This is probably a better example of drug companies behaving in ways that will piss people off
Drug companies exist to make a profit; that's why they're COMPANIES. Governments exist to do the things that companies can't or won't do. It should be rather apparent that if there's no profit to be made in a cure for malaria, curing malaria is a purview of government and not private industry. Private industry has no obligation here, but if government *isn't* taking up the challenge - one of the very reasons you have a government in the first place - then it's the failure of government, and that's what needs to be addressed.
There already is almost no motivation for private sector research into dealing with epidemics.
Especially epidemics that don't exist, and are probably nothing more than the once-a-decade big flu scare. Let's not forget that despite the repeated proclamations by world-endians fascinated with global doom by way of superdisease, there hasn't been a flu-based pandemic of any sort since 1918 - and even that pandemic was fairly mild compared to some previous ones. It didn't leave bodies in the streets, or wipe out entire cities, or bring civilization crashing down, or, in fact, impact most people in any way, shape or form.
And let's not also forget that there are a great many other diseases that are far more likely to kill you than any flu, even a bad one. Last year, for instance, it's estimated that at least 20 million people died of heart disease, while another 15 million died of cancer. The flu of 1918 (the Spanish Flu) was estimated to have killed 20 million people *at most* during its entire run, something that heart disease equals each and every year, and that cancer comes close to.
And yet people seem to be easily panicked by a "pandemic" which most likely will never come, and will almost certainly not come anywhere close to killing as many people as the Spanish Flu did, much less equaling the yearly casualty rate of heart disease and cancer combined. Mention heart disease and cancer - which they are far more likely to die from - and they yawn and say "whatever"; mention the flu and they almost succumb to said aforementioned heart disease when they become apoplectic over the idea, thinking that the ghost of the Bubonic Plague is just biding its time before it jumps out of their closets or from under their beds and strikes them down.
Pharma companies such as Roche have developed drugs that are extremely efficient against many forms of cancer, yet those drugs don't exist on the market for the sole reason there's not enough profit to be made.
Cites? Sources? Empirical studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals? Sounds like X-Files garbage to me.
Thousands of people (obviously not enough) with multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease or AIDS are being left aside dying and/or suffering on the altar of profit and (I guess mostly) shareholders' dividends.
A rational person would need evidence for this that goes beyond whatever anecdotal hogwash your ex-wife happened to feed you.
You mean, just like the Europeans are doing? Not to mention the Japanese, the Chinese, and now the Russians - so eager to learn?
Say that you're exploiting the desperation of impoverished countries to help yourself get richer.
The desperate and impoverished created by centuries of European despotism, genocide, slavery, and all-around nasty behavior. We're saints in comparison.
So if the interests of America were served by nuking the whole of China
At no time in our history has it ever been in the interests of the United States to nuke anyone, much less China, with the possible exception of Japan (and on that, the debate is still ongoing). You seem to think that government can only serve it's people by exerting crude force; often such crude force can actually be a disservice, which we were so rudely reminded of in Viet Nam. Despite what you may think, we remember that lesson quite clearly, which is why despite the relatively low body count in Iraq (much, much lower than in Viet Nam over a comparable time period) there are so many of us who think that Iraq might just be a Really Bad Idea(TM).
Sometimes government serves its people by not committing horrific genocide against all and sundry. It's a relatively new concept as such things go (the Europeans during the Age of Imperialism certainly had no problem with genocide) but you'll note that after that whole Native American unpleasantness Americans decided that genocide just wasn't their thing, and didn't want to do it again. Hence the fact that the U.S. government, which is supposed to serve American interests, hasn't nuked everyone who's ever annoyed us, no matter how much they've done so.
which has never recognized the absolute right of governments to follow their national interests with absolute disregard for the human rights of other peoples.
You're talking as if there's some sort of Ultimate Arbiter who recognizes this right and doesn't recognize that right. There is no such animal. Until recently governments did whatever the fuck they pleased, so long as they had the force to do so. Genocide was par for the course for any culture with a smidgeon of power throughout all of human history, along with slavery and a whole host of other sins. You'll note that the United States hasn't engaged in genocide or slavery for quite some time.
Virtually every war crime in history could be justified using your dumb definition of treason
History is written by the winners. The only people guilty of "war crimes" are losers - by definition.
Your government signs up to, and then flouts, international agreements of which its own voting public is so ignorant that nothing will change... without force.
Exactly which international agreements concerning food production have we broken? I've been looking and I can't find a single such agreement which guarantees that the U.S. won't subsidize American farmers, which is specifically what you claimed. Seems to me you just made that shit up out of whole cloth.
As for force...let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off. Exactly which passle of nations has the balls and wherewithal wage war against the U.S.? Perhaps the EU? Yeah, right - pull the other finger. The EU can't even manage to get all of its members to accept the Euro, much less wage war against a nation that would kick their asses six ways to Sunday. Not that the citizens of the EU would be that fucking insane, since any such attempt would end in their own nuclear annihilation.
But let's be clear: I have no desire to nuke the EU, which is undoubtedly what you'll claim next. All those hot Italian, and Dutch, and Swedish ladies - what a waste of sweet womanflesh that would be. Wouldn't mind neutering you though, just to preserve the genepool. Although it's not as if you'll be needing your nuts, given the inanity of your posts.
