes I know, Monty and all that, but I would still prefer the games should to be written in BCPL
For my two cents, this, "onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway," is where we disagree.
IF there was reliable data widely available, we'd be on the same page, but when the incumbent's government is the only group with access to the full data set, they're the ones who should be demonstrating that the election was fair.
Perhaps we don't disagree as much as you imagine. I agree completely that transparency in government and most especially in the electoral process is a vital componenet of a healthy (representative) democracy. And demands for greater transarency, for the release of election data etc. ought to be made. As I already noted, I'm not claiming that this election was in fact free and fair.
However there is a world of difference between being dubious about the fairness of an election and making a positive allegation of electoral fraud unsupported by evidence. Serious wrong doing (whether it be witchcraft -to borrow AC's example, or fraud) should never be presumptively held as established. The price of abandoning the Affirmanti principle is too heavy to be contemplated.
Since the source IS the journalist in this case, it is entirely inappropriate to strip them of their anonymity.
Is it entirely appropriate for a court to interfere with the right of a newspaper to publish what they have discovered by investigative journalism, (in this case the name of an anonymous blogger) when such publication involves no untruth or defamation? Eady J thought not, and refused to issue an order gag order.
I guess this comes down to which right one regards as paramount. The right to anonymity or the freedom of the press.
You mean aside from the bizarre statistical anomalies? I'm starting to get a distinct "la la la I can't hear you"
You're absolutely correct, once I read "did not find significant indications of fraud" I cannot hear anyone talking about statistical anomalies. Well no, not absolutely correct, there's no "la la la" about it. It's just the same cold uncompromising "I can't hear you" a Judge will give if you attempt to submit irrelevant evidence.
You clearly either haven't read the stat breakdown on the official results, don't understand what they mean, or are a lvl 23 Erudite Troll.
Hey FU buddy, I'm at least a lvl 30!;) You're probably correct about my lack of understanding, so maybe you can help me with this. Quoting from TFA:
... a statistically sharp approach to statistical testing--taking the multiple testing into account--fails to provide evidence against the hypothesis that the second digits are distributed according to Benford's Law. Tests based on the means of the second digits also fail to suggest any deviation from
the second-digit Benford's Law distribution...
I've taken on board the fact that hetrogeneity of the data might obscure local problems, but that's not really relevant since the onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway. I've also taken on board that the non-sharp approach (ie looking at one of the candidates results) might lead one to another conclusion. As to the other (non-significant) anomalities in his modified conclusion Mebane observes:
In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political processes.... These natural aspects of the election results stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which most of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are negative.... It appears that the specification using the two conditioning variables... does not fully capture the baseline support for the candidates or the pattern of new mobilization.... It is not possible given only the current data to say whether this reflects natural complexity in the political processes or artificial manipulations.
I admit I lack the confidence with stats (1978 was the last time I had to look at stats in any deeper way than merely applying tests of significance), to make a call on non-significant results. I get nervous when statisticians talk about "impressions" in place of "significance." Perhaps you can educate me here and convince me why I should draw conclusions based on non-significant results?
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this issue.... What, in fact, is your deal?
I avidly opposed to theocracy as a form of government, a fortiori a nuclear armed theocracy. I am opposed to the Iranian regime even though I don't live there (some might point out it is none of my business). I don't consider A'jad to be entirely a sane man (though by the standards of his culture he may well be). I would dearly have loved to see him defeated (and he may still be, extra-democratically).
However I also endorse an evidence based view of reality, and I don't think it is valid to construe the world in a way which lacks evidence merely on the basis that I might like it to be that way. I believe that, unpalatable though we may find it, we might have to accept that a majority of Iranians disagree with us. Moreover, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary (eyewitness, statistical, or whatever), I strongly believe the only (rebuttable) presumption we are entitled to draw (upon evidence-based criteria) is that the election result reflects the will of the majority of Iranian voters. To draw any other conclusion in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary is, IMHO, to fall victim to the trap of believing in one's own propaganda.
Did you actually read the poll? The numbers are a month old, before significant events in the campaigns took place. The numbers show 34% to 14% with the rest being essentially noncommital. That's a far cry from supporting the vote results.
A'jad leading > 2:1 in committed votes. 27% were not committed. So, all other things being equal, we would assume that that 27% would split more or less the same way (ie. 34:14) on the actual day. Not that far a cry at all.
