I think what he is saying is not that we should be more protectionist, but that many places are more protectionist that the US. If coutries persist in having highly protectionist policies I say play Tit-for-Tat with them on trade policy. By the same token, that means that we need to remove some of our bad protectionist laws. We may be better than most countries, but we certainly are far from perfect.
Not really, unless you decide to ignore history and hypothesize that the US will suddenly change its behavior from the last 100 years. The US tends not to plunder the resources of the coutries it goes to war with, if anything, the US ends up rebuilding them with US $$$. Think Japan or Germany for places that the US spent money rebuiling. Please, name me a place that the US invaded and proceeded to steal as much of the natural resources from as it could get.
"It's a shame we can't raise other countries standards of living, instead"
We are, well, their standard of living is rising far more than ours is falling.
rising productivity = rising standard of living
its just about that simple.
you are only worth what you can produce for someone else. If prices fall, your customers are better off. Prices fall because someone can produce for less than you can, meaning you have to find a way to be more productive (not necessarily in your current field of work), or accept being less well compensated.
Actually thats wrong, the US is uncompetitive in steel because our steel mills use much older technology and they produce types of steel whose demand has fallen. Also, the european steel industry was distroyed by WWII and rebuilt just when new technologies came online. US steel companies lagged behind the trend, and most of these older american steel companies have been uncompetitive for that very reason.
If you want to get on the EU about subsidies then lets talk about farming, which is what the EU subsidizes most heavily. They have the highest farm subsidies in the world, which has the effect of driving down the price for everyone else. The US recently increased their farm disaster aid but is still not as high as the EU, but they are getting close to Canadian levels now.
yes, minding their own business while slaughtering thousands upon thousands of innocent people. You may want to get up to speed on Saddam and his history. Saddam is nothing but a mini Stalin.
And Iraq is "entitled" to a sea access?? Like they are the only land locked country in the world?
the problem with your theory is that the US hasn't been funding him for years.
Everyone likes to just on the US for "funding sadam" the truth is a little more complicated than that. At the time, Iran was much more powerful and very anti-american (remember the 1979 hostage crisis). So the US sided supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (this was important since the Soviets were supporting Iran) Since that time the US has not supported Iraq, especially not after the gulf war. Some other countries, like France for example, make lots of money from Iraq and Saddam, mostly from selling him arms and oil equipment.
Fool me once Saddam, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times, its proof that I want to be fooled.
yes, just like the world stood opposed to "invading" Germany in order to enforce its disarmament agreement.
You know, that kind of thing might start a war. Better to let Germany just keep violating it's agreement to disarm....
yeah, but these benefits were in contract long before this decision was made, this is all part of a severence package he took when he left haliburton to run for VP. It's not really honest to act like this is some sort of quid pro quo deal.
Haliburton (which is one of the companies that did the oil well fire fighing and cleanup after the first gulf war) is being contracted to do the same thing again. This went through the usual govenment bidding process, somehow I dont think that the VP had much direct involvement in this.
"it is not censorship for a library to allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites."
that should be
"it is not censorship for a library to not allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites."
not the best grammer, i know:)
even if you don't believe in censorship.....it is not censorship for a library to allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites. They have the right not to purchase certain books, why do they have to subsidize some guy's (or lady's) porn habit?
If you want to pay for it with you own money, thats fine. Remember, the library is taking everyone's tax money to provide a public service, making information more freely available. So having some sort of acceptable use policy that is enforced by putting the screen in plain sight ensures that the computers be used for their intended purpose. Filtering software has the problem of being super-portective, and blocking out legitimate sites, or being passive, and letting some amount of "objectionable" material through. However, a combination of the less restrictive software (that only blocks known sites that it "knows" are bad) and having the computers in a public place (as well as having teens, children, and adult computers in different sections) would be a better option that what exists now, that being heavy filtering requirement and money, or none at all and losing funding.
sigh, the labor supply increases as women enter the work force in large numbers. Wages have fallen relative to what? I'd be interested in seeing exact numbers. Not disputing what you say, I'm just curious.
Success relative to what.
So you don't think capitalism is perfect, newsflash, no one think it's perfect. But the so-called "solution" you propose is much worse.
"Remember that money has to come from someone else and guess who that will be."