UN laws don't trump US laws; never have, never will. And really, I could give a flying fuck what the UN thinks of anything. So far as I'm concerned, the UN is a failed experiment that some stupid twats are trying to turn into a vehicle to impose the abomination of one-world government on all and sundry.
As for the mass grave - there isn't a power on Earth that could achieve the genocide you so sociopathically wish to inflict on an entire people. Although from your love of mass murder, I'd be guessing that you're German.
And FDR was committing treason by declaring war on Germany in 1941.
No, that was common sense. It was thought that a Europe dominated by a fascist, warlike Germany would be more of a threat to America than a Europe dominated by a bunch of tired, has-been imperialists. Turns out FDR and crew were right.
Say what you will about Bill Gates, the man has given millions upon millions of dollars to African nations as well as others poor countries around the globe.
So the fuck what? Mafia bosses tend to do the exact same thing, to assuage their consciences (what little they have in that department). It doesn't excuse their behavior, past or present.
The bulk of their fortune will be going to charities.
I'm touched. Brings a tear to my eye. How (yawn) moving.
Grow the fuck up and attempt to post something that vaguely resembles an unbiased Microsoft article once in a while.
Hard to do that when you're talking about a convicted criminal entity that's been breaking the law with impunity for more than two decades. Might as well ask me to write an "unbiased" article on a rail baron in the 1800's, or a steel baron in the early 1900's. Perhaps something along the lines of "yep, they were right bastards, criminals, and general all-around sociopaths, but really - they were just misunderstood! And, like, dude - they gave lots of money to charity, so that makes it okay!"
linux is also very fragmented by it's many distrobutions.
There is no fragmentation. The linux kernel is the same, in every distribution. So are the two most popular desktops, KDE and Gnome. So are most of the more popular pieces of software, such as OpenOffice, or Abiword, or the GIMP. There's a reason people often refer to distributions as 'flavors', since underneath it's all pretty much the same thing: ice cream.
many people try to reinvent the wheel again and again wasting time which could be used catching up with more advanced desktop environments.
What you fail to understand here is that they aren't "wasting time". They're doing exactly what they want to do, in the fashion they want to do it. The fact that you don't happen to like what they're doing is entirely, utterly irrelevent.
And I have no idea what you mean by "more advanced desktop environments". My Suse 9.3 is just as, if not more, advanced than either Windows 2000 or XP.
Except many suppliers can't be convinced to allow people to design drivers for the operating system.
That may have been true five years ago, but it sure as hell isn't true now. Nearly all of the major, and most of the minor, hardware manufacturers provide linux drivers for their equipment. In cases where they don't this need is often filled by hobbyists.
It's true there is no licensing fee, but the additional cost comes either in the form of hiring competant administrators who undertand linux in order to maintain the machine(s)
The cost is exactly the same for Windows, unless you want to hire INcompetent administrators. No matter what the OS you need competent administrators, and it sure as hell doesn't take more administrators for linux than it does for windows.
which you will spend a lot of trying to make your new linux installation work exactly the way you want it to.
Dead wrong. It's far easier to set up and configure a modern installation of Suse than Windows 2000 or XP. I know this from a truckload of personal experience. Anyone who thinks 2000/XP is easier or quicker to set up than Suse has no business calling themselves a administrator in the first place. "Idiot", perhaps, but not administrator.
This should also read "highly confusing. steep learning curve. the uninitiated may be eaten by things in/etc." - linux configuration is habitually painful, and needlessly overcomplicated. Requiring a knowledge of the command line to configure some things hurts linux.
Typical MS FUD. Guess you're earning your cut of Billy-boy's money this week. Again, all you have to do is run through an install of Suse to see what horseshit this is.
Until they try to fire up KDE, and find that their system grinds to a halt after they open 3 or 4 windows.
Funny, KDE still takes less cpu horsepower and less RAM than 2000 or XP. So what exactly is your point?
Even with highly trained people maintaining linux, there can and probably will be problems along the road.
That's true with any OS in a complex environment. It also happens to be more true of Windows, which will fuck up far more often in said environment than linux will. Which many businesses are discovering.
but at least tell the whole story
Or post a lot of MS bullshit and FUD, like you have.
This little writeup is about as unbiased as a Microsoft-funded TCO study.
Well, at least you admit you're actively sucking cock for MS, rather than claiming you're an objective, unbiased source.
But instead of enriching themselves, Africans are working in factories owned by Asians, making products that will be shipped off to the United States.
Which is different from indentured American servants, working in factories owned by English businessmen, making products that'll be shipped to Europe, how?
some of those countries managed to compete against the unfair trading practices of the United States and Europe in markets like textiles
Waah, waah, cry me a fucking river. More jerkoff liberal twaddle about the 'evils' of the Western world. Sounds to me like only the complete and utter subjugation of the West to the Third World would make you happy.
but the produce from farming in Africa (fruit, coffee etc.) is still (as you hint) unfairly and illegally forced out of the global market
It ain't illegal to outcompete African farmers, no matter how many laws foreign nations pass. Those laws don't apply to the U.S. - or to those evil European farmers either - so they're irrelevent. If these laws even exist which, so far as I can tell, they don't.
Africans aren't inherently corrupt, they're just corruptible, like most us!
Then the problem is *corrupt Africans*, not *the evil West*. For chrissakes, at least try to be somewhat coherent in your ranting.