Yes, we ought to not mistake absence of evidence for implying anything.
Good, we agree on something.
... it's really odd that every event that is suspicious just happened to help Ahmedinejad.
In the event the uncomitted vote split less in A'jad's favour (though still overwhelmingly in his favour) than we were entitled to presume based on the committed vote alone. What suspicious events are we talking about here?
Finally, someone's expertise is difficult to assert in a post.... how about reading the rest of his posts? Or as a shortcut, just look for his resume.
Again we agree. I explicitly stated that I did not dispute Cole's greater knowledge and that my comments were restricted to that particular post.
There's a difference between having enough ballots counted to make a statistical prediction of who will win and the ones running the election officially declaring a winner.
Juan Cole politely tells you that you're full of shit here.... Go read him.
He has a different opinion, yes. Personally I find his analysis far from persuasive.
IMHO he overemphasises the "culture wars" of a decade ago (if they ever existed as he imagines) and completely ignores appeal of A'jad jingositic nationalism, ineed he completely ignores the last 4 years of A'jad. Moreover Cole's assumption that support for Khatami in 2000 is indicative of a the success of moderates against religionists seems a little odd if we remember that Khatami was himself a cleric and indeed a sayad. Nor do can I accept that issues of class (at least if we use that terms in a more expansive sense than an old-school Marxist might) and "culture wars" can neatly be separated.
Cole's greatest failing, however, is that he simply ignores that actual data. He fails to present any statistical evidence of election fraud? He fails to account for the fact that nationwide polling showed A'jad receiving a level of support more or less in the order of the eventual result? Even intelligent and reasonably well informed people can fall victim to believing what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence suggests.
He knows more about this than you do.
I would not dispute that, but nothing in the particular posting you linked to indicates so. I suggest you go back to that article, and read some of the responses, especially those from people with 1st hand knowledge and those citing empirical evidence. These comments pretty much dispose of Cole's analysis.
NOTE: Nothing I have written should be taken to imply that I'm making any assertion that voting fraud did not take place. Rather my point is that in the absence of solid evidence of fraud, and in the light of previous polling we ought not to presume fraud.
Iran uses paper ballots. In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes. In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours. That's just not plausible.
As someone who lives in a country which uses paper ballots, I find no lack of plausibility in the speed of the result. We usually know the result of the election within 4-6 hours of the booths closing. Although it takes longer to get final figures (especially if recounts are triggered) it would have to be an extremely close election to have to wait for the final figure to know who won (and indeed for the loser to conceed).
Given no significant statistical problem has been identified, and given that independant telephone polling prior to the election indicated that A'jad enjoyed a 2:1 lead over his rival, the most parsimonious explanation might simply be that A'jad actaully does enjoy the overwhelming support of the Iranian population.
Until such time that some plausible evidence of irregularities is presented, that should be the presumption we work on. The question of whether we personally want A'jad to have won or not, ought not to colour our intepretation of the results.
QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.
Yes, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the election didn't come out the way we wanted and it didn't come out in the way the minority of Iranians with internet access wanted. Do we really need to be scientific when questioning the credibility of a result we don't like and which (if it isn't the result of manipulation) reflects the views of the under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses?
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
Sneaky wordplay? OP merely pointed out that 'unlawful file-sharing' has little actual similarity to 'theft.' Which is obvious if you consider what theft actually is, ie basically the physical taking away of a thing (capable of being stolen) that you have no right to, with an intention permanently to deprive the rightful ownwer of said thing.
The sneaky wordplay here entirely the province of those who would have us believe that copyright infringment is somehow similar to piracy, theft, terrorism or any other species of wrongdoing with which it actually shares few (if any) characteristics. Copyright infringement is instead the doing of an act (copying) which another person has an exclusive statutory right to do. Copyright is not even a thing capable of being stolen.
There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies. How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?
You've answered your own question. For profit corporations are not good research vehicles, because they are too efficient at raising profits. This means they will efficiently allocate resources to researching technology with obvious (near) immediate commercial returns. So yes, you'll get research on longer lasting batteries (if only so that they can be patented and kept off the market as long as possible), and GM, etc. However the areas of science which might be today's equivalent to the physics of electricity or of genetics will not be discovered by this kind of effcient R&D.
