Oh yeah, you mean like the gun registry that has ended up costing at least over 5 times the original estimate and that likes to "crash" and lose a few days' worth of applications when it's overloaded?
Or maybe like the government's promise to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, with the result being that child poverty is higher now than in 1993?
And it is competition of ideas which matters, not count of parties.
When you have one name on the ballot, it sure sounds like there isn't much of a choice.
Yes, it is corporate owned. Because corporations are your government. What difference does it make for you if you are governed by government and brainwashed by the government-controlled media or you are governed by corporations and brainwashed by the corporate-controlled media ?
I'm not going to challenge the "Because corporations are your government" statement, although I think that's plain FUD.
The difference, however, is that in the US people are free to start their own newspapers, radio stations, even TV stations, something which was definitely not possible in the USSR in the 1980's.
You will not beleive me, but in USSR you also can do it essentially within the same bounds as in the US today.
Don't beleive me ? Go, voice your disconcern publically and loud about the wars America is waging over the world recently. Call bin-Laden a freedom fighter ! You will see that
You think people don't do that? It's done plenty. And you won't be labelled a "terrorist" for expressing your opposition to an attack on Iraq, otherwise several Congress members would already be labelled as such.
Got any more differences to share ?
No, the ones I've put forward suffice.
By the way, once again, I'm Canadian, not American.
I just want to warn you that too strong regulation may lead society to collapse. May be it's hard to recognize changes in your country from inside but they are clearly visible from outside.
First, I'm Canadian.
Second, I agree with what you said. What I don't agree with is that the US and the former USSR are equivalent.
Baby, if you want to see something that remotely resembles a democracy, come here, to Canada.
"Baby," I am, in fact, Canadian. Please explain to me how our system is so wondefully democratic, seeing how a party can win a majority government with 38% of the vote, or, in some instances, lose the popular vote and still win a majority government (BC 1997 and Quebec 1998).
By more than one, you obviously mean two. Two parties that are absolutely indistinguishable. And have less members than the one in the SU.
Uh... I am talking about the existence of parties and their candidates' running for office, not how many parties get their candidates elected. The Republican and Democratic parties are not the only legal ones, as was the case in the USSR with the Communist party.
Try having a vacation in Cuba. Or Iran. I can tell you that both are GREAT tourist destinations.
Except there's a bit of a difference between just a few countries being off limits and virtually the entire world. By the way, if an American wants to renounce his citizenship and move to Cuba, he can do it (if Cuba would take him). Impossible in the USSR in 1980.
Try calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter in public.
You may get your ass kicked by an angry mob, but you won't be thrown in jail with the key thrown away.
Food was certainly better and healthier in USSR.:-)
You bet. Except that the Soviets couldn't really afford it, could they? I can assure you there was a "tiny" difference between the standard of living that you, a foreigner, enjoyed and what the rest of the populace had to put up with.
Your country now looks absolutely the same as Soviets 20 years ago.
This sort of historical revisionism and the fact that these views are getting wide acceptance in some circles are increasingly disconcerting me. Do you have any justification for that statement?
Let me list a few differences between the US and the USSR to you.
1. In the US, they hold regular electiosn in which candidates from more than one party can stand.
2. In the US, you can choose to emigrate (leave the country), and you won't be stopped.
3. In the US, media is not all state-owned.
4. In the US, you can publicly voice your disapproval of the government's policies.
From your other post in this thread, keksov, I surmise you're either from Russia or from one of the former Soviet satellite states. If that is the case, tell me, do you really think your country is "more free" than the US and a better place to live?
There seems to be a common misconception that Canadian taxes somehow subsidize ISPs.
I am not sure what the source of this misconception is, but it is simply false. Higher taxes have nothing to do with this, as the cable and phone companies don't benefit from them.
You are absolutely right that Canada has a much higher proliferation rate of home Internet access in general and broadband in particular. A whopping 75% of Canadians have Internet access, and 48% of those with Internet access have broadband. Your explanation for this, however, is very specious.
Whereas it is true that there is quite a bit of competition in the DSL market, the two biggest broadband providers by far are the Local Phone Company (supplying DSL) and the Local Cable Company. The vast majority of Canadians are completely unaware of the independent DSL providers because they hardly advertise. I have only seen one TV commercial for an independent DSL provider, and that provider was Primus. True, other smaller fish place ads in pulications like The Computer Paper, but those have a very low readership.
