Well, after all it makes some sense. I think it's better to put your mask on before falling asleep because of oxygen deprivation; then, you can put your childrens mask. It doesn't work very well the other way around.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Applied to politics, fundamentalism means a social model based on strict religion, whose civil laws are based on religious norms, principles or dogmas. Islamic fundamentalism could include a reduced set of civil liberties for women, corporal penalties, sex regulation and jihad. Christian fundamentalism on the other side could include... oh wait!
Looking at all those new bills introduced in the last years, I can't but conclude that fundamentalism is at raise in the US.
Explain to me exactly how anything except fighting and killing are going to get rid of a ready-made foe like that? (taking him and his minions collectively)
Stop killing them and their relatives, give them a life deserving to be lived, and they will instantly stop killing people.
Woudn't you prefer a bunch of foreign people loving the USA instead of hating them? Use a fraction of your military expenses on raising their life standards and you're done.
No, we aren't. The doomsayers cry out that the end is nigh, but so far humans have adapted remarkably well to changing climactic conditions. In fact, humans sans any real technology have managed to survive several much more radical climate changes - and without their numbers being endangered in any real way.
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population. Maybe only 0.1% of the population would survive under such conditions. Could you please die now and give some more room for the rest of us?
In Spain, those clauses are not completely invalid, but are severely restricted. Limited to one year maximum, limitation to do the same job (you can work for any competing company just by not doing what you were doing), and a compensation (read: money) is due. As a matter of fact, those clauses are rarely used here, usually for sales people and top executives.
On the other hand, firing out someone here is not as easy as it is in the USA. A valid reason for the firing has to be presented, and "looking for cheaper labour" is not one of them. When no good reason is given but the employer insists on the firing, he stills can do it, by paying the employee a compensation of 45 salary days per service year.
From those ~300 million people, only 105 million cast a vote on the last presidential election. Well, your vote is still very small, but at least it is three times bigger!
The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones: England, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands. Yes, we did 90% of the work ourselves, but the film implied that we had absolutely no international support, which is simply not true.
For what this touches me, as a Spanish guy, I must say that the vast majority of the Spanish people is, and always has been over the Spanish intervention and the war as a whole. Anti-war demonstrations spread all around the country, involving millions and millions peoples, before, during and after the war.
As a result, in the last presidential elections last March, the ruling party lost its mandate even after the retirement of the previous president, J. M. Aznar.
Things go that way IF you only consider one company at a time.
Think about this: when a US company gets a patent; every other US company is compelled to migrate overseas.
What you have at the end is a handful of software monopolies in the US and a healthy competition elsewhere. For me, this does not means a "disadvantage" for european companies, but for everyone outside of the patent lobby, and only for the already screwed US market.
By the way, there are several Japanese companies owning a handful of interesting software patents (Sony, for example).
McDonald's (and Burger King) arrived here some 30 years ago. They spread all around the country and, for a while, some people expressed their worries - not about culture, but about nutrition.
Nowadays, local food is called "mediterranean diet" and is very appreciated. Much more than 30 years ago.
The only thing keeping the kurds in the north safe is US air power
Huh? The US are empowering the Turkey army over the kurds (do you remember? they live on both sides of the borderline).
No matter what Bush pretends Saddam would do with some (actually unseen) WMD, there's no justification for a war. There are SO MANY WAYS to revise and dismantle all WMD not involving killing innocent people. Despite of that, Bush started sending the armies and now is searching for an excuse for using them.
And about quitting Saddam and imposing a democracy, don't make me laugh. Democracy is a system known for letting the majority decide, and guess what? the majority of the Iraq people is fundamentalist Islamic. Do you believe your government will let them rule? Of course not.
Majority of Iraq's population is Islamic fundamentalist. Hussein comes from the non-fundamentalist population segment. So if Hussein is helping fundamentalists, Hussein is helping his own enemies.
When *companies* band together to demand that people pay more for their products, it's called a "cartel" and it's illegal (in the U.S.). But for some reason, when individuals do it, it's a great thing???
Actually, companies band together for supporting laws, congressmen and president candidates. Companies band together in big associations like RIAA to press over your rights.
At the very end, Companies are no more than individuals working together.
Don't get caugh from the financial rhetorics. A company may be ruled by its workers, and so they can decide to trim their own salary if it helps to keep the company afloat.
USA laws include some very protectionist on imports. Also, USA government spends a lot of money promoting local over foreign manufacturing; some agencies even spend a lot more on some items only because it's local. This is a form of protectionism also (on an ideal free market, government will purchase the better price/quality balanced product, not taking into account its origin).