When you actually start putting your hand in your pocket and helping these people then you can start patting yourselves on the back.
You mean the people who're in the situation they are right now because European imperialists raped their nations and enslaved their people for centuries? Those people? The ones you insist we should help because you don't have the balls to admit that it's YOU who fucked up their lives and YOU who should pay for it?
Whatever America may or may not have done, it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that certain European nations perpetrated upon the Third World, and that are the direct cause of the Third World's problems today. Trying to shift the blame because you're too much of a coward to accept responsibility for the crimes of your ancestors is just pathetic.
Or you could stop keeping them in poverty by ruining global markets with your illegal subsidies and trading practices
Illegal subsidies and trading practices? According to American law - the only law that applies to the United States, being a sovereign country and all - these "subsidies and trading practices" you speak of aren't illegal. The laws of other nations, or the pathetic whining of jealous foreigners, are of no consequence.
The biggest way you could help there is not to insist on the ability to enforce patent rights on anti-retroviral drugs.
They could always refuse to do so, but clearly they haven't. Sounds like an internal problem to me, corrupt politicians not representing the interests of their own people.
but what you're doing to the third world makes me sick to think you're our (Europeans') cousins...
You aren't my cousin, asshole. Never have been, never will be. Don't flatter yourself.
Do you know that today foreign aid is mostly used as a tool to force poorer nations to implement the policies (e.g on energy) that the rich nations want
How is this a bad thing? Sounds like any other contractual agreement to me. If you don't want to implement the policies, then don't accept the aid. It's not as if the nations who're offering aid are obligated to do so just out of the goodness of their hearts.
And let's not forget cancelling the US farmer subsidies, which do cost billions too (way more in fact), so that agricultural societies in Africa and elsewhere can actually sell their food at a competitive price AND market their way out of poverty?
And let's not forget the reason the American government exists in the first place is to SERVE AMERICANS, and that to put the interests of the citizens of other countries ahead of the citizens who elected and pay for the government would in fact be an act of treason. Just as the Nigerian government exists to serve Nigerians, and the French government exists to serve the French, and so forth.
The fact is that on the world scene just as in Western society the rich make the rules.
And that would be different from any other time in history how? Excepting, of course, that people who live in republics have more freedom now than their ancestors ever did, or could expect? I'll take "I'd much rather be alive today than 500 years ago" for $200, Alex.
wonder who could have taught them such short-sighted desires?
I think that's called 'the human condition'. And if I have my history right, people have been doing that everywhere in the world since humankind first learned that a rock can not only crack nuts, but bash in brains as well.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place.
How is this different from the trillions of dollars of national debt that Boomer fiscal irresponsibility is going to force on future generations? Those generations aren't to blame for the fact that Boomers have absolutely no problem whatsoever spending their children and grandchildrens future and saying "fuck it" to personal responsibility, so why shouldn't they be able to disown the debt after the Boomers are gone?
are among those that have been exploited the most by the West during and after the colonialist period
The vast majority of this exploitation occurring while under European domination. Guess those Europeans should be atoning for the sins of their great-great-grandfathers.
The idea is that those poorest states certainly have made mistakes in the past but that there is absolutely no reason why the new generations in those states should continue to pay forever for them
Oh, wait! Apparently not! No one alive today is to blame since the folks who helped the Third World achieve such a state of desolate hopelessness are all dead! Well then, carry on!
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever.
Isn't that the entire Boomer philosophy? Rack up trillions of dollars of national debt that they can't possibly pay back before they up and croak, forcing that onerous burden upon their innocent children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? Or I guess we should just all forgive ourselves the debt the moment the last Boomer dies, seeing as we're not responsible for their fiscal stupidity? Works for me.
If they don't pass these laws, they get less or no aid from countries like the US, who (guess what?) want to make sure that American companies are able to enforce their patents everywhere in the world.
That's the price they pay for aid. They can have the aid and the strings, or freedom and no aid. Apparently they've opted for the former.
You mean, besides insisting on having your trading partners write your laws IP into their laws?
The only way this could happen is if YOUR politicians are spineless fucking pansies incapable of representing the interests of their own people. It isn't my problem if you elected corrupt, cowardly twats to office; that's YOUR problem. YOU fix it.
Yeah, good thing all of those people who voted against Bush live in a Republic instead of a democracy. Like it or not, the US has an entrenched democracy -- hell, elected officials are spelled out in your constitution.
Speaking of twats, it's apparent you can't even tell the difference between the forms of government known as 'democracy' and 'republic'. The U.S. is NOT a democracy; it's a republic. The fact that you can't tell the difference, yet think you're knowledgeable enough to comment on American politics, does nothing but convince much of the rest of the slashdot audience that you're an ignoramus.
Really? Then why would Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both contradict you?
Because they're fucking idiots? Or perhaps they'd rather the majority of the American public not know we're in bed with a bunch of dictatorship-loving, freedom-oppressing scumbags? Like all the other administrations - both Democratic and Republican - before them? Of course, that doesn't make us any different from any other 'freedom-loving' country in the world, given the last few decades of European-style hijinx.
so it's OK for the US to go around imposing its will, but if a group of nations does it that's bad?
When it comes to root servers which, if you've forgotten in your ranting, is the topic at hand, the U.S. is utterly incapable of 'forcing' anything on anyone. And our track record re the root servers shows that we just aren't interested in doing that. No other nation can claim the same.
