Yeah. I'm getting the same thing. Could it only be available to citizens of certain countries e.g. US, available at a later time, or is the slashdot post just full of "it."
*sighs* - OK little boy - I'll refute your points so
you don't have another tantrum, but first, Spain.
Always with the pejoratives and the argumentum ad hominem...
1) Spain's GDP per capita is 25% larger than Portugal's
GDP per capita - I'd call 1/4 'not close'
Do you even know what GDP measures? Any idea whatsoever? Please
read this in it's
entirety and you may understand the error of your ways. Also see
my post here.
2) There are other, poorer Western European countries.
Spain is not 'certainly' in the bottom 2.
Why didn't you name some? Please name some; I'd like to see you
try.
all of your rambling post was tangential
Hardly the case. If it may seem the case when conversing with you,
it is merely because I am rebutting your points which are all over
the place all the time (see: Cuba's health care in a discussion
about internet connectivity, focusing on one comment about Spain in
a page long post, etc.)
How is it relevant that you think portugal is nicer
than Spain?
Yes; how else do you indend to compare the "richness"/well-being in
two different countries. Oh, I know: you prefer to simply compare
two GDP numbers, without even knowing what such macrovariables
indicate. Allow me to reiterate: no economist will ever say
Country A is richer than Country B and use GDP numbers to back up
their claim. Not one.
Does it matter if there's poor areas in a country if
you're measuring the wealth gap between countries?
Well, the richness of each country is related to the richness of
the citizens in each country. How do you propose we compare the
well-being in two countries without looking at how well off the
citizens in those countries are? Oh, I know, we'll simply compare
those magical GDP numbers. How smart we are.
I presume you're ADD?
Pasting this sentence in the middle of your post may indicate that
you are suffering from that very affliction. Regardless, I shall
not dwell on it because I, unlike some people, reallize that it is
completely tangential to the discussion at hand.
Strawman
Oooh. Name dropping without any supporting arguments. So, how
exactly did I misrepresent your point so as to make it easier to
refute? I should think it would be quite difficult for me to do
so, as your points are extremely easy to refute to begin with. But
if you'd care to enlighten me, I await the "enlightenment."
I didn't say one way or another why Cuba was
poor
Which is why I asked you why Cuba was poor. It wouldn't make much
sense for me to ask you why you thought Cuba was poor if you had
already answered that in your post, now would it?
I just noted the fact that it has better (free,
universal) healthcare than the US.
You actually stated that Cuba had very good healthcare for a "poor
country," which is what prompted me to ask you why you thought Cuba
was a "poor country." Perhaps whan you stated "Strawman," you
weren't really accusing me of carrying out one, but simply openly
declaring your intentions to engage in such a logical fallacy?
Rambling. You start with healthcare, but don't say
anything about healthcare.
The entire paragraph is about health care. Must I spell everything
out for you? Fine. Here is my original paragraph, with the
implied words in square brackets.
"As for better healthcare, while I have never been to Cuba, I doubt
it [that Cuba actually has better health care], for the simple
reason that people like you said the same thing about the Eastern
Bloc (remember us?) [having better health care than the free West],
and that [claim that the Ea
1. Castro is not a Spaniard, his father was. Fidel was born in Cuba.
Culturally, he is a Spaniard. There is no doubt about that. Where he was actually born matters little.
Per-capita GDP is lower in Liechtenstein, Greece, Malta, and Portugal.
GDP is simply a measure of the formality of the economy and a rough macro indicator of economic activity. While increases in GDP are often correleated with increases in the wellbeing ("richness") of the average citizen, the actual GDP value is a rather poor indicator of the "richness" of the average citizen. Now, taking your examples in order: 1. Liechtenstein: I very much doubt Liechtenstein is poorer than Spain. The standard of living of the average Liechtensteinian is higher than that of the average Spanish citizen. 2. Greece: While Classical Greece is considered the birthplace of Western Civilization it is in the east of the European subcontinent (look at a map if you don't believe me). The claim that Greece is in "Westen Europe" is laughable to anyone who has ever glanced at a map. 3. Malta: A tiny island east of Tunis and north of Libya is hardly in "Western Europe." Again, look at a map to see how ridiculous that claim is. 4. Portugal: Spain's Iberian neighbour, and Spain's only contender for the title of "poorest" Western European country. That being said, simply comparing GDP/capita is no way to prove that one country is richer than another (no one who has studied economics in any depth would accept such a claim; one of the first things you learn from macroeconomics is what a poor indicator of relative wellbeing comparing GDP values is.) In recent history, the standard of living of the average Portugese citizen has been higher than that of the average Spanish citizen. Recently, the rate of change may have been in Spain's favour, but I'm still not convinced that the average Spanish citizen (especially outside the major Spanish cities) is better off than the average Portugese citizen.