Some USA agencies are somewhat double-tongue on this: on the one hand, they push and pursue foreign protectionism using the "global free market" rhetoric, while on the other hand, they impose draconian conditions and douanes for any foreing product to be sold on the USA.
Ideas like free health and education came from Socialism and were a commonplace in Europe only a decade ago. Cooperativism was also a common (and encouraged) entrepreneurial organization. Now European governments are forcing (and forced) towards "true Capitalism", and all I can say is life in Europe is far worse.
Capitalism means one thing: Financials rules. More money means more power; more power means more money. Capitalism tends to concentrate the power in fewer and fewer hands.
About freedom, it's a matter of choices. How many different choices do you have? You have as many choices as your money allows, so your freedom depends on your money.
On the other hand, efficientness doesn't mean happiness. I don't understand why YOU people say "Capitalism is Efficient, and that is Good". But for who is efficientness good?
Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience
Maybe in the US voting is considered a privilege. In my country, voting is considered a right, even a necessity to legitimize the democratic system. Low participation rates are considered a Bad Thing so if internet voting raises participation, this would be good.
In Peru and some other countries, you can purchase coca leafs on the same places you obtain your tea bags. You can do a slightly exciting infussion with those coca leaf bags; it doesn't generate addiction. It's even legal to take them across the borderline.
When there's a law the vast majority of the people is over, but anyway the law is imposed, maybe there's a civilization, but it hardly would be called democratic.
Laws are always a compromise between all the citizens conforming a civilization. When a law is massively broken, it's a sympthom the law ought to be changed.
Probably the author of any intellectual work wouldn't be able to "create" the very same work if he/she were born two centuries ago, does it?
Any intellectual work is strongly based on social environment, public knowledge and previous work. The very use of a language deserves some credit to the whole society.
So what portion of that work deserves exclusively to its author?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, after all it makes some sense. I think it's better to put your mask on before falling asleep because of oxygen deprivation; then, you can put your childrens mask. It doesn't work very well the other way around.
Applied to politics, fundamentalism means a social model based on strict religion, whose civil laws are based on religious norms, principles or dogmas. Islamic fundamentalism could include a reduced set of civil liberties for women, corporal penalties, sex regulation and jihad. Christian fundamentalism on the other side could include ... oh wait!
Looking at all those new bills introduced in the last years, I can't but conclude that fundamentalism is at raise in the US.
Explain to me exactly how anything except fighting and killing are going to get rid of a ready-made foe like that? (taking him and his minions collectively)
Stop killing them and their relatives, give them a life deserving to be lived, and they will instantly stop killing people.
Woudn't you prefer a bunch of foreign people loving the USA instead of hating them? Use a fraction of your military expenses on raising their life standards and you're done.
> At this point we are in big trouble
No, we aren't. The doomsayers cry out that the end is nigh, but so far humans have adapted remarkably well to changing climactic conditions. In fact, humans sans any real technology have managed to survive several much more radical climate changes - and without their numbers being endangered in any real way.
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population. Maybe only 0.1% of the population would survive under such conditions. Could you please die now and give some more room for the rest of us?
In Spain, those clauses are not completely invalid, but are severely restricted. Limited to one year maximum, limitation to do the same job (you can work for any competing company just by not doing what you were doing), and a compensation (read: money) is due. As a matter of fact, those clauses are rarely used here, usually for sales people and top executives.
On the other hand, firing out someone here is not as easy as it is in the USA. A valid reason for the firing has to be presented, and "looking for cheaper labour" is not one of them. When no good reason is given but the employer insists on the firing, he stills can do it, by paying the employee a compensation of 45 salary days per service year.
From those ~300 million people, only 105 million cast a vote on the last presidential election. Well, your vote is still very small, but at least it is three times bigger!
The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones: England, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands. Yes, we did 90% of the work ourselves, but the film implied that we had absolutely no international support, which is simply not true.
For what this touches me, as a Spanish guy, I must say that the vast majority of the Spanish people is, and always has been over the Spanish intervention and the war as a whole. Anti-war demonstrations spread all around the country, involving millions and millions peoples, before, during and after the war.
As a result, in the last presidential elections last March, the ruling party lost its mandate even after the retirement of the previous president, J. M. Aznar.
Things go that way IF you only consider one company at a time.
Think about this: when a US company gets a patent; every other US company is compelled to migrate overseas.
What you have at the end is a handful of software monopolies in the US and a healthy competition elsewhere. For me, this does not means a "disadvantage" for european companies, but for everyone outside of the patent lobby, and only for the already screwed US market.
