According to your quotes, the idea of "taxing people even when they're away from home" is an idea implemented BY THE UNITED STATES ALREADY. The UN, thought the ITO, thinks it would be a good idea to establish a consistent taxing regime where such differences in taxation aren't used as a means for creating "brain drains" from poorer countries which are trying to establish themselves. The idea of taxing expats is an idea the US ALREADY USES.
The US taxes US citizens working overseas. It does not tax emigrants (those who move permanently to another country) as the UN suggests it would like to do itself. Please read more carefully and look up the big words like "emigrant" and "expatriate" when necessary.
Also note the keywords "technical assitance" and "ITO to help with enforcement". The ITO would be a means for helping navigate the mess of taxation rules that exist globally. Developing countries just don't have the resources to sort out the tax system of every bloody country their citizens may choose to go, and setup schemes to continue taxing their expats.
That's just silly. When the US taxes expats (not emigrants!), it taxes them under US tax law. Not under the tax laws of the host country. There's no need for the US or any other country to "sort out the tax system of every bloody country their citizens may choose to go, and setup schemes to continue taxing their expats." No, the UN wants to help collect taxes on people who leave one country to go seek a better life in another country (read: tax those who move to America or Europe from 3rd world countries.) This is about emigration, not expat foreign workers.
Anyway, your concern was about "the UN raising revenue for itself", whereas that item refers to "helping countries raise revenue from their expats, who took their skills (learned at home) out of the country". Oh, and the other taxes you mentioned were those that impact everyone in the world negatively. Pollution, etc. The concept that the UN would say "hey we need more money, where's something we can tax" is stupid, and harks back to the middle ages.
Read closely: In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) called for a "New World Social Charter where the world will redistribute wealth, as it cannot survive, one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the U.N. must become the principal custodian of global human security, and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning." To meet these goals, they put forth the concept of global taxation.
Whether or not they go it under the guise of "redistributing wealth" (which is a horrible idea) is irrelevant. The UN will take a cut for "administration costs" and that benefits the UN. So the proposed taxes will benefit the UN by financing it. And, like all taxing bodies and organizations, the UN will have an incentive (profit motive / lifestyle maintenance of the head honchos) to continue to tax more, and never reduce taxes. The member nation's taxes^W dies aren't enough for what they want to do, and they want more.
Yeah, there are no current UN-only-enforced taxes (other than the dues paid 2x disproportionally by the US and Japan.) I'd consider debt-relief a tax on the citizins of the countries forgiving the debt. And the new airline ticket tax comes pretty close to being a UN tax, see below (though some governments are apparently willingly cooperating -- but doesn't that always have to be the case with the UN?) But that doesn't mean the UN doesn't want them, and wouldn't use them on the Internet if they could. I give you, the Tobin Tax:
Global Commission to Fund the United Nations, published The UN: Policy and Financing Alternatives, 1996, which includes articles promoting the Tobin Tax. Tobin Taxes are excise taxes on cross-border currency transactions. They can be enacted by national legislatures, followed by multilateral cooperation for effective enforcement. The revenue should go to global priorities: basic environmental and human needs. Such taxes will help tame currency market volatility and restore national economic sovereignty. (The name Tobin Tax and the original concept derives from James Tobin, a Ph.D. Nobel-laureate economist at Yale University.)
At the spring meeting of the IMF/World Bank in Washington, D.C., it was announced that a number of countries will be used to test a $1 tax on airline tickets. This global tax idea has been around for the last twenty years, and is now back, as a tax that would be relatively easy to put in place. Furthermore, an "International Financing Facility" for immunization will also be set up, on a test basis.
In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) called for a "New World Social Charter where the world will redistribute wealth, as it cannot survive, one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the U.N. must become the principal custodian of global human security, and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning."
To meet these goals, they put forth the concept of global taxation. Their suggestions included: a tax on the sale of arms weapons, creating a Global Demilitarization Fund, with the savings countries would experience, if they reduced military spending by 3 percent, over a ten year period; a global tax of $1 per barrel on oil consumption; a tax on speculative international currency transactions, that has been dubbed the "Tobin tax;" and a world income tax of 0.1 percent on the richest nations' with per capita GNP of $10,000. To help reduce the debt of the poorest countries of the world, a number of debt-restructuring recommendations were made, including debt cancellation.