And of course Spain's economy is larger than these as well.
Which says very little as Spain has a lot more citizens. Nobody considers Austria, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Hong Kong, or Singapore poorer than Spain even though those countries all have "smaller economies" than Spain (measured by GDP).
You are basing expectations of someone's professional competency on present-day ascribed characteristics of the government their parents were born under?
Not at all. I am basing expectations of someone's professional competency upon their culture and upon the performance of similar people in similar roles throughout history. It is a fact that countries ruled by cultural Spaniards (see most of "Latin America," Spain) do not perform all that well, and have not since Spain was replaced as the world's superpower (and even before that), which was a very long time ago.
Finally, as everyone seems to prefer to argue only over that single throwaway line, I take it that no one can debate the rest of my points (which is what my post was actually supposed to be about), which bodes very well for me.
All I did was address the points that you raised in your "5, Insightful" post. It's not my fault you replied to a story about "Internet Connectivity" with a post about how great Cuba and its public healthcare are supposed to be. If my reply (which did nothing more than address the random assertions that you made) is an OT rant, than surely your original post was one as well.
which rambled too wide to really disupte
Funny, because I seem to recall you implying in your original reply that it was extremely easy for you to rebut my stupid, little points, but you simply lacked the time. Since then, you went on and made 5 more posts over the course of an hour, and yet still have not rebutted my "stupid, little" points. Why is that? I hope your claim that you did not have enough time to refute my argument (which was then factually disproved by the fact than you then went on to make (not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5!) 5 more posts on slashdot over the course of an hour) was not a lie concocted so that you would not have to admit that you could not actually refute my points. That would truly be a shame.
I mean wtf does bush have to do with anything?
What does Cuban healthcare have to do with Internet Connectivity? The sentence you are referring to was in a P.S. at the end of my post. I'll tell you what: you don't have to address the P.S. of my post. Simply rebut the main body thereof.
and whats with the implication that I think Cuba is a 'workers paradise'?)
I thought that you were the one who was implying that. Again, simply rebut the main body of my post. You can ignore the P.S. (where all the peripheral content that you seem to be namedropping now is found) if you want.
*shrug* I thought I'd just pluck out the most obviously incorrect point in the OP's rant to show that they're pulling facts out of their ass.
If I am simply "pulling facts out of [my] ass," (to the extent that making observation based upon personal experiences can be construed as such) as you so eloquently put it, then surely you can find one more fact that I "pulled out of [my] ass." After you do that (which should be easy according to you), and rebut my points (which again should be easy according to you), perhaps you could pick up a book on logic, a book on debate, and a book on civilized discourse.
I await your list of the many facts that "I pulled out of [my] ass" and your rebuttal to my original arguments, both which I am sure you will do shortly, as you claim they are both very easy tasks that you only need some free time (of which you seem to have plenty) to complete.
As I don't have time to refute every point in your stupid little rant, I'm just going to choose one.
Oh, how convenient. You didn't have time to refute every point. That's ok. I'll wait until you have more time to refute every point. Just tell me when I should check back and find your complete rebuttal. After all, even though you may not have enough time right now, you are bound to have some time at some point, and since my argument are so stupid, it should be rather easy to rebut them.
Incorrect - and not even close to being correct (hasn't been the case for over 20 years).
Not even close to being correct? Spain is certainly in the bottom 2; the only other contender being its Iberian neighbour Portugal. Tell me, have you seen either of those countries? Have you seen outside the major Spanish cities? Between the two, I think I would prefer Portugal. Interesting that you would also fixate upon the most tangential of my points; a clear sign of your desperation.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Ah. Here you showcase your true intellectual ability. Your futile attempts to use argumentum ad hominem impresses no one but yourself.