The whole reason we have things like the UN is to prevent precisely that -- countries imposing their will on their neighbors.
And we've seen just how fucking effective the UN is, too. And how incorruptible they are. Yep, now *that's* a body I'd trust with root server administration.
You have no basis to say I'm European. Nice ad hominem attack. You've stung me.
Sure I do. You give yourself away with all that stock I-hate-Americans crap so much in vogue amongst the bitter, disaffected youth of certain European countries. Can't blame your country, can't blame your politicians, can't blame your own lazy ass - so why not Americans?
I'm sorry you feel so hostile to most of the rest of the world.
Sad little boy. All I said was that Europe is not, and will never again be, a superpower - a thing painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. Don't see why that's such a problem for you.
Now I remember why the rest of us are starting to look at your country with a few reservations -- it's being filled up with Xenophobic jackasses.
No, it's being increasingly filled with people who tired of taking shit from assholes from second-rate backwaters who seem to be pissed off that the Age of Imperialism ended long before they were born, and have decided to take out their impotent rage on a nation that has nothing whatsoever to do with their current political or economic status. Since it's apparently easier to bitch, whine, moan, and blame somebody else for YOUR problems than to fix them yourself.
And this is just the sort of thing that gives Americans a bad name.
If having a government doing exactly what it's supposed to do - put MY interests ahead of a the interests of non-citizens - gives me a "bad name", I'll wear it with pride. It sure beats the alternative.
You government should serve American interests unless they run counter to the interests of the rest of the world.
You think national governments should bow down and suck the dick of foreign entities at the expense of their own citizenry??? What a fucking nutjob! Do you even know what the purpose of government is?
There's no First Amendment in international politics.
Another load of bullshit. We can say whatever we want to say, in any venue or forum, simply because we have that right - and nobody can tell us otherwise. Sovereign nation, remember? The same crap you're whining about concerning us oppressing our poor, misunderstood neighbors goes both ways.
I'm talking about international relationships here
The government IS us, you idiot. Ideally the two things are one and the same. So yes, we have every right to criticize anyone in the world, either as individuals OR in our distinctive capacity of "government".
This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?
Of course! Where did you get the idea that we 'owe' these countries anything? If we don't like the way they do business or treat their citizens then as a SOVEREIGN NATION we can criticize them, or refuse to trade with them, at any time. These nations have no 'rights' when it comes to how we decide to conduct our affairs with them - or when we refuse to conduct affairs with them.
Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments?
Legally it does. Change the law if it bothers you so much.
That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.
No one has the right to DEMAND that we do business with them just because they say so. You keep yammering on about how we're mistreating other nations by not bending over and grabbing our ankles for their benefit because, like, they're sovereign and all, duuude! And yet you keep making the argument that we ourselves don't have the right to determine the course of our own sovereign nation. You sound like one of those self-hating liberal schmucks looking to destroy himself and all of his countrymen to assuage his own guilt over past sins, real or imagined.
So far as I'm concerned any alcohol in the blood whatsoever disqualifies you as a driver. Despite what my countrymen think, most of them just plain suck behind the wheel even when dead sober; add alcohol to the mix and they're fucking lunatics.
I'd back a law for automatic jailtime for anyone blowing a.02 or more. Operating a weapon more deadly than any firearm is a privilege, not a right, and boozing it up prior to operating that weapon is simply irresponsible. Those who can't be bothered to arrange for alternate transportation before throwing down a beer or three need to have this lesson bitch-slapped into them the hard way.
Don't you think that attitude is quite Orwellian itself? "All nations are equal, but some nations are more equal than others"...
I never said "all nations are equal"; that's something you seem to think is true. And no, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship an equal voice in world politics compared to, say, a republic. In fact, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship ANY voice in world politics. Dictators are filth, swine, the scum on the bottom of my shoe, and act in ways completely contrary to all I hold dear. Dictators are my enemies.
Who's "the rest of us"? The EU wants this too.
No, certain politicians within the EU want this, as do some minority of their supporters. There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of the citizens who make up the nations of the EU want this thing, or care about it, or understand the issue, or are even aware of it. It's nothing more than a few power-hungry gits trying to take what isn't theirs.
It's that they don't have a voice in how the hierarchy is run.
Apparently you don't have a clue in how that hierarchy is set up. Any nation, at any time, can set up its own hierarchy *and nobody else can stop them*. If you want to do this thing, then go ahead - nobody's trying to stand in your way. No one even cares.
Then how do you explain the recent news story about Bush pressuring ICANN into not implementing the.xxx domain?
This doesn't prevent YOUR nation from implementing an.xxx domain, or American ISPs from recognizing it. What part of this don't you understand?
It seems the USA government is exercising its control at the exact moment all the indignant Americans are insisting that it either can't be done or won't be done.
The only way the U.S. government can prevent your nation from setting up its own domains or its own root servers is if your politicians - YOUR politicians, not mine - are bending over and grabbing their ankles for U.S. interests. And if that's the case, the problem is on YOUR end. So stop bitching to me about it and go fix it, assuming you even have the balls to do so. Or the right to try without getting jailed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably a better example of drug companies behaving in ways that will piss people off
Drug companies exist to make a profit; that's why they're COMPANIES. Governments exist to do the things that companies can't or won't do. It should be rather apparent that if there's no profit to be made in a cure for malaria, curing malaria is a purview of government and not private industry. Private industry has no obligation here, but if government *isn't* taking up the challenge - one of the very reasons you have a government in the first place - then it's the failure of government, and that's what needs to be addressed.