Moreover, the document I linked clearly advocates the creation of an International Tax Organization (ITO) to create global taxes and enforce taxation across national boundaries. For example:
p. 9: The Panel proposes that the international community should consider the potential benefits of an International Tax Organization. This could address many needs that have arisen as globalization has progressively undermined the territoriality principle on which traditional tax codes are based. Developing countries would stand to benefit especially from technical assistance in tax administration, tax information sharing that permits the taxation of flight capital, unitary taxation to thwart the misuse of transfer pricing, and taxation of emigrant income.
p. 66: Another task that might fall to an ITO would be the development, negotiation and operation of international arrangements for the taxation of emigrants. At present most emigrants pay taxes only to their host country, an arrangement that exposes source countries to the risk of economic loss when many of their most able citizens emigrate. The general introduction of arrangements analogous to those in the United States, which requires its nationals to pay United States taxes on their worldwide
It's slightly more, and is exactly at the 22% maximum (which was set by the UN itself for any one country's contribution in 2002.) It's still more than any other country, and more than twice that of any other country excluding Japan. Here's the breakdown for 2001:
USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %
I guess we should update our "long outdated view" to something like The US and Japan contribute 41% of all UN funding. That better?
Well, I'd call the dues paid by member nations a tax.
But that arguable issue aside, here's (waning: pdf link) a recent proposal to create an International Tax Organization (run by the UN, of course) that will impose global taxes, or levies that would be imposed on the entire world. The revenues generated by these taxes would be made available for income redistribution and other purposes. Tax targets of the UN include fossil fuel use and even emigrants (it hurts poor countries when smart people leave, so they should be taxed to discourage it!)
Yeah, I'll take my internet with Free Speech, thanks. Democracy has nothing to do with it. If Democracy ran the internet, then I guess China and India could team up and tell us all what we should read. Sound good to you?
Does China get a vote in the UN? Does Syria? Does India? OK (I hope you realize the answer is yes, even though I'd guess even Bush "wants you to believe" that since it's true.)
Currently, with the US "controlling" ICANN, does China, Syria, or India get a vote on what goes on the intenet or who can get an IP/DNS entry? (Bush wants you to think "no" but that's also the truth, so this one may be hard for you.)
Connect the rest of the dots to find my point, and keep raging against that machine!
I haven't said that [free speech is not necessarily good] - I have said there are a whole scale between a contitutional mandate free speech right and a dictatorial information control. Many important European countries (UK, France, Germany, for instance) don't have this absolute right and they are, in some aspects, more democratic the the USA.
OK, so? Democracy is not key to the Internet the way Free Speech is. Why should those with a history of officially limiting speech be given any control of it, either individually or as a collective body? The UN charter even goes so far as to qualify it's endorsement of free speech -- it's OK "as long as it doesn't go against the principles or goals of the UN." I can think of a lot of astuff on the internet that violates that qualifier, and I'd rather keep it all, thanks. In this discussion it doesn't matter how democratic your country is.
Now that is just cute - under what logical falacy you change "global unregulated commerce" (what I said) to "the internet" (what you said) and pretend to make any valid conclusions about anything? I was clearly answering to the top poster, I quoted the text I was answering to, and yet you choose to leave the reference out and just make up something that wasn't there. Cute, indeed.
GP poster said "These countries want to be able to control the Internet . . . engage in suppression of free speech, and create impediments to global commerce." You tellingly replied: "As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich." You clearly accepted the premise that the Internet facilitates global commerce on some level, then argued that this might not be good for certain countries. So maybe the internet should be controlled by a body that might regulate global commerce with these countries' interests in mind. My argument is that, whether or not the Internet enables global commerce and whether or not that it good for any given country should play no role in Internet regulaton (or lack thereof) or who runs the ICANN servers. So, if following your thinking yet disagreeing is cute, then I'm fucking adorable.
Exactly what and how I was saying - you concentrate on your government (very small, very petty) marketing hotspots and forget the UNESCO, the UNICEF, the Peace Corps and a miriad of other actions that do not interest you. Because they are geared toward giving a better life and a better chance to very poor people in coutries you don't even know exist. But, hey, the agenda says "The UN is bad" so all of it must be bad.
Reverse the argument and take a taste, it's easy and fun!: you concentrate on your government's (very small, very petty) marketing hotspots and forget the child rape, the oil-for-food scandal, the kickbacks and bribes, and myriad other examlpes of corruption that do not interest you. Because they show credibility issues that are reasonable to consider before handing over control of the internet to the UN. But, hey, your agenda says "The US is bad" so all of it must be bad. Taste good?