Furthermore, while high speed Internet is cheaper in Canada in terms of raw figures, you have to take into account Canadians' lower average income. Once that difference is factored in, I believe that broadband access in Canada works out to the same percentage of one's income as broadband access in the US.
All these facts make the fairly wide gap between the levels of broadband (and even Internet) adoption in Canada and the US even more confounding.
I am truly, truly shocked such a troll has been moderated +4 Insightful. To compare the US and Nazi Germany is simply the height of insanity.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by
non-electorial and irregular methods.
Excuse me? Both Hitler and Bush were elected legally and in accordance with the electoral process in their respective countries.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
First of all, I wouldn't call nine months after the fact "immediately," not to mention the fact that the Reichstag was set on fire a only month after Hitler took office. 9/11 was also not the first time the WTC was bombed. Care to compare Clinton with Hitler, as well? After all, the first bombing took place a few short months after Clinton's election.
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
What "ethnic minority"? The Nazis blamed the Communists. Islamic terrorist groups were clearly blamed for 9/11, but Bush personally went to great lengths to emphasize that for someone to blame Muslims as a whole for the act would be perverse and wrong.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
What?..
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
Is this some sort of a joke? The Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany six months after Hitler came to power. If this is happening "twice as fast" in the US, one would have thought political parties would have been banned by the end of 2001.
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
What is "secret and clandestine" about Bush's government?
People who insist on comparing the US to totalitarian regimes clearly never lived under true totalitarianism. Try living in China, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran for a while and speak of them in the same way you currently speak about the US. Oh, and before you do, don't forget to go over your will.
It looks the like "Microsoft is the anti-Christ" brigade is overhyping this as usual.
This is not a case of an "additional mandatory course on C#" being added to the curriculum. This is an instance where the language of instruction in one of the already mandatory courses, namely ECE 150, is being changed from C++ to C#.
This does not make the degree a "Microsoft degree," anymore than using Java in introductory courses (as UW's School of Computer Science does) makes a degree a "Sun degree."
The Electrical and Computer Engineering program has nothing to do with the Faculty of Mathematics or the Computer Science program. It is a part of the Faculty of Engineering.
No such requirements are present in the Computer Science program.
Oh, wow. So you're advocating banning the use of something just because it can be used for less than moral purposes?
Isn't that kind of, oh I don't know, like DMCA/RIAA wanting to outlaw p2p?
Why not wait until someone actually even considers proposing to make this thing mandatory before freaking out and going all out with the conspiracy theories?
Someone who prays and studies as much as the hypothetical Jew in your question should know that the the (Babylonian) Talmud was finished around AD 500, at a time when Israel did not exist. Therefore, there is virtually no likelihood that the Talmud discusses using one's influence to incite against Israel.
But what makes this question even... odder, to put it mildly, is that Moshe Barr is an Israeli himself. So the question comes down to what he would think about a boycott of himself.
Idealistic self-righteousness is very convenient, but let's look at this pragmatically:
There are 56 countries that are officially Muslim (namely, members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC]). There are quite a few countries that are officially Christian. Unfortunately, I cannot give a number, but Portugal, Iceland, Zimbabwe, Sweden, and Finland are some of them. Do you really think that if there actually was a realistic chance of the demographic balance being upset in any of those countries (particularly in the Islamic ones), the people would be very happy?
And then there is one Jewish state. Now, note that Judaism is not actually the official religion of the state. Israel has no official religion. The implication of "Jewish state" is more cultural. Also consider that it is a young and immature state, and that for 54 years it has been in a virtually perpetual struggle for its survival. That will definitely cause some insecurity and possibly paranoia. Also, since Israel is a democracy that uses proportional representation for its electoral system, there is a theoretical possibility that it might cease to be a Jewish state the moment there are 50% + 1 non-Jewish citizens older than 18 years. And then there will be 0 Jewish countries. Considering how the possibility of destruction is very palpable for it, it is very unsurprising that these thoughts would be on Israeli Jews' minds.
So what's the big revelation here, that Israel is not perfect? Well, d'uh! But to draw analogies to Nazi Germany is vile and morally repugnant and is indicative of either true ignorance or unadulterated hatred on the part of the original poster.
It's not intended as a troll, in the classical sense
Save it.