Corporate research is excellent at delivering technological improvements, less so at fostering scientific innovation.
We have to overcome diseases of all kinds, because that is the first step to immortality.
Way to go man like there aren't enough people 'round even with built-in obsolensence! Anyway, if you live forever, how can you hope to get to heaven.;)
Actually, the internet didn't really change anything.
At the core of this are still very old principles and the original form of the relevant law.
Hear, hear!
Unfortunately what the internet did do, was to effect a wave panic among legislatures world-wide that the very old principles might not suffice. A panic, which the lobbying of groups of the ilk of RIAA did nothing to assauge. To the obvious result...
The old law has been bent out of shape and as become badly unbalanced.
Traditionally IP law sought to strike a balance between the interests of producers of creative goods and their consumers (ie. the general public). Now it seems the balance to be found is that between the interests of those companies creating devices capable of copying digital media and those creating IP.
OP having observed from TFA the Cos "have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US," then proceded to ask "This seems to me to imply that if it were a religion..." ie. in France since it is in the US, "... then a different set of standards for its behaviors would apply. I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass..." What was the point again?
mattack2 was simply saying the reason they are able to prosecute The Church of Scientology in France but not in the United States is because the First Amendment
Which would be a rather stunning non sequitur in response to the question of whether a "different set of standards... would apply" if it were a regligion in France.
I'm not sure how you got the idea anyone was suggesting that the First Amendment of the US Constitution would apply in France.
If to the question why would CoS be treated differently in France if it were a religion you give the answer "[B]ecause of a little something called the First Amendment" you are suggesting that the 1st Amendment applies in France. Can you not see that?
I believe that the Earth has only been around for about 6,000 years.... I believe that Adam and Eve were created "with age," and not created as newborn babies... Do I have proof of this? No, it's faith, I'll admit that. But you really can't prove I'm wrong either.
The moment there is any onus to prove wrong someone who makes claims without any proof of these claims, a fortiori claims as extraordiary and implausible as these, we are in real trouble. Perhaps it would be best for your to heed St Augustine's warning that accepting ancient Hebrew mythology as scientific facts is a misuse of scripture?
Additionally, these three inrgedients are not cola exclusive. Coffee...
Yeah when I read the "caffeine" (not to mention sucrose) bit it got me wondering, "hmm maybe drinking all this really strong coffee with two sugars is somehow connected to the increasing muscle pain I'm experiencing." So I had another drink of the double-shot flat white 2 sugars in front of me. You know you've got to get right back on your horse when you fall off.
Damn pesky scientists making all these discoveries all the time. Someone oughta can their funding!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the problem is when you've got 10 locals with college degrees in computer engineering who are unemployed and you bring in 90 "outsiders" with computer engineering degrees, the 10 original individuals are very unlikely to want to flip burgers for a living just because Omnicorp Inc. decided it would be cheaper to hire a bunch of foreigners.
There still better off flipping burgers (or whatever), than being unemployed. However you'll notice I hedged my comment with "in theory." That's because in the RealWorld(tm), what would probably happen is that 10 locals with college degrees AND computer engineering jobs, will be replaced by 5 foreigners from whom Omnicorp (even if they don't pay lower salaries per se) will be able to squeeze out twice the amount of labour.
Still, in theory, it's all roses. And to be fair, the foreigners will inevitably stimulate some level of local demand for goods and services. What is debatable is whether that demand will create more jobs than they are removing and that is an empirical question which we cannot resolve here by recourse to mere reason.
If you have 10 people and none of them have jobs, you have 100% unemployment. If you then bring in 90 people with jobs and keep the 10 people with no jobs, you have 100 people and only 10% unemployment.
OK, you made me laugh. But ...
Theoretically you should get an even lower UE rate. You see those 90 people with jobs will need someone to serve them burgers when they go McDonalds. If 3 of the original 10 unemployed get jobs serving the needs of those 90, leaving you with a 7% UE rate, and, more importantly, with a lower number of unemployed people. That, at least in theory, is how bringing in skilled labour is meant to reduce unemployment.
To qualify, games must be written in Python.