Sigh, its the "zero-sum game" tripe again. Disproven time and time again, but still continually paraded about to the to a mostly clueless public, as "justification" for "being fair." How nice of you to tell me what I "need", talk about "imposing your views" on others, as if the rich just walked over and took money from poor people and walked with it. Exactly who do you consider to be "rich" anyways, how much is "too much"? Who gave you the right to determine what I "need." Taxes are about funding public services in an efficient fashion that does not unfairly burden members of the public. If one group doesn't have to pay anything, then what incentive do they have to control government spending?
I only have one bone to pick...
"but economics is a negative-sum game,"
If you are really a diehard capitalist, then you would know better than to push that kind of misinformation.
Really, I think any principles of econ student could shoot down that assumption.
If that were true, then living conditions should not be able to rise simlutaneously in almost all of the world. This is a verifiable fact that has been studied and studied.
On a statistical note, we don't descern very well between those have high incomes, and those who possess a lot of wealth. If you would care to actually look up some statistics, 80% of millionaires are first generation wealthy. Most of them you probably don't even realize are "wealthy." Think about it, 1% is one out of 100 people. Its true that some people are born into privilidge or break that law to achieve their goals, but the great majority earned it the hard way. Statistics have born this out for years.
This bull about how people can't "imposing morals" or "impose beliefs" on me, is terribly shortsighted and doesn't stand up to rational analysis.
Governments, and productive society in general, can only be formed when people give up the right to do whatever they want. In order to make an kind of law, society has to impose views on everyone that not all the memebers of society share. Are you saying that society is "imposing their views" on someone who commits murder, if that person does not believe that murder is wrong.
By your definition, modern civilization is impossible, because it would be nearly impossible to enforce limits on human behavior. But without any principles at all, where it would be nearly impossible to improve one's life.
In either case, the people need certain (mostly) shared beliefs, about what kind of power that government is allowed to have.
I find it ammusing that you seem to be bent on anarchy, while you call those who "impose their beliefs" on others hypocrits, since they benefit from "immoral acts" which they may not argee with. Yet any nation that you could posibly live in does exactly what you dislike. You are fine with imposing your beliefs on others, unless you are truly an anarchist (see above), you just don't like the current set. I don't agree with every law the government passes, but I actually am willing to debate what the government should or should not be allowed to do. As opposed to labeling anyone that doesn't agree with my views as "imposing their morality" on me.
they are most certainly sentient before they are born. Thus our problem in drawing a clear line. How do you draw a hard line defining when someone becomes sentient and thus it is considered murder. Infants and young childern are certainly not nearly at intelligent as adults. Thus your definition of sentience is not legally enforcable. Also, does that mean that some mentally retarded people are not considered human, since they cannot comprehend certain things and/or concepts.
It's just a question....
You know, I'm sick of all the complaining. It's time for people to act with some class and decency, instead of the typical whining and incessant carping that seems to consume people these days.
This attitude isn't just about feature X in OSS either, you see it all around you. People that think that you, or the rest of the world owe them something. Just go watch a youth sporting event and you will likely find some obnoxious parent or coach acting in the same manner.
If linux doesn't achive world domination, that's ok, really it is. Sit back and take a deep breath.
All linux users wanted was a choice, and that choice seems to be getting better, getting better far faster than anything else I might add. You are too busy demanding the next thing to appreciate what you have and how far this whole thing has come (I say this as someone who has been using linux for only about 3 1/2 years).
I'm not discouraging feedback, but whining and complaining about how much the developers of XYZ suck is a waste of your time and ours. If you want to suggest something, in a constructive manner, that's fine. You won't always get what you want when you want it, no one does, but that's just a fact of life that people need to deal with sooner or later. Unfortunately, our world seems to be full of people who don't realize this or can't seem to deal with life in a constructive, positive manner. Instead they choose to complain.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." -TR
Not everyone has to be a programmer, but it would help if we treated everyone involved with some respect. It's amazing how following one simple rule can make everyone's life a lot more enjoyable, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he is saying is not that we should be more protectionist, but that many places are more protectionist that the US. If coutries persist in having highly protectionist policies I say play Tit-for-Tat with them on trade policy. By the same token, that means that we need to remove some of our bad protectionist laws. We may be better than most countries, but we certainly are far from perfect.