Is your web free? Interesting, mine is too. But I don't think I have to thank the USA for it. I also happen to live in a democracy, with regularly elected leaders and its own approved laws. That was one of my points: if all you can say is "Syria will control the Internet!!" you are largely off-base. Syria won't control the Internet. Neither will China. But the USA won't either.
You need to read my post again champ. I didn't say "Syria will control the Internet!!" I said Syria and China will have a say (that they currently lack) in what goes on your internet. My internet will remain free. I can point to management problems in the UN, censorship problems in China, etc. that cause me concern when I think about them having a vote on what goes on my internet. Can you tell me one thing the US has done with ICANN to make you so worried you want to wrestle control from the devil you know and hand it to the one you don't?
Wow, what a pathetic post; you just can't pass on an opportunity to bash Bush, can you? You know, I don't like the guy or most of his policies either, but idiots like you crying wolf all the time take focus and credibility away frmo the things that Bush deserves criticism for. To beat up Bush based solely on your guess that some past president would have addressed a tiny, non-issue, UN-power-grab in a "better" way is so weak that you make all us liberals look a tad bit more crazy and stupid just by saying it.
Magical Bill-Lies-To-Grand-Juries-Clinton would have made it all better and felt the pain of the poor UN. Riight. IMHO, he would have folded and handed it over like a box of nuclear secrets addressed to China, but I can back up that wild-ass assertion as well as you can yours, which is to say not at all.
As much as it sounds a sacrilege to you, many very old, civilized and respectful countries imposed limits to free speech - it does not make these countries less democratic than yours, just different. As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich.
OK, wait, let me see if I got this right -- free speech (I assume we're excepting yelling "Fire" in a crewded theatre and such) is not necessarily a good thing? OK, I guess you can have that "different" view, but when you try to impose it on everyone else's internet, then that's when we have a problem
As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich.
The internet wasn't designed to be, nor should anyone try to mold it into, something that is "good for developing and under-developed nations." Oh, and how in the hell is the internet "just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich?" That's so out there you've just got to back it up with something. Please.
Your description of the UN as [a place] where every crackpot dictator and totalitarian asshole is given a voice alongside the democratically elected crackpots and assholes may sound funny to neo-conservative Bush-loving ears, but it discounts all good the UN and its associate organizations did for decades and still do today.
Well, to these left-wing liberal Bush-hating ears it sounds right about spot on. And it doesn't discount any of the (few, but notable) good things that group of crackpots and assholes has done.
Obviously it is not fashionable to admit certain UN actions are not only good, they are essential where and when they occur (because there is no one else to perform them), but in fact they are. Without the UN the world, specially the worst and poorer parts of the world, would be a far worse place.
As it is, I am all for moving the top domain control to a supranational organization, if only to take it away from a country whose leaders has recently proved themselves to be war-mongering liars. At the moment, the only organization with such reach and resources is the UN, but I wouldn't mind if the "Techies Without Borders" took over.
Good for you. And good luck with that totally cool rage-against-the-US thing and your very clever and fore-thinking effort to punish the US for being "a country whose leaders has recently proved themselves to be war-mongering liars" by making your own internet (because you're not getting control of this one, I can assure you of that.) Enjoy your web censored by China and Syria. We'll be here having fun here on the web as it was meant to be. Free.
The only revolutions that have ever worked are those inspired by the hearts and minds of the people culling the revolutions...and that can only be encouraged peacefully by indulging populations with truth and shedding more light on ideologies they already know they deserve merely by being alive.
How does one help such a totally-controlled and opressed populace do that? If the totalitarian regime leaders supress external influences including truth and alternate ideologies, then what? Sit back and watch?
Starting wars doesn't work anymore than hitting your girlfriend makes her love you.
How about watching someone hit his girlfriend or, worse, watching someone hit yours. Do you do nothing then?
Good thing you put "new" in quotes, because it isn't. The same feature exists in gmail except that you use a '+' instead of a '-' for your keyword addon.
Strange, I noticed on the page you linked Yahoo seems to have left in a copy/paste type from their Australian site:
Keyword: WidgetDesigns (based on the store to which you want to give the address)
Your Disposable Email Address: dairyman88-widgetdesigns@yahoo.com
If Widget Designs shares or sells this disposable email address and it begins receiving spam, you can simply shut down dairyman88-widgetdesigns@yahoo.com.au without affecting your primary Yahoo! Mail address or any of your other disposable addresses.
I didn't miss that point, though admittedly I was funning with you a bit while pointing out the user mode controls. Maybe you're not seeing the point that it's not essential to use a flamebait style to get a point across. It's the easy way, sure, but it's also the less effective way. It's often even counterproductive.