By the way, there are several Japanese companies owning a handful of interesting software patents (Sony, for example).
McDonald's (and Burger King) arrived here some 30 years ago. They spread all around the country and, for a while, some people expressed their worries - not about culture, but about nutrition.
Nowadays, local food is called "mediterranean diet" and is very appreciated. Much more than 30 years ago.
Government secrecy is simply unacceptable, no matter the "cause". Period.
Not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Why do so many people seem to have trouble understanding this simple concept?
Right. When moral and law becomes the same, it's called fundamentalism .
The only thing keeping the kurds in the north safe is US air power
Huh? The US are empowering the Turkey army over the kurds (do you remember? they live on both sides of the borderline).
No matter what Bush pretends Saddam would do with some (actually unseen) WMD, there's no justification for a war. There are SO MANY WAYS to revise and dismantle all WMD not involving killing innocent people. Despite of that, Bush started sending the armies and now is searching for an excuse for using them.
And about quitting Saddam and imposing a democracy, don't make me laugh. Democracy is a system known for letting the majority decide, and guess what? the majority of the Iraq people is fundamentalist Islamic. Do you believe your government will let them rule? Of course not.
Majority of Iraq's population is Islamic fundamentalist. Hussein comes from the non-fundamentalist population segment. So if Hussein is helping fundamentalists, Hussein is helping his own enemies.
What's the matter of fighting terrorism? Isn't it all about getting freedom intact?
If freedom is actually compromised, be it by the terrorism, or by the government, or by the publishers, we lose anyway.
When *companies* band together to demand that people pay more for their products, it's called a "cartel" and it's illegal (in the U.S.). But for some reason, when individuals do it, it's a great thing???
Actually, companies band together for supporting laws, congressmen and president candidates. Companies band together in big associations like RIAA to press over your rights.
At the very end, Companies are no more than individuals working together.
Don't get caugh from the financial rhetorics. A company may be ruled by its workers, and so they can decide to trim their own salary if it helps to keep the company afloat.
That way, you'll at least gain the right to vote who rules you. Right now only USAers can do it.
USA laws include some very protectionist on imports. Also, USA government spends a lot of money promoting local over foreign manufacturing; some agencies even spend a lot more on some items only because it's local. This is a form of protectionism also (on an ideal free market, government will purchase the better price/quality balanced product, not taking into account its origin).
Some USA agencies are somewhat double-tongue on this: on the one hand, they push and pursue foreign protectionism using the "global free market" rhetoric, while on the other hand, they impose draconian conditions and douanes for any foreing product to be sold on the USA.
Ideas like free health and education came from Socialism and were a commonplace in Europe only a decade ago. Cooperativism was also a common (and encouraged) entrepreneurial organization. Now European governments are forcing (and forced) towards "true Capitalism", and all I can say is life in Europe is far worse.
Capitalism means one thing: Financials rules. More money means more power; more power means more money. Capitalism tends to concentrate the power in fewer and fewer hands.
About freedom, it's a matter of choices. How many different choices do you have? You have as many choices as your money allows, so your freedom depends on your money.
On the other hand, efficientness doesn't mean happiness. I don't understand why YOU people say "Capitalism is Efficient, and that is Good". But for who is efficientness good?
Amazing! Here (Europe) the voting days are not working days. Either the voting day is chosen on Sunday, or the day is declared non-working-day.
Voting is a privelege in the US, and should not be a convenience
Maybe in the US voting is considered a privilege. In my country, voting is considered a right, even a necessity to legitimize the democratic system. Low participation rates are considered a Bad Thing so if internet voting raises participation, this would be good.
Well, it IS actually legal on many countries.
In Peru and some other countries, you can purchase coca leafs on the same places you obtain your tea bags. You can do a slightly exciting infussion with those coca leaf bags; it doesn't generate addiction. It's even legal to take them across the borderline.
Maybe MP3 is ubiquitous, maybe it's a published format, but by no means it's free to anyone to get a license.
MP3 is a patented media format, and noone can (legally) write a MP3 encoder or decoder without paying royalties.
Laws are the foundation of our civilization
When there's a law the vast majority of the people is over, but anyway the law is imposed, maybe there's a civilization, but it hardly would be called democratic.
Laws are always a compromise between all the citizens conforming a civilization. When a law is massively broken, it's a sympthom the law ought to be changed.
Probably the author of any intellectual work wouldn't be able to "create" the very same work if he/she were born two centuries ago, does it?
Any intellectual work is strongly based on social environment, public knowledge and previous work. The very use of a language deserves some credit to the whole society.
So what portion of that work deserves exclusively to its author?