Not really, unless you decide to ignore history and hypothesize that the US will suddenly change its behavior from the last 100 years. The US tends not to plunder the resources of the coutries it goes to war with, if anything, the US ends up rebuilding them with US $$$. Think Japan or Germany for places that the US spent money rebuiling. Please, name me a place that the US invaded and proceeded to steal as much of the natural resources from as it could get.
"It's a shame we can't raise other countries standards of living, instead" We are, well, their standard of living is rising far more than ours is falling. rising productivity = rising standard of living its just about that simple. you are only worth what you can produce for someone else. If prices fall, your customers are better off. Prices fall because someone can produce for less than you can, meaning you have to find a way to be more productive (not necessarily in your current field of work), or accept being less well compensated.
that is until the military starts to make things out of ceramics or carbon fiber instead of steel.
Actually thats wrong, the US is uncompetitive in steel because our steel mills use much older technology and they produce types of steel whose demand has fallen. Also, the european steel industry was distroyed by WWII and rebuilt just when new technologies came online. US steel companies lagged behind the trend, and most of these older american steel companies have been uncompetitive for that very reason. If you want to get on the EU about subsidies then lets talk about farming, which is what the EU subsidizes most heavily. They have the highest farm subsidies in the world, which has the effect of driving down the price for everyone else. The US recently increased their farm disaster aid but is still not as high as the EU, but they are getting close to Canadian levels now.
yes, minding their own business while slaughtering thousands upon thousands of innocent people. You may want to get up to speed on Saddam and his history. Saddam is nothing but a mini Stalin. And Iraq is "entitled" to a sea access?? Like they are the only land locked country in the world?
the problem with your theory is that the US hasn't been funding him for years. Everyone likes to just on the US for "funding sadam" the truth is a little more complicated than that. At the time, Iran was much more powerful and very anti-american (remember the 1979 hostage crisis). So the US sided supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (this was important since the Soviets were supporting Iran) Since that time the US has not supported Iraq, especially not after the gulf war. Some other countries, like France for example, make lots of money from Iraq and Saddam, mostly from selling him arms and oil equipment. Fool me once Saddam, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times, its proof that I want to be fooled.
yes, just like the world stood opposed to "invading" Germany in order to enforce its disarmament agreement. You know, that kind of thing might start a war. Better to let Germany just keep violating it's agreement to disarm....
yeah, but these benefits were in contract long before this decision was made, this is all part of a severence package he took when he left haliburton to run for VP. It's not really honest to act like this is some sort of quid pro quo deal. Haliburton (which is one of the companies that did the oil well fire fighing and cleanup after the first gulf war) is being contracted to do the same thing again. This went through the usual govenment bidding process, somehow I dont think that the VP had much direct involvement in this.
Let's see your linux distro try to do this :)
"it is not censorship for a library to allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites." that should be "it is not censorship for a library to not allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites." not the best grammer, i know :)
even if you don't believe in censorship.....it is not censorship for a library to allow you to use a public computer to view certain websites. They have the right not to purchase certain books, why do they have to subsidize some guy's (or lady's) porn habit? If you want to pay for it with you own money, thats fine. Remember, the library is taking everyone's tax money to provide a public service, making information more freely available. So having some sort of acceptable use policy that is enforced by putting the screen in plain sight ensures that the computers be used for their intended purpose. Filtering software has the problem of being super-portective, and blocking out legitimate sites, or being passive, and letting some amount of "objectionable" material through. However, a combination of the less restrictive software (that only blocks known sites that it "knows" are bad) and having the computers in a public place (as well as having teens, children, and adult computers in different sections) would be a better option that what exists now, that being heavy filtering requirement and money, or none at all and losing funding.
sigh, the labor supply increases as women enter the work force in large numbers. Wages have fallen relative to what? I'd be interested in seeing exact numbers. Not disputing what you say, I'm just curious.
Success relative to what. So you don't think capitalism is perfect, newsflash, no one think it's perfect. But the so-called "solution" you propose is much worse.
"Remember that money has to come from someone else and guess who that will be." Sigh, its the "zero-sum game" tripe again. Disproven time and time again, but still continually paraded about to the to a mostly clueless public, as "justification" for "being fair." How nice of you to tell me what I "need", talk about "imposing your views" on others, as if the rich just walked over and took money from poor people and walked with it. Exactly who do you consider to be "rich" anyways, how much is "too much"? Who gave you the right to determine what I "need." Taxes are about funding public services in an efficient fashion that does not unfairly burden members of the public. If one group doesn't have to pay anything, then what incentive do they have to control government spending?