You'll catch more flies with sugar rather than vinegar.
We're sliding OT, but I just wanted to agree, and say that I know all that -- it was notable present and annoying (though not as strongly ingrained as it is now) even when I was in college 8 years ago. I wonder if the GPP is so absorbed by this ubiquitous faulty assumption that he doesn't even realize it, or if his corollary was just an observation and not a value judgement as I suspect. It's hard to tell.
But it is a frustrating meme, tightly associated with other nuisances such as the Cult of Self Esteem and Universal Moral Relativism. And you pointed out the reductio ad absurdum / internal inconsistency that you're Not Supposed To Notice and must never mention.
(Yes, I think so: I saw an unmodded slashcode in between the 503's. Now the post box is, well, new. Sorta. There's still no "parent" link on the post page, so I have to click the message ID in a new tab, then parent from there to read the post to which I'm replying.)
Yes, but the segregation is voluntary and easily avoidable. IMHO It's sociopathic to "decide where to shop, where to play, where to drink, and where to stay at least in part (if not entirely) based on websites and website review."
Moreover, IMHO, more diversity is not inherently good nor is less of it inherently bad.
I browse at +3 with a +6 modifier to flamebait, troll, and underrated mods, and a -6 on informative, underrated, and insightful. You do know that you can modify your preferences and re-do any moderation anyway you like, right?
What was your point again? Oh, yeah -- that moderation imposes unavoidable groupthink. I guess that's true for those who don't bother to alter preferences. But they are your preferences, after all, and you don't have to leave them at the defaults.
P.S., I read your post again (and recall reading it before.) It is flamebait ("incredible number of posts made here that are knee-jerk replies" . . . . "What I find truly stupid is the number of such posts that have been moderated UP." . . . "The Slashdot moderation system is designed to filter out trolls and losers" . . . "But this breaks down when the average luzer who reads this is dumb, boring, and in posession of some mod points.") As a a fan of flamebait, I enjoyed it a great deal -- thank you.
Meh -- I'm like the GPP: I metamod but haven't been able to Mod since I (unknowingly) posted in the Thread of Death (google it -- the old/. journal entries explaining it are long gone.)
It used to irk me, but now that I've discovered the wonders of friend/foe/freak/fan modifiers and mod-modifier preferences (you can alter moderations by moderators to suit your own preferences) I feel like I have even more control now, and don't have to be so careful about which posts I moderate.
As a big fan of the old PLONK or WTMKF (the sound of a new entry in a kill filter, often used as a derisive reply, which BTW still exists and isn't limited to 15 years ago) I must also admit that KF's are primitive compared to the slashdot +/- 1-5 system that allows a more refined pro-/demotion of specific users and/or moderations (I love +6 on flamebait, -6 on funny, and +3 on trolls, reading at +3 -- but hey, that's just mypreference!)
I share your opinion. In fact, I've heard similar complaints about the slashdot friend/foe system and the ability to "moderate" (affect the score) of messages posted by your friends and foes. Some claim this is just a way "to avoid reading alternative viewpoints."
But in my experience, it's a good way to avoid reading over and over again the same stupid shit that I've given ample consideration to and rejected as stupid shit. I don't have time to keep re-considering it every time someone posts it. Being able to avoid that is a Good Thing.
I guess it's possible that one of the morons I've chosen to ignore would suddenly one day, 1000-monkeys-on-1000-typewriters style, present some cogent insightful bit of info to make me reconsider my already-carefully-considered viewpoint. But, I'm pretty sure I'd run into that novel info eventually anyway, and the ability to avoid it (or at least focus on the new info from those who have already proven themselves to be less moronic) is valuable to me.
Same with amazon's "people who bought that also like this . . " and other preference engines. They're preferences for a reason.
You and those who share your ignorance are a major part of the reason the Democrats lost the Presidency and most of Congress and will continue to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
According to your quotes, the idea of "taxing people even when they're away from home" is an idea implemented BY THE UNITED STATES ALREADY. The UN, thought the ITO, thinks it would be a good idea to establish a consistent taxing regime where such differences in taxation aren't used as a means for creating "brain drains" from poorer countries which are trying to establish themselves. The idea of taxing expats is an idea the US ALREADY USES.
The US taxes US citizens working overseas. It does not tax emigrants (those who move permanently to another country) as the UN suggests it would like to do itself. Please read more carefully and look up the big words like "emigrant" and "expatriate" when necessary.