Max
There already is almost no motivation for private sector research into dealing with epidemics.
Especially epidemics that don't exist, and are probably nothing more than the once-a-decade big flu scare. Let's not forget that despite the repeated proclamations by world-endians fascinated with global doom by way of superdisease, there hasn't been a flu-based pandemic of any sort since 1918 - and even that pandemic was fairly mild compared to some previous ones. It didn't leave bodies in the streets, or wipe out entire cities, or bring civilization crashing down, or, in fact, impact most people in any way, shape or form.
And let's not also forget that there are a great many other diseases that are far more likely to kill you than any flu, even a bad one. Last year, for instance, it's estimated that at least 20 million people died of heart disease, while another 15 million died of cancer. The flu of 1918 (the Spanish Flu) was estimated to have killed 20 million people *at most* during its entire run, something that heart disease equals each and every year, and that cancer comes close to.
And yet people seem to be easily panicked by a "pandemic" which most likely will never come, and will almost certainly not come anywhere close to killing as many people as the Spanish Flu did, much less equaling the yearly casualty rate of heart disease and cancer combined. Mention heart disease and cancer - which they are far more likely to die from - and they yawn and say "whatever"; mention the flu and they almost succumb to said aforementioned heart disease when they become apoplectic over the idea, thinking that the ghost of the Bubonic Plague is just biding its time before it jumps out of their closets or from under their beds and strikes them down.
Max
Pharma companies such as Roche have developed drugs that are extremely efficient against many forms of cancer, yet those drugs don't exist on the market for the sole reason there's not enough profit to be made.
Cites? Sources? Empirical studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals? Sounds like X-Files garbage to me.
Thousands of people (obviously not enough) with multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease or AIDS are being left aside dying and/or suffering on the altar of profit and (I guess mostly) shareholders' dividends.
A rational person would need evidence for this that goes beyond whatever anecdotal hogwash your ex-wife happened to feed you.
Max
If the US invaded Taiwan, then China would get involved
No doubt using that enormous, highly modernized Chinese navy the world is so in awe of.
Max
Say that your buying out foreign governments
You mean, just like the Europeans are doing? Not to mention the Japanese, the Chinese, and now the Russians - so eager to learn?
Say that you're exploiting the desperation of impoverished countries to help yourself get richer.
The desperate and impoverished created by centuries of European despotism, genocide, slavery, and all-around nasty behavior. We're saints in comparison.
Max
So if the interests of America were served by nuking the whole of China
At no time in our history has it ever been in the interests of the United States to nuke anyone, much less China, with the possible exception of Japan (and on that, the debate is still ongoing). You seem to think that government can only serve it's people by exerting crude force; often such crude force can actually be a disservice, which we were so rudely reminded of in Viet Nam. Despite what you may think, we remember that lesson quite clearly, which is why despite the relatively low body count in Iraq (much, much lower than in Viet Nam over a comparable time period) there are so many of us who think that Iraq might just be a Really Bad Idea(TM).
Sometimes government serves its people by not committing horrific genocide against all and sundry. It's a relatively new concept as such things go (the Europeans during the Age of Imperialism certainly had no problem with genocide) but you'll note that after that whole Native American unpleasantness Americans decided that genocide just wasn't their thing, and didn't want to do it again. Hence the fact that the U.S. government, which is supposed to serve American interests, hasn't nuked everyone who's ever annoyed us, no matter how much they've done so.
which has never recognized the absolute right of governments to follow their national interests with absolute disregard for the human rights of other peoples.
You're talking as if there's some sort of Ultimate Arbiter who recognizes this right and doesn't recognize that right. There is no such animal. Until recently governments did whatever the fuck they pleased, so long as they had the force to do so. Genocide was par for the course for any culture with a smidgeon of power throughout all of human history, along with slavery and a whole host of other sins. You'll note that the United States hasn't engaged in genocide or slavery for quite some time.
Virtually every war crime in history could be justified using your dumb definition of treason
History is written by the winners. The only people guilty of "war crimes" are losers - by definition.
Max
Your government signs up to, and then flouts, international agreements of which its own voting public is so ignorant that nothing will change... without force.
Exactly which international agreements concerning food production have we broken? I've been looking and I can't find a single such agreement which guarantees that the U.S. won't subsidize American farmers, which is specifically what you claimed. Seems to me you just made that shit up out of whole cloth.
As for force...let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off. Exactly which passle of nations has the balls and wherewithal wage war against the U.S.? Perhaps the EU? Yeah, right - pull the other finger. The EU can't even manage to get all of its members to accept the Euro, much less wage war against a nation that would kick their asses six ways to Sunday. Not that the citizens of the EU would be that fucking insane, since any such attempt would end in their own nuclear annihilation.
But let's be clear: I have no desire to nuke the EU, which is undoubtedly what you'll claim next. All those hot Italian, and Dutch, and Swedish ladies - what a waste of sweet womanflesh that would be. Wouldn't mind neutering you though, just to preserve the genepool. Although it's not as if you'll be needing your nuts, given the inanity of your posts.