Yup a language invented by Dutch guy living in the US, can't get much more British than that can we? ;) Yes, yes I know, Monty and all that, but I would still prefer the games should to be written in BCPL
For my two cents, this, "onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway," is where we disagree. IF there was reliable data widely available, we'd be on the same page, but when the incumbent's government is the only group with access to the full data set, they're the ones who should be demonstrating that the election was fair.
Perhaps we don't disagree as much as you imagine. I agree completely that transparency in government and most especially in the electoral process is a vital componenet of a healthy (representative) democracy. And demands for greater transarency, for the release of election data etc. ought to be made. As I already noted, I'm not claiming that this election was in fact free and fair.
However there is a world of difference between being dubious about the fairness of an election and making a positive allegation of electoral fraud unsupported by evidence. Serious wrong doing (whether it be witchcraft -to borrow AC's example, or fraud) should never be presumptively held as established. The price of abandoning the Affirmanti principle is too heavy to be contemplated.
By the way, Does Britain even have "free speech"?
Somewhat more after this ruling it seems.
Since the source IS the journalist in this case, it is entirely inappropriate to strip them of their anonymity.
Is it entirely appropriate for a court to interfere with the right of a newspaper to publish what they have discovered by investigative journalism, (in this case the name of an anonymous blogger) when such publication involves no untruth or defamation? Eady J thought not, and refused to issue an order gag order.
I guess this comes down to which right one regards as paramount. The right to anonymity or the freedom of the press.
You mean aside from the bizarre statistical anomalies? I'm starting to get a distinct "la la la I can't hear you"
You're absolutely correct, once I read "did not find significant indications of fraud" I cannot hear anyone talking about statistical anomalies. Well no, not absolutely correct, there's no "la la la" about it. It's just the same cold uncompromising "I can't hear you" a Judge will give if you attempt to submit irrelevant evidence.
You clearly either haven't read the stat breakdown on the official results, don't understand what they mean, or are a lvl 23 Erudite Troll.
Hey FU buddy, I'm at least a lvl 30! ;) You're probably correct about my lack of understanding, so maybe you can help me with this. Quoting from TFA:
... a statistically sharp approach to statistical testing--taking the multiple testing into account--fails to provide evidence against the hypothesis that the second digits are distributed according to Benford's Law. Tests based on the means of the second digits also fail to suggest any deviation from the second-digit Benford's Law distribution ...
I've taken on board the fact that hetrogeneity of the data might obscure local problems, but that's not really relevant since the onus of proof clearly lies with those alleging fraud anyway. I've also taken on board that the non-sharp approach (ie looking at one of the candidates results) might lead one to another conclusion. As to the other (non-significant) anomalities in his modified conclusion Mebane observes:
In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political processes. ... These natural aspects of the election results stand in contrast to the unusual pattern in which most of the notable discrepancies between the support Ahmadinejad actually received and the support the model predicts are negative. ... It appears that the specification using the two conditioning variables ... does not fully capture the baseline support for the candidates or the pattern of new mobilization. ... It is not possible given only the current data to say whether this reflects natural complexity in the political processes or artificial manipulations.
I admit I lack the confidence with stats (1978 was the last time I had to look at stats in any deeper way than merely applying tests of significance), to make a call on non-significant results. I get nervous when statisticians talk about "impressions" in place of "significance." Perhaps you can educate me here and convince me why I should draw conclusions based on non-significant results?
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this issue. ... What, in fact, is your deal?
I avidly opposed to theocracy as a form of government, a fortiori a nuclear armed theocracy. I am opposed to the Iranian regime even though I don't live there (some might point out it is none of my business). I don't consider A'jad to be entirely a sane man (though by the standards of his culture he may well be). I would dearly have loved to see him defeated (and he may still be, extra-democratically).
However I also endorse an evidence based view of reality, and I don't think it is valid to construe the world in a way which lacks evidence merely on the basis that I might like it to be that way. I believe that, unpalatable though we may find it, we might have to accept that a majority of Iranians disagree with us. Moreover, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary (eyewitness, statistical, or whatever), I strongly believe the only (rebuttable) presumption we are entitled to draw (upon evidence-based criteria) is that the election result reflects the will of the majority of Iranian voters. To draw any other conclusion in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary is, IMHO, to fall victim to the trap of believing in one's own propaganda.
Right, and my response was an attempt to point out that the entire premise of your "LOL dumb hicks" argument was suspect.