Also note the keywords "technical assitance" and "ITO to help with enforcement". The ITO would be a means for helping navigate the mess of taxation rules that exist globally. Developing countries just don't have the resources to sort out the tax system of every bloody country their citizens may choose to go, and setup schemes to continue taxing their expats.
That's just silly. When the US taxes expats (not emigrants!), it taxes them under US tax law. Not under the tax laws of the host country. There's no need for the US or any other country to "sort out the tax system of every bloody country their citizens may choose to go, and setup schemes to continue taxing their expats." No, the UN wants to help collect taxes on people who leave one country to go seek a better life in another country (read: tax those who move to America or Europe from 3rd world countries.) This is about emigration, not expat foreign workers.
Anyway, your concern was about "the UN raising revenue for itself", whereas that item refers to "helping countries raise revenue from their expats, who took their skills (learned at home) out of the country". Oh, and the other taxes you mentioned were those that impact everyone in the world negatively. Pollution, etc. The concept that the UN would say "hey we need more money, where's something we can tax" is stupid, and harks back to the middle ages.
Read closely: In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) called for a "New World Social Charter where the world will redistribute wealth, as it cannot survive, one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the U.N. must become the principal custodian of global human security, and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning." To meet these goals, they put forth the concept of global taxation.
Whether or not they go it under the guise of "redistributing wealth" (which is a horrible idea) is irrelevant. The UN will take a cut for "administration costs" and that benefits the UN. So the proposed taxes will benefit the UN by financing it. And, like all taxing bodies and organizations, the UN will have an incentive (profit motive / lifestyle maintenance of the head honchos) to continue to tax more, and never reduce taxes. The member nation's taxes^W dies aren't enough for what they want to do, and they want more.
Yeah, there are no current UN-only-enforced taxes (other than the dues paid 2x disproportionally by the US and Japan.) I'd consider debt-relief a tax on the citizins of the countries forgiving the debt. And the new airline ticket tax comes pretty close to being a UN tax, see below (though some governments are apparently willingly cooperating -- but doesn't that always have to be the case with the UN?) But that doesn't mean the UN doesn't want them, and wouldn't use them on the Internet if they could. I give you, the Tobin Tax:
Global Commission to Fund the United Nations, published The UN: Policy and Financing Alternatives, 1996, which includes articles promoting the Tobin Tax. Tobin Taxes are excise taxes on cross-border currency transactions. They can be enacted by national legislatures, followed by multilateral cooperation for effective enforcement. The revenue should go to global priorities: basic environmental and human needs. Such taxes will help tame currency market volatility and restore national economic sovereignty. (The name Tobin Tax and the original concept derives from James Tobin, a Ph.D. Nobel-laureate economist at Yale University.)
At the spring meeting of the IMF/World Bank in Washington, D.C., it was announced that a number of countries will be used to test a $1 tax on airline tickets. This global tax idea has been around for the last twenty years, and is now back, as a tax that would be relatively easy to put in place. Furthermore, an "International Financing Facility" for immunization will also be set up, on a test basis.
In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) called for a "New World Social Charter where the world will redistribute wealth, as it cannot survive, one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the U.N. must become the principal custodian of global human security, and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning."
To meet these goals, they put forth the concept of global taxation. Their suggestions included: a tax on the sale of arms weapons, creating a Global Demilitarization Fund, with the savings countries would experience, if they reduced military spending by 3 percent, over a ten year period; a global tax of $1 per barrel on oil consumption; a tax on speculative international currency transactions, that has been dubbed the "Tobin tax;" and a world income tax of 0.1 percent on the richest nations' with per capita GNP of $10,000. To help reduce the debt of the poorest countries of the world, a number of debt-restructuring recommendations were made, including debt cancellation.
Moreover, the document I linked clearly advocates the creation of an International Tax Organization (ITO) to create global taxes and enforce taxation across national boundaries. For example:
p. 9: The Panel proposes that the international community should consider the potential benefits of an International Tax Organization. This could address many needs that have arisen as globalization has progressively undermined the territoriality principle on which traditional tax codes are based. Developing countries would stand to benefit especially from technical assistance in tax administration, tax information sharing that permits the taxation of flight capital, unitary taxation to thwart the misuse of transfer pricing, and taxation of emigrant income.
p. 66: Another task that might fall to an ITO would be the development, negotiation and operation of international arrangements for the taxation of emigrants. At present most emigrants pay taxes only to their host country, an arrangement that exposes source countries to the risk of economic loss when many of their most able citizens emigrate. The general introduction of arrangements analogous to those in the United States, which requires its nationals to pay United States taxes on their worldwide
Er, I get your offtopic point, read the thread again a few times to realize why it's irrelevant.