Someone who "prays and studies" as much as you claim to should be well aware of the fact that the (Babylonian) Talmud was finished around 500 CE, at a time when no Israel existed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Talmud would offer you guidance on whether it would be right of you to use your influence with your boss to incite against and malign Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
"Evil." You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Broadband has a higher penetration rate among home users in more urban areas, where the vast majority of Canadians reside.
It's cheaper, yes. However, salaries are also lower, in general, than in the US.
The best we can do is waste a couple hundred million in tax dollars on a useless court case that is headed by a puppet judge.
A puppet judge? Whose puppet? I suppose you also have proof for that sort of allegation?
Oh, wait, I forgot. This is Slashdot.
Oh yeah, you mean like the gun registry that has ended up costing at least over 5 times the original estimate and that likes to "crash" and lose a few days' worth of applications when it's overloaded? Or maybe like the government's promise to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, with the result being that child poverty is higher now than in 1993?
Uh, you got it the other way around. The "provision" is what would prevent TIA from being used against Americans.
When you have one name on the ballot, it sure sounds like there isn't much of a choice.
Yes, it is corporate owned. Because corporations are your government. What difference does it make for you if you are governed by government and brainwashed by the government-controlled media or you are governed by corporations and brainwashed by the corporate-controlled media ?
I'm not going to challenge the "Because corporations are your government" statement, although I think that's plain FUD.
The difference, however, is that in the US people are free to start their own newspapers, radio stations, even TV stations, something which was definitely not possible in the USSR in the 1980's.
You will not beleive me, but in USSR you also can do it essentially within the same bounds as in the US today. Don't beleive me ? Go, voice your disconcern publically and loud about the wars America is waging over the world recently. Call bin-Laden a freedom fighter ! You will see that
You think people don't do that? It's done plenty. And you won't be labelled a "terrorist" for expressing your opposition to an attack on Iraq, otherwise several Congress members would already be labelled as such.
Got any more differences to share ?
No, the ones I've put forward suffice.
By the way, once again, I'm Canadian, not American.
First, I'm Canadian.
Second, I agree with what you said. What I don't agree with is that the US and the former USSR are equivalent.
"Baby," I am, in fact, Canadian. Please explain to me how our system is so wondefully democratic, seeing how a party can win a majority government with 38% of the vote, or, in some instances, lose the popular vote and still win a majority government (BC 1997 and Quebec 1998).
By more than one, you obviously mean two. Two parties that are absolutely indistinguishable. And have less members than the one in the SU.
Uh... I am talking about the existence of parties and their candidates' running for office, not how many parties get their candidates elected. The Republican and Democratic parties are not the only legal ones, as was the case in the USSR with the Communist party.
Try having a vacation in Cuba. Or Iran. I can tell you that both are GREAT tourist destinations.
Except there's a bit of a difference between just a few countries being off limits and virtually the entire world. By the way, if an American wants to renounce his citizenship and move to Cuba, he can do it (if Cuba would take him). Impossible in the USSR in 1980.
Try calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter in public.
You may get your ass kicked by an angry mob, but you won't be thrown in jail with the key thrown away.
Food was certainly better and healthier in USSR. :-)
You bet. Except that the Soviets couldn't really afford it, could they? I can assure you there was a "tiny" difference between the standard of living that you, a foreigner, enjoyed and what the rest of the populace had to put up with.
This sort of historical revisionism and the fact that these views are getting wide acceptance in some circles are increasingly disconcerting me. Do you have any justification for that statement?
Let me list a few differences between the US and the USSR to you.
1. In the US, they hold regular electiosn in which candidates from more than one party can stand.
2. In the US, you can choose to emigrate (leave the country), and you won't be stopped.
3. In the US, media is not all state-owned.
4. In the US, you can publicly voice your disapproval of the government's policies.
From your other post in this thread, keksov, I surmise you're either from Russia or from one of the former Soviet satellite states. If that is the case, tell me, do you really think your country is "more free" than the US and a better place to live?
There seems to be a common misconception that Canadian taxes somehow subsidize ISPs. I am not sure what the source of this misconception is, but it is simply false. Higher taxes have nothing to do with this, as the cable and phone companies don't benefit from them.