Unfortunately the authority you appealed to in that attempt is probably wrong in this instance.
Of course, it's already been pointed out that the uniformity of the vote results are statistically improbable
No significant indications of electoral fraud were found.
It was a (badly) rigged election.
That is an opinion unsupported by evidence.
Did you actually read the poll? The numbers are a month old, before significant events in the campaigns took place. The numbers show 34% to 14% with the rest being essentially noncommital. That's a far cry from supporting the vote results.
A'jad leading > 2:1 in committed votes. 27% were not committed. So, all other things being equal, we would assume that that 27% would split more or less the same way (ie. 34:14) on the actual day. Not that far a cry at all.
Yes, we ought to not mistake absence of evidence for implying anything.
Good, we agree on something.
In the event the uncomitted vote split less in A'jad's favour (though still overwhelmingly in his favour) than we were entitled to presume based on the committed vote alone. What suspicious events are we talking about here?
Finally, someone's expertise is difficult to assert in a post.... how about reading the rest of his posts? Or as a shortcut, just look for his resume.
Again we agree. I explicitly stated that I did not dispute Cole's greater knowledge and that my comments were restricted to that particular post.
There's a difference between having enough ballots counted to make a statistical prediction of who will win and the ones running the election officially declaring a winner.
Please re-read the last 7 words you quoted.
Juan Cole politely tells you that you're full of shit here. ... Go read him.
He has a different opinion, yes. Personally I find his analysis far from persuasive.
IMHO he overemphasises the "culture wars" of a decade ago (if they ever existed as he imagines) and completely ignores appeal of A'jad jingositic nationalism, ineed he completely ignores the last 4 years of A'jad. Moreover Cole's assumption that support for Khatami in 2000 is indicative of a the success of moderates against religionists seems a little odd if we remember that Khatami was himself a cleric and indeed a sayad. Nor do can I accept that issues of class (at least if we use that terms in a more expansive sense than an old-school Marxist might) and "culture wars" can neatly be separated.
Cole's greatest failing, however, is that he simply ignores that actual data. He fails to present any statistical evidence of election fraud? He fails to account for the fact that nationwide polling showed A'jad receiving a level of support more or less in the order of the eventual result? Even intelligent and reasonably well informed people can fall victim to believing what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence suggests.
He knows more about this than you do.
I would not dispute that, but nothing in the particular posting you linked to indicates so. I suggest you go back to that article, and read some of the responses, especially those from people with 1st hand knowledge and those citing empirical evidence. These comments pretty much dispose of Cole's analysis.
NOTE: Nothing I have written should be taken to imply that I'm making any assertion that voting fraud did not take place. Rather my point is that in the absence of solid evidence of fraud, and in the light of previous polling we ought not to presume fraud.
Iran uses paper ballots. In the past elections it has taken at least three days for Iran to count the votes. In this case, if the results are to be believed it took a matter of hours. That's just not plausible.
As someone who lives in a country which uses paper ballots, I find no lack of plausibility in the speed of the result. We usually know the result of the election within 4-6 hours of the booths closing. Although it takes longer to get final figures (especially if recounts are triggered) it would have to be an extremely close election to have to wait for the final figure to know who won (and indeed for the loser to conceed).
Given no significant statistical problem has been identified, and given that independant telephone polling prior to the election indicated that A'jad enjoyed a 2:1 lead over his rival, the most parsimonious explanation might simply be that A'jad actaully does enjoy the overwhelming support of the Iranian population.
Until such time that some plausible evidence of irregularities is presented, that should be the presumption we work on. The question of whether we personally want A'jad to have won or not, ought not to colour our intepretation of the results.
QED. The null hypothesis was not rejected, therefore your study determined nothing. Speculation is not science.
Yes, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the election didn't come out the way we wanted and it didn't come out in the way the minority of Iranians with internet access wanted. Do we really need to be scientific when questioning the credibility of a result we don't like and which (if it isn't the result of manipulation) reflects the views of the under-educated rural religiouly conservative masses?
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
Sneaky wordplay? OP merely pointed out that 'unlawful file-sharing' has little actual similarity to 'theft.' Which is obvious if you consider what theft actually is, ie basically the physical taking away of a thing (capable of being stolen) that you have no right to, with an intention permanently to deprive the rightful ownwer of said thing.