It's slightly more, and is exactly at the 22% maximum (which was set by the UN itself for any one country's contribution in 2002.) It's still more than any other country, and more than twice that of any other country excluding Japan. Here's the breakdown for 2001:
USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %
I guess we should update our "long outdated view" to something like The US and Japan contribute 41% of all UN funding. That better?
Well, I'd call the dues paid by member nations a tax.
But that arguable issue aside, here's (waning: pdf link) a recent proposal to create an International Tax Organization (run by the UN, of course) that will impose global taxes, or levies that would be imposed on the entire world. The revenues generated by these taxes would be made available for income redistribution and other purposes. Tax targets of the UN include fossil fuel use and even emigrants (it hurts poor countries when smart people leave, so they should be taxed to discourage it!)
Google "UN tax" for lots more info!
Yeah, I'll take my internet with Free Speech, thanks. Democracy has nothing to do with it. If Democracy ran the internet, then I guess China and India could team up and tell us all what we should read. Sound good to you?
Does China get a vote in the UN? Does Syria? Does India? OK (I hope you realize the answer is yes, even though I'd guess even Bush "wants you to believe" that since it's true.)
Currently, with the US "controlling" ICANN, does China, Syria, or India get a vote on what goes on the intenet or who can get an IP/DNS entry? (Bush wants you to think "no" but that's also the truth, so this one may be hard for you.)
Connect the rest of the dots to find my point, and keep raging against that machine!
I haven't said that [free speech is not necessarily good] - I have said there are a whole scale between a contitutional mandate free speech right and a dictatorial information control. Many important European countries (UK, France, Germany, for instance) don't have this absolute right and they are, in some aspects, more democratic the the USA.
OK, so? Democracy is not key to the Internet the way Free Speech is. Why should those with a history of officially limiting speech be given any control of it, either individually or as a collective body? The UN charter even goes so far as to qualify it's endorsement of free speech -- it's OK "as long as it doesn't go against the principles or goals of the UN." I can think of a lot of astuff on the internet that violates that qualifier, and I'd rather keep it all, thanks. In this discussion it doesn't matter how democratic your country is.
Now that is just cute - under what logical falacy you change "global unregulated commerce" (what I said) to "the internet" (what you said) and pretend to make any valid conclusions about anything? I was clearly answering to the top poster, I quoted the text I was answering to, and yet you choose to leave the reference out and just make up something that wasn't there. Cute, indeed.
GP poster said "These countries want to be able to control the Internet . . . engage in suppression of free speech, and create impediments to global commerce." You tellingly replied: "As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich." You clearly accepted the premise that the Internet facilitates global commerce on some level, then argued that this might not be good for certain countries. So maybe the internet should be controlled by a body that might regulate global commerce with these countries' interests in mind. My argument is that, whether or not the Internet enables global commerce and whether or not that it good for any given country should play no role in Internet regulaton (or lack thereof) or who runs the ICANN servers. So, if following your thinking yet disagreeing is cute, then I'm fucking adorable.
Exactly what and how I was saying - you concentrate on your government (very small, very petty) marketing hotspots and forget the UNESCO, the UNICEF, the Peace Corps and a miriad of other actions that do not interest you. Because they are geared toward giving a better life and a better chance to very poor people in coutries you don't even know exist. But, hey, the agenda says "The UN is bad" so all of it must be bad.
Reverse the argument and take a taste, it's easy and fun!: you concentrate on your government's (very small, very petty) marketing hotspots and forget the child rape, the oil-for-food scandal, the kickbacks and bribes, and myriad other examlpes of corruption that do not interest you. Because they show credibility issues that are reasonable to consider before handing over control of the internet to the UN. But, hey, your agenda says "The US is bad" so all of it must be bad. Taste good?
Is your web free? Interesting, mine is too. But I don't think I have to thank the USA for it. I also happen to live in a democracy, with regularly elected leaders and its own approved laws. That was one of my points: if all you can say is "Syria will control the Internet!!" you are largely off-base. Syria won't control the Internet. Neither will China. But the USA won't either.
You need to read my post again champ. I didn't say "Syria will control the Internet!!" I said Syria and China will have a say (that they currently lack) in what goes on your internet. My internet will remain free. I can point to management problems in the UN, censorship problems in China, etc. that cause me concern when I think about them having a vote on what goes on my internet. Can you tell me one thing the US has done with ICANN to make you so worried you want to wrestle control from the devil you know and hand it to the one you don't?
when [America] run[s] around claiming that whoever doesn't totally love you must be a communist, a terrorist or just plain crazy.