Max
UN laws don't trump US laws; never have, never will. And really, I could give a flying fuck what the UN thinks of anything. So far as I'm concerned, the UN is a failed experiment that some stupid twats are trying to turn into a vehicle to impose the abomination of one-world government on all and sundry.
As for the mass grave - there isn't a power on Earth that could achieve the genocide you so sociopathically wish to inflict on an entire people. Although from your love of mass murder, I'd be guessing that you're German.
Max
And FDR was committing treason by declaring war on Germany in 1941.
No, that was common sense. It was thought that a Europe dominated by a fascist, warlike Germany would be more of a threat to America than a Europe dominated by a bunch of tired, has-been imperialists. Turns out FDR and crew were right.
Max
Say what you will about Bill Gates, the man has given millions upon millions of dollars to African nations as well as others poor countries around the globe.
So the fuck what? Mafia bosses tend to do the exact same thing, to assuage their consciences (what little they have in that department). It doesn't excuse their behavior, past or present.
The bulk of their fortune will be going to charities.
I'm touched. Brings a tear to my eye. How (yawn) moving.
Grow the fuck up and attempt to post something that vaguely resembles an unbiased Microsoft article once in a while.
Hard to do that when you're talking about a convicted criminal entity that's been breaking the law with impunity for more than two decades. Might as well ask me to write an "unbiased" article on a rail baron in the 1800's, or a steel baron in the early 1900's. Perhaps something along the lines of "yep, they were right bastards, criminals, and general all-around sociopaths, but really - they were just misunderstood! And, like, dude - they gave lots of money to charity, so that makes it okay!"
Max
linux is also very fragmented by it's many distrobutions.
/etc." - linux configuration is habitually painful, and needlessly overcomplicated. Requiring a knowledge of the command line to configure some things hurts linux.
There is no fragmentation. The linux kernel is the same, in every distribution. So are the two most popular desktops, KDE and Gnome. So are most of the more popular pieces of software, such as OpenOffice, or Abiword, or the GIMP. There's a reason people often refer to distributions as 'flavors', since underneath it's all pretty much the same thing: ice cream.
many people try to reinvent the wheel again and again wasting time which could be used catching up with more advanced desktop environments.
What you fail to understand here is that they aren't "wasting time". They're doing exactly what they want to do, in the fashion they want to do it. The fact that you don't happen to like what they're doing is entirely, utterly irrelevent.
And I have no idea what you mean by "more advanced desktop environments". My Suse 9.3 is just as, if not more, advanced than either Windows 2000 or XP.
Except many suppliers can't be convinced to allow people to design drivers for the operating system.
That may have been true five years ago, but it sure as hell isn't true now. Nearly all of the major, and most of the minor, hardware manufacturers provide linux drivers for their equipment. In cases where they don't this need is often filled by hobbyists.
It's true there is no licensing fee, but the additional cost comes either in the form of hiring competant administrators who undertand linux in order to maintain the machine(s)
The cost is exactly the same for Windows, unless you want to hire INcompetent administrators. No matter what the OS you need competent administrators, and it sure as hell doesn't take more administrators for linux than it does for windows.
which you will spend a lot of trying to make your new linux installation work exactly the way you want it to.
Dead wrong. It's far easier to set up and configure a modern installation of Suse than Windows 2000 or XP. I know this from a truckload of personal experience. Anyone who thinks 2000/XP is easier or quicker to set up than Suse has no business calling themselves a administrator in the first place. "Idiot", perhaps, but not administrator.
This should also read "highly confusing. steep learning curve. the uninitiated may be eaten by things in
Typical MS FUD. Guess you're earning your cut of Billy-boy's money this week. Again, all you have to do is run through an install of Suse to see what horseshit this is.
Until they try to fire up KDE, and find that their system grinds to a halt after they open 3 or 4 windows.
Funny, KDE still takes less cpu horsepower and less RAM than 2000 or XP. So what exactly is your point?
Even with highly trained people maintaining linux, there can and probably will be problems along the road.
That's true with any OS in a complex environment. It also happens to be more true of Windows, which will fuck up far more often in said environment than linux will. Which many businesses are discovering.
but at least tell the whole story
Or post a lot of MS bullshit and FUD, like you have.
This little writeup is about as unbiased as a Microsoft-funded TCO study.
Well, at least you admit you're actively sucking cock for MS, rather than claiming you're an objective, unbiased source.
Max
But instead of enriching themselves, Africans are working in factories owned by Asians, making products that will be shipped off to the United States.
Which is different from indentured American servants, working in factories owned by English businessmen, making products that'll be shipped to Europe, how?
Max
some of those countries managed to compete against the unfair trading practices of the United States and Europe in markets like textiles
Waah, waah, cry me a fucking river. More jerkoff liberal twaddle about the 'evils' of the Western world. Sounds to me like only the complete and utter subjugation of the West to the Third World would make you happy.
but the produce from farming in Africa (fruit, coffee etc.) is still (as you hint) unfairly and illegally forced out of the global market
It ain't illegal to outcompete African farmers, no matter how many laws foreign nations pass. Those laws don't apply to the U.S. - or to those evil European farmers either - so they're irrelevent. If these laws even exist which, so far as I can tell, they don't.
Africans aren't inherently corrupt, they're just corruptible, like most us!
Then the problem is *corrupt Africans*, not *the evil West*. For chrissakes, at least try to be somewhat coherent in your ranting.