P.S. Don't forget to give me that complete rebuttal when you have the time. I better not catch you making any other comments on Slashdot before you rebut the majority of my points (which according to you, should be rather easy). P.P.S Good job making a complete ass of yourself. I guess some people are completely incapable of rebutting arguments that contradict their firmly held beliefs, and when presented with such arguments panic and descend into a fury of asininity and desperation.
It's for this reason that the United States, with fewer government controls has a superior and cheaper broadband, telecoms network...oh what? Crap.
I very much doubt that the US has far fewer government controls. In accordance with the wishes of people like you, that hasn't been true in a very long time. You've also failed to isolate every other factor that may play a role, e.g. the size of the respective countries, and the demand for higher speed broadband in the US vs. in other countries. Therefore, you've proven nothing.
Turns out for some things regulation is better - look at how a poor country like Cuba has better healthcare (with lower infant mortality rates) than the wealthy US.
And why exactly is Cuba a "poor country"? Couldn't have anything to do with it's economic system could it? After all, just look at all those rich non-market countries like...
As for better healthcare, while I have never been to Cuba, I doubt it, for the simple reason that people like you said the same thing about the Eastern Bloc (remember us?), and that was blatantly wrong. Furthermore, many Eastern Bloc countries were richer than Cuba, and as they were unable to succeed, I doubt an island in the Caribbean ruled by a Spaniard dictator (Spain is the poorest Western European country) is able to succeed where so many others who were more likely to succeed failed.
But look, don't take my word for it. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Cubans who are convinced that you are wrong risk life and limb to escape Castro's fun land. You don't have to risk life or limb to live in your utopia; it's far easier for you to relocate. Frankly, I wish citizenship was transferable to people like you, who possess US citizenship, but do not vaue it in the least, could transfer it to people like me, who do not possess US citizenship, but would value it far more than an ingrate like you.
P.S. I notice that your handle is "Whiney Mac Fanboy." Interesting that you are not a "Whiney Fanboy" of a computer designed in many of the worker's paradises you keep having (fluid) dreams about e.g. former Eastern Bloc Countries, former USSR, PRC, DPRK, SRC, etc. P.P.S. Funny how most of the people who constantly whine about Bush being a dictator idolize Cuba, which is run in a far more dictatorial fashion than Bush's tiny mind could even begin to fantasize about.
IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want.
IBM's lawyer? Why exactly does a company like IBM only have one lawyer, and why is he/she the sort of person who just runs off without telling anyone beforehand?
Well, if nothing else, the fact that these guys are attracting so much attention is interesting.
I would hardly refer to even more evidence supporting the hypothesis that the majority of Westerners (including, perhaps especially, those who select "journalism" as their vocation) are not all that bright and that the Western educational system has become utter rubbish as "interesting;" I would be hard pressed to refer to these "new revelations" as anything other than "dull" or perhaps "trite."
Am I given a choice, or do the other 99.999999% of the voting population choose for me?
Yes, you are given a choice as to where you desire to live. The only manner in which the voting population of your current country could limit that choice would be if they decided to completely seal off the country and not allow anyone to leave (as was done in many Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War, though that was definitely without the consent of the citizenry).
If you accidentally copy part of one of those works into one of your own works, you are a copyright infringer.
How exactly does one go about "accidentally copying part" of a work; I suppose it may make some sense if one refers to music, but aside from that, such an event could hardly occur, and frankly, if your work consists simply of "accidentally copied parts," it is hardly adding anything of value.
With the increasing crackdown on illegal immigration without expansion of legal immigration, how is international relocation feasible?
In which countries do you see an "increasing crackdown on illegal immigration?" You and I appear to be inhabiting two different worlds, though I hold my world to be built upon a slightly stronger foundation in reality. As for your inquiry as to how international relocation is feasible, allow me to ensure you that it is rather feasible. In fact, international relocation is now easier than at any other point in history, and as a result, we are seeing population migrations the likes of which have not been experienced since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. With the decline in western birth rates and the desire of socialist western government to keep their socialist Ponzi schemes alive through whatever means necessary (in this case