That'd be a great argument if that ever happened.
Wow, what a pathetic post; you just can't pass on an opportunity to bash Bush, can you? You know, I don't like the guy or most of his policies either, but idiots like you crying wolf all the time take focus and credibility away frmo the things that Bush deserves criticism for. To beat up Bush based solely on your guess that some past president would have addressed a tiny, non-issue, UN-power-grab in a "better" way is so weak that you make all us liberals look a tad bit more crazy and stupid just by saying it.
Magical Bill-Lies-To-Grand-Juries-Clinton would have made it all better and felt the pain of the poor UN. Riight. IMHO, he would have folded and handed it over like a box of nuclear secrets addressed to China, but I can back up that wild-ass assertion as well as you can yours, which is to say not at all.
Spineless people loathe and fear the brave.
As much as it sounds a sacrilege to you, many very old, civilized and respectful countries imposed limits to free speech - it does not make these countries less democratic than yours, just different. As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich.
I CLE_ID=42088>rape the children and steal oil-for-food money?
OK, wait, let me see if I got this right -- free speech (I assume we're excepting yelling "Fire" in a crewded theatre and such) is not necessarily a good thing? OK, I guess you can have that "different" view, but when you try to impose it on everyone else's internet, then that's when we have a problem
As for global unregulated commerce, it remains yet to be seem if it is good for developing and under-developed nations or just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich.
The internet wasn't designed to be, nor should anyone try to mold it into, something that is "good for developing and under-developed nations." Oh, and how in the hell is the internet "just another tool to transfer resources from the poor countries to the rich?" That's so out there you've just got to back it up with something. Please.
Your description of the UN as [a place] where every crackpot dictator and totalitarian asshole is given a voice alongside the democratically elected crackpots and assholes may sound funny to neo-conservative Bush-loving ears, but it discounts all good the UN and its associate organizations did for decades and still do today.
Well, to these left-wing liberal Bush-hating ears it sounds right about spot on. And it doesn't discount any of the (few, but notable) good things that group of crackpots and assholes has done.
Obviously it is not fashionable to admit certain UN actions are not only good, they are essential where and when they occur (because there is no one else to perform them), but in fact they are. Without the UN the world, specially the worst and poorer parts of the world, would be a far worse place.
Right. Without the UN who would http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
As it is, I am all for moving the top domain control to a supranational organization, if only to take it away from a country whose leaders has recently proved themselves to be war-mongering liars. At the moment, the only organization with such reach and resources is the UN, but I wouldn't mind if the "Techies Without Borders" took over.
Good for you. And good luck with that totally cool rage-against-the-US thing and your very clever and fore-thinking effort to punish the US for being "a country whose leaders has recently proved themselves to be war-mongering liars" by making your own internet (because you're not getting control of this one, I can assure you of that.) Enjoy your web censored by China and Syria. We'll be here having fun here on the web as it was meant to be. Free.
I'm afraid it's more than half.
Get a Replay or build a MythTV box if you're up to it. Don't support Tivo no matter how hard the astroturfers try to justify all the nonsense.
The only revolutions that have ever worked are those inspired by the hearts and minds of the people culling the revolutions...and that can only be encouraged peacefully by indulging populations with truth and shedding more light on ideologies they already know they deserve merely by being alive.
How does one help such a totally-controlled and opressed populace do that? If the totalitarian regime leaders supress external influences including truth and alternate ideologies, then what? Sit back and watch?
Starting wars doesn't work anymore than hitting your girlfriend makes her love you.
How about watching someone hit his girlfriend or, worse, watching someone hit yours. Do you do nothing then?
I can see your point, but you really should qualify your comment. Maybe something like:
All webmail sucks . . for super sleuth spies like me who have to deal with the FBI, CIA, NSA, and KGB aliens reading my email all the time.
Good thing you put "new" in quotes, because it isn't. The same feature exists in gmail except that you use a '+' instead of a '-' for your keyword addon.
Strange, I noticed on the page you linked Yahoo seems to have left in a copy/paste type from their Australian site:
Keyword: WidgetDesigns (based on the store to which you want to give the address)
Your Disposable Email Address: dairyman88-widgetdesigns@yahoo.com
If Widget Designs shares or sells this disposable email address and it begins receiving spam, you can simply shut down dairyman88-widgetdesigns@yahoo.com.au without affecting your primary Yahoo! Mail address or any of your other disposable addresses.