Max
When you actually start putting your hand in your pocket and helping these people then you can start patting yourselves on the back.
You mean the people who're in the situation they are right now because European imperialists raped their nations and enslaved their people for centuries? Those people? The ones you insist we should help because you don't have the balls to admit that it's YOU who fucked up their lives and YOU who should pay for it?
Whatever America may or may not have done, it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that certain European nations perpetrated upon the Third World, and that are the direct cause of the Third World's problems today. Trying to shift the blame because you're too much of a coward to accept responsibility for the crimes of your ancestors is just pathetic.
Max
Or you could stop keeping them in poverty by ruining global markets with your illegal subsidies and trading practices
Illegal subsidies and trading practices? According to American law - the only law that applies to the United States, being a sovereign country and all - these "subsidies and trading practices" you speak of aren't illegal. The laws of other nations, or the pathetic whining of jealous foreigners, are of no consequence.
The biggest way you could help there is not to insist on the ability to enforce patent rights on anti-retroviral drugs.
They could always refuse to do so, but clearly they haven't. Sounds like an internal problem to me, corrupt politicians not representing the interests of their own people.
but what you're doing to the third world makes me sick to think you're our (Europeans') cousins...
You aren't my cousin, asshole. Never have been, never will be. Don't flatter yourself.
Max
Do you know that today foreign aid is mostly used as a tool to force poorer nations to implement the policies (e.g on energy) that the rich nations want
How is this a bad thing? Sounds like any other contractual agreement to me. If you don't want to implement the policies, then don't accept the aid. It's not as if the nations who're offering aid are obligated to do so just out of the goodness of their hearts.
And let's not forget cancelling the US farmer subsidies, which do cost billions too (way more in fact), so that agricultural societies in Africa and elsewhere can actually sell their food at a competitive price AND market their way out of poverty?
And let's not forget the reason the American government exists in the first place is to SERVE AMERICANS, and that to put the interests of the citizens of other countries ahead of the citizens who elected and pay for the government would in fact be an act of treason. Just as the Nigerian government exists to serve Nigerians, and the French government exists to serve the French, and so forth.
The fact is that on the world scene just as in Western society the rich make the rules.
And that would be different from any other time in history how? Excepting, of course, that people who live in republics have more freedom now than their ancestors ever did, or could expect? I'll take "I'd much rather be alive today than 500 years ago" for $200, Alex.
Max
wonder who could have taught them such short-sighted desires?
I think that's called 'the human condition'. And if I have my history right, people have been doing that everywhere in the world since humankind first learned that a rock can not only crack nuts, but bash in brains as well.
Max
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place.
How is this different from the trillions of dollars of national debt that Boomer fiscal irresponsibility is going to force on future generations? Those generations aren't to blame for the fact that Boomers have absolutely no problem whatsoever spending their children and grandchildrens future and saying "fuck it" to personal responsibility, so why shouldn't they be able to disown the debt after the Boomers are gone?
Max
are among those that have been exploited the most by the West during and after the colonialist period
The vast majority of this exploitation occurring while under European domination. Guess those Europeans should be atoning for the sins of their great-great-grandfathers.
The idea is that those poorest states certainly have made mistakes in the past but that there is absolutely no reason why the new generations in those states should continue to pay forever for them
Oh, wait! Apparently not! No one alive today is to blame since the folks who helped the Third World achieve such a state of desolate hopelessness are all dead! Well then, carry on!
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever.
Isn't that the entire Boomer philosophy? Rack up trillions of dollars of national debt that they can't possibly pay back before they up and croak, forcing that onerous burden upon their innocent children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? Or I guess we should just all forgive ourselves the debt the moment the last Boomer dies, seeing as we're not responsible for their fiscal stupidity? Works for me.
Max
If they don't pass these laws, they get less or no aid from countries like the US, who (guess what?) want to make sure that American companies are able to enforce their patents everywhere in the world.
That's the price they pay for aid. They can have the aid and the strings, or freedom and no aid. Apparently they've opted for the former.
Max
You mean, besides insisting on having your trading partners write your laws IP into their laws?
The only way this could happen is if YOUR politicians are spineless fucking pansies incapable of representing the interests of their own people. It isn't my problem if you elected corrupt, cowardly twats to office; that's YOUR problem. YOU fix it.
Yeah, good thing all of those people who voted against Bush live in a Republic instead of a democracy. Like it or not, the US has an entrenched democracy -- hell, elected officials are spelled out in your constitution.
Speaking of twats, it's apparent you can't even tell the difference between the forms of government known as 'democracy' and 'republic'. The U.S. is NOT a democracy; it's a republic. The fact that you can't tell the difference, yet think you're knowledgeable enough to comment on American politics, does nothing but convince much of the rest of the slashdot audience that you're an ignoramus.
Really? Then why would Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both contradict you?
Because they're fucking idiots? Or perhaps they'd rather the majority of the American public not know we're in bed with a bunch of dictatorship-loving, freedom-oppressing scumbags? Like all the other administrations - both Democratic and Republican - before them? Of course, that doesn't make us any different from any other 'freedom-loving' country in the world, given the last few decades of European-style hijinx.
so it's OK for the US to go around imposing its will, but if a group of nations does it that's bad?