I only have one bone to pick... "but economics is a negative-sum game," If you are really a diehard capitalist, then you would know better than to push that kind of misinformation. Really, I think any principles of econ student could shoot down that assumption. If that were true, then living conditions should not be able to rise simlutaneously in almost all of the world. This is a verifiable fact that has been studied and studied. On a statistical note, we don't descern very well between those have high incomes, and those who possess a lot of wealth. If you would care to actually look up some statistics, 80% of millionaires are first generation wealthy. Most of them you probably don't even realize are "wealthy." Think about it, 1% is one out of 100 people. Its true that some people are born into privilidge or break that law to achieve their goals, but the great majority earned it the hard way. Statistics have born this out for years.
This bull about how people can't "imposing morals" or "impose beliefs" on me, is terribly shortsighted and doesn't stand up to rational analysis. Governments, and productive society in general, can only be formed when people give up the right to do whatever they want. In order to make an kind of law, society has to impose views on everyone that not all the memebers of society share. Are you saying that society is "imposing their views" on someone who commits murder, if that person does not believe that murder is wrong. By your definition, modern civilization is impossible, because it would be nearly impossible to enforce limits on human behavior. But without any principles at all, where it would be nearly impossible to improve one's life. In either case, the people need certain (mostly) shared beliefs, about what kind of power that government is allowed to have. I find it ammusing that you seem to be bent on anarchy, while you call those who "impose their beliefs" on others hypocrits, since they benefit from "immoral acts" which they may not argee with. Yet any nation that you could posibly live in does exactly what you dislike. You are fine with imposing your beliefs on others, unless you are truly an anarchist (see above), you just don't like the current set. I don't agree with every law the government passes, but I actually am willing to debate what the government should or should not be allowed to do. As opposed to labeling anyone that doesn't agree with my views as "imposing their morality" on me.
they are most certainly sentient before they are born. Thus our problem in drawing a clear line. How do you draw a hard line defining when someone becomes sentient and thus it is considered murder. Infants and young childern are certainly not nearly at intelligent as adults. Thus your definition of sentience is not legally enforcable. Also, does that mean that some mentally retarded people are not considered human, since they cannot comprehend certain things and/or concepts. It's just a question....
He said compatable, not the same.
You know, I'm sick of all the complaining. It's time for people to act with some class and decency, instead of the typical whining and incessant carping that seems to consume people these days. This attitude isn't just about feature X in OSS either, you see it all around you. People that think that you, or the rest of the world owe them something. Just go watch a youth sporting event and you will likely find some obnoxious parent or coach acting in the same manner. If linux doesn't achive world domination, that's ok, really it is. Sit back and take a deep breath. All linux users wanted was a choice, and that choice seems to be getting better, getting better far faster than anything else I might add. You are too busy demanding the next thing to appreciate what you have and how far this whole thing has come (I say this as someone who has been using linux for only about 3 1/2 years). I'm not discouraging feedback, but whining and complaining about how much the developers of XYZ suck is a waste of your time and ours. If you want to suggest something, in a constructive manner, that's fine. You won't always get what you want when you want it, no one does, but that's just a fact of life that people need to deal with sooner or later. Unfortunately, our world seems to be full of people who don't realize this or can't seem to deal with life in a constructive, positive manner. Instead they choose to complain. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." -TR Not everyone has to be a programmer, but it would help if we treated everyone involved with some respect. It's amazing how following one simple rule can make everyone's life a lot more enjoyable, isn't it?
so windows is owned by you because microsoft has a monopoly, that makes it public property? Better tell that to the people who paid to lay the lines.
but 4 sets of wires to the home would actually make telephone more expensive, thats why the government granted the local monopolies in the first place
sigh.. depreciation is not a subsidy, unless you want to claim that anyone who takes a deduction on thier taxes is somehow taking a "subsidy".
but you are being compensated...in the form of lower rates. If the bells had to pay for crossing every property, no one could afford phone service.
umm no, dialup doesnt require local loop access. I dont see how this would have changed the early days of the internet.