Thanks!
Let's see . . . 1/12 of the page a graphical advertisement. Looks almost exactly like Outlook.
OK, I'm ready to answer the question: No.
I didn't miss that point, though admittedly I was funning with you a bit while pointing out the user mode controls. Maybe you're not seeing the point that it's not essential to use a flamebait style to get a point across. It's the easy way, sure, but it's also the less effective way. It's often even counterproductive.
You'll catch more flies with sugar rather than vinegar.
We're sliding OT, but I just wanted to agree, and say that I know all that -- it was notable present and annoying (though not as strongly ingrained as it is now) even when I was in college 8 years ago. I wonder if the GPP is so absorbed by this ubiquitous faulty assumption that he doesn't even realize it, or if his corollary was just an observation and not a value judgement as I suspect. It's hard to tell.
But it is a frustrating meme, tightly associated with other nuisances such as the Cult of Self Esteem and Universal Moral Relativism. And you pointed out the reductio ad absurdum / internal inconsistency that you're Not Supposed To Notice and must never mention.
(Yes, I think so: I saw an unmodded slashcode in between the 503's. Now the post box is, well, new. Sorta. There's still no "parent" link on the post page, so I have to click the message ID in a new tab, then parent from there to read the post to which I'm replying.)
Yes, but the segregation is voluntary and easily avoidable. IMHO It's sociopathic to "decide where to shop, where to play, where to drink, and where to stay at least in part (if not entirely) based on websites and website review."
Moreover, IMHO, more diversity is not inherently good nor is less of it inherently bad.
I browse at +3 with a +6 modifier to flamebait, troll, and underrated mods, and a -6 on informative, underrated, and insightful. You do know that you can modify your preferences and re-do any moderation anyway you like, right?
What was your point again? Oh, yeah -- that moderation imposes unavoidable groupthink. I guess that's true for those who don't bother to alter preferences. But they are your preferences, after all, and you don't have to leave them at the defaults.
P.S., I read your post again (and recall reading it before.) It is flamebait ("incredible number of posts made here that are knee-jerk replies" . . . . "What I find truly stupid is the number of such posts that have been moderated UP." . . . "The Slashdot moderation system is designed to filter out trolls and losers" . . . "But this breaks down when the average luzer who reads this is dumb, boring, and in posession of some mod points.") As a a fan of flamebait, I enjoyed it a great deal -- thank you.
Meh -- I'm like the GPP: I metamod but haven't been able to Mod since I (unknowingly) posted in the Thread of Death (google it -- the old /. journal entries explaining it are long gone.)
It used to irk me, but now that I've discovered the wonders of friend/foe/freak/fan modifiers and mod-modifier preferences (you can alter moderations by moderators to suit your own preferences) I feel like I have even more control now, and don't have to be so careful about which posts I moderate.
Try it. It's fun and useful.
As a big fan of the old PLONK or WTMKF (the sound of a new entry in a kill filter, often used as a derisive reply, which BTW still exists and isn't limited to 15 years ago) I must also admit that KF's are primitive compared to the slashdot +/- 1-5 system that allows a more refined pro-/demotion of specific users and/or moderations (I love +6 on flamebait, -6 on funny, and +3 on trolls, reading at +3 -- but hey, that's just my preference!)
I wouldn't say any . And I think astroturfing and paid reviews are pretty obvious to even the moderately savvy.
I share your opinion. In fact, I've heard similar complaints about the slashdot friend/foe system and the ability to "moderate" (affect the score) of messages posted by your friends and foes. Some claim this is just a way "to avoid reading alternative viewpoints."
But in my experience, it's a good way to avoid reading over and over again the same stupid shit that I've given ample consideration to and rejected as stupid shit. I don't have time to keep re-considering it every time someone posts it. Being able to avoid that is a Good Thing.
I guess it's possible that one of the morons I've chosen to ignore would suddenly one day, 1000-monkeys-on-1000-typewriters style, present some cogent insightful bit of info to make me reconsider my already-carefully-considered viewpoint. But, I'm pretty sure I'd run into that novel info eventually anyway, and the ability to avoid it (or at least focus on the new info from those who have already proven themselves to be less moronic) is valuable to me.
Same with amazon's "people who bought that also like this . . " and other preference engines. They're preferences for a reason.
You and those who share your ignorance are a major part of the reason the Democrats lost the Presidency and most of Congress and will continue to do so.
Good luck with that strategy.