When it comes to root servers which, if you've forgotten in your ranting, is the topic at hand, the U.S. is utterly incapable of 'forcing' anything on anyone. And our track record re the root servers shows that we just aren't interested in doing that. No other nation can claim the same.
The whole reason we have things like the UN is to prevent precisely that -- countries imposing their will on their neighbors.
And we've seen just how fucking effective the UN is, too. And how incorruptible they are. Yep, now *that's* a body I'd trust with root server administration.
You have no basis to say I'm European. Nice ad hominem attack. You've stung me.
Sure I do. You give yourself away with all that stock I-hate-Americans crap so much in vogue amongst the bitter, disaffected youth of certain European countries. Can't blame your country, can't blame your politicians, can't blame your own lazy ass - so why not Americans?
I'm sorry you feel so hostile to most of the rest of the world.
Sad little boy. All I said was that Europe is not, and will never again be, a superpower - a thing painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. Don't see why that's such a problem for you.
Now I remember why the rest of us are starting to look at your country with a few reservations -- it's being filled up with Xenophobic jackasses.
No, it's being increasingly filled with people who tired of taking shit from assholes from second-rate backwaters who seem to be pissed off that the Age of Imperialism ended long before they were born, and have decided to take out their impotent rage on a nation that has nothing whatsoever to do with their current political or economic status. Since it's apparently easier to bitch, whine, moan, and blame somebody else for YOUR problems than to fix them yourself.
Max
And this is just the sort of thing that gives Americans a bad name.
If having a government doing exactly what it's supposed to do - put MY interests ahead of a the interests of non-citizens - gives me a "bad name", I'll wear it with pride. It sure beats the alternative.
You government should serve American interests unless they run counter to the interests of the rest of the world.
You think national governments should bow down and suck the dick of foreign entities at the expense of their own citizenry??? What a fucking nutjob! Do you even know what the purpose of government is?
Max
There's no First Amendment in international politics.
Another load of bullshit. We can say whatever we want to say, in any venue or forum, simply because we have that right - and nobody can tell us otherwise. Sovereign nation, remember? The same crap you're whining about concerning us oppressing our poor, misunderstood neighbors goes both ways.
I'm talking about international relationships here
The government IS us, you idiot. Ideally the two things are one and the same. So yes, we have every right to criticize anyone in the world, either as individuals OR in our distinctive capacity of "government".
This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?
Of course! Where did you get the idea that we 'owe' these countries anything? If we don't like the way they do business or treat their citizens then as a SOVEREIGN NATION we can criticize them, or refuse to trade with them, at any time. These nations have no 'rights' when it comes to how we decide to conduct our affairs with them - or when we refuse to conduct affairs with them.
Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments?
Legally it does. Change the law if it bothers you so much.
That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.
No one has the right to DEMAND that we do business with them just because they say so. You keep yammering on about how we're mistreating other nations by not bending over and grabbing our ankles for their benefit because, like, they're sovereign and all, duuude! And yet you keep making the argument that we ourselves don't have the right to determine the course of our own sovereign nation. You sound like one of those self-hating liberal schmucks looking to destroy himself and all of his countrymen to assuage his own guilt over past sins, real or imagined.
Makes you look like a nutcase.
Max
So far as I'm concerned any alcohol in the blood whatsoever disqualifies you as a driver. Despite what my countrymen think, most of them just plain suck behind the wheel even when dead sober; add alcohol to the mix and they're fucking lunatics.
.02 or more. Operating a weapon more deadly than any firearm is a privilege, not a right, and boozing it up prior to operating that weapon is simply irresponsible. Those who can't be bothered to arrange for alternate transportation before throwing down a beer or three need to have this lesson bitch-slapped into them the hard way.
I'd back a law for automatic jailtime for anyone blowing a
Max
Don't you think that attitude is quite Orwellian itself? "All nations are equal, but some nations are more equal than others"...
.xxx domain?
.xxx domain, or American ISPs from recognizing it. What part of this don't you understand?
I never said "all nations are equal"; that's something you seem to think is true. And no, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship an equal voice in world politics compared to, say, a republic. In fact, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship ANY voice in world politics. Dictators are filth, swine, the scum on the bottom of my shoe, and act in ways completely contrary to all I hold dear. Dictators are my enemies.
Who's "the rest of us"? The EU wants this too.
No, certain politicians within the EU want this, as do some minority of their supporters. There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of the citizens who make up the nations of the EU want this thing, or care about it, or understand the issue, or are even aware of it. It's nothing more than a few power-hungry gits trying to take what isn't theirs.
It's that they don't have a voice in how the hierarchy is run.
Apparently you don't have a clue in how that hierarchy is set up. Any nation, at any time, can set up its own hierarchy *and nobody else can stop them*. If you want to do this thing, then go ahead - nobody's trying to stand in your way. No one even cares.
Then how do you explain the recent news story about Bush pressuring ICANN into not implementing the
This doesn't prevent YOUR nation from implementing an
It seems the USA government is exercising its control at the exact moment all the indignant Americans are insisting that it either can't be done or won't be done.
The only way the U.S. government can prevent your nation from setting up its own domains or its own root servers is if your politicians - YOUR politicians, not mine - are bending over and grabbing their ankles for U.S. interests. And if that's the case, the problem is on YOUR end. So stop bitching to me about it and go fix it, assuming you even have the balls to do so. Or the right to try without getting jailed.
Max