The sneaky wordplay here entirely the province of those who would have us believe that copyright infringment is somehow similar to piracy, theft, terrorism or any other species of wrongdoing with which it actually shares few (if any) characteristics. Copyright infringement is instead the doing of an act (copying) which another person has an exclusive statutory right to do. Copyright is not even a thing capable of being stolen.
There is surely a market for long lasting batteries, and as in the case of GM, companies have been investing heavily in new technologies. How is getting some public governmental research entity started going to be remotely cost effective and efficient, because we all know that government departments are the model of efficiency?
You've answered your own question. For profit corporations are not good research vehicles, because they are too efficient at raising profits. This means they will efficiently allocate resources to researching technology with obvious (near) immediate commercial returns. So yes, you'll get research on longer lasting batteries (if only so that they can be patented and kept off the market as long as possible), and GM, etc. However the areas of science which might be today's equivalent to the physics of electricity or of genetics will not be discovered by this kind of effcient R&D.
Corporate research is excellent at delivering technological improvements, less so at fostering scientific innovation.
We have to overcome diseases of all kinds, because that is the first step to immortality.
Way to go man like there aren't enough people 'round even with built-in obsolensence! Anyway, if you live forever, how can you hope to get to heaven. ;)
Ah, but can you say that you do expect a revolution or civil war within 2 decades?
Actually, the internet didn't really change anything. At the core of this are still very old principles and the original form of the relevant law.
Hear, hear!
Unfortunately what the internet did do, was to effect a wave panic among legislatures world-wide that the very old principles might not suffice. A panic, which the lobbying of groups of the ilk of RIAA did nothing to assauge. To the obvious result ...
The old law has been bent out of shape and as become badly unbalanced.
Traditionally IP law sought to strike a balance between the interests of producers of creative goods and their consumers (ie. the general public). Now it seems the balance to be found is that between the interests of those companies creating devices capable of copying digital media and those creating IP.
Stupid criminals shoot video of their crimes. Incredibly fucking stupid criminals put the video on youtube.
Isn't there an issue here that many of these "crimes" are committed explicitly for the purpose of posting a video of it on youtube?
Sorry: OP having observed from TFA the CoS don't "have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US,"
That wasn't the point at all.
OP having observed from TFA the Cos "have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US," then proceded to ask "This seems to me to imply that if it were a religion ..." ie. in France since it is in the US, "... then a different set of standards for its behaviors would apply. I'm sorry, but why does religion get a pass ..." What was the point again?
mattack2 was simply saying the reason they are able to prosecute The Church of Scientology in France but not in the United States is because the First Amendment
Which would be a rather stunning non sequitur in response to the question of whether a "different set of standards ... would apply" if it were a regligion in France.
I'm not sure how you got the idea anyone was suggesting that the First Amendment of the US Constitution would apply in France.
If to the question why would CoS be treated differently in France if it were a religion you give the answer "[B]ecause of a little something called the First Amendment" you are suggesting that the 1st Amendment applies in France. Can you not see that?
Religion "gets a pass" because of a little something called the First Amendment.
What makes you think that amendments to the US Constitution apply in France?
Yes, I also think the food prices will rise. This is really a down side here.
It's a downside there. Do you mean it won't be a downside in countries suffering from the obesity epidemic? ;)
I believe that the Earth has only been around for about 6,000 years. ... I believe that Adam and Eve were created "with age," and not created as newborn babies ... Do I have proof of this? No, it's faith, I'll admit that. But you really can't prove I'm wrong either.
The moment there is any onus to prove wrong someone who makes claims without any proof of these claims, a fortiori claims as extraordiary and implausible as these, we are in real trouble. Perhaps it would be best for your to heed St Augustine's warning that accepting ancient Hebrew mythology as scientific facts is a misuse of scripture?
Additionally, these three inrgedients are not cola exclusive. Coffee ...
Yeah when I read the "caffeine" (not to mention sucrose) bit it got me wondering, "hmm maybe drinking all this really strong coffee with two sugars is somehow connected to the increasing muscle pain I'm experiencing." So I had another drink of the double-shot flat white 2 sugars in front of me. You know you've got to get right back on your horse when you fall off.
Damn pesky scientists making all these discoveries all the time. Someone oughta can their funding!