Whereas it is true that there is quite a bit of competition in the DSL market, the two biggest broadband providers by far are the Local Phone Company (supplying DSL) and the Local Cable Company. The vast majority of Canadians are completely unaware of the independent DSL providers because they hardly advertise. I have only seen one TV commercial for an independent DSL provider, and that provider was Primus. True, other smaller fish place ads in pulications like The Computer Paper, but those have a very low readership.
Furthermore, while high speed Internet is cheaper in Canada in terms of raw figures, you have to take into account Canadians' lower average income. Once that difference is factored in, I believe that broadband access in Canada works out to the same percentage of one's income as broadband access in the US.
All these facts make the fairly wide gap between the levels of broadband (and even Internet) adoption in Canada and the US even more confounding.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.
Excuse me? Both Hitler and Bush were elected legally and in accordance with the electoral process in their respective countries.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
First of all, I wouldn't call nine months after the fact "immediately," not to mention the fact that the Reichstag was set on fire a only month after Hitler took office. 9/11 was also not the first time the WTC was bombed. Care to compare Clinton with Hitler, as well? After all, the first bombing took place a few short months after Clinton's election.
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
What "ethnic minority"? The Nazis blamed the Communists. Islamic terrorist groups were clearly blamed for 9/11, but Bush personally went to great lengths to emphasize that for someone to blame Muslims as a whole for the act would be perverse and wrong.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
What?..
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
Is this some sort of a joke? The Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany six months after Hitler came to power. If this is happening "twice as fast" in the US, one would have thought political parties would have been banned by the end of 2001.
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
What is "secret and clandestine" about Bush's government?
People who insist on comparing the US to totalitarian regimes clearly never lived under true totalitarianism. Try living in China, Myanmar, Iraq, Iran for a while and speak of them in the same way you currently speak about the US. Oh, and before you do, don't forget to go over your will.
This is not a case of an "additional mandatory course on C#" being added to the curriculum. This is an instance where the language of instruction in one of the already mandatory courses, namely ECE 150, is being changed from C++ to C#.
This does not make the degree a "Microsoft degree," anymore than using Java in introductory courses (as UW's School of Computer Science does) makes a degree a "Sun degree."
No such requirements are present in the Computer Science program.
Apparently they must have had superior technology in Nazi Germany, East Germany, and the Soviet Union when those totalitarian states existed.
Isn't that kind of, oh I don't know, like DMCA/RIAA wanting to outlaw p2p?
Why not wait until someone actually even considers proposing to make this thing mandatory before freaking out and going all out with the conspiracy theories?
Someone who prays and studies as much as the hypothetical Jew in your question should know that the the (Babylonian) Talmud was finished around AD 500, at a time when Israel did not exist. Therefore, there is virtually no likelihood that the Talmud discusses using one's influence to incite against Israel.
But what makes this question even... odder, to put it mildly, is that Moshe Barr is an Israeli himself. So the question comes down to what he would think about a boycott of himself.
There are 56 countries that are officially Muslim (namely, members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC]). There are quite a few countries that are officially Christian. Unfortunately, I cannot give a number, but Portugal, Iceland, Zimbabwe, Sweden, and Finland are some of them. Do you really think that if there actually was a realistic chance of the demographic balance being upset in any of those countries (particularly in the Islamic ones), the people would be very happy?
And then there is one Jewish state. Now, note that Judaism is not actually the official religion of the state. Israel has no official religion. The implication of "Jewish state" is more cultural. Also consider that it is a young and immature state, and that for 54 years it has been in a virtually perpetual struggle for its survival. That will definitely cause some insecurity and possibly paranoia. Also, since Israel is a democracy that uses proportional representation for its electoral system, there is a theoretical possibility that it might cease to be a Jewish state the moment there are 50% + 1 non-Jewish citizens older than 18 years. And then there will be 0 Jewish countries. Considering how the possibility of destruction is very palpable for it, it is very unsurprising that these thoughts would be on Israeli Jews' minds.
So what's the big revelation here, that Israel is not perfect? Well, d'uh! But to draw analogies to Nazi Germany is vile and morally repugnant and is indicative of either true ignorance or unadulterated hatred on the part of the original poster.
It's not intended as a troll, in the classical sense Save it. Someone who "prays and studies" as much as you claim to should be well aware of the fact that the (Babylonian) Talmud was finished around 500 CE, at a time when no Israel existed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Talmud would offer you guidance on whether it would be right of you to use your influence with your boss to incite against and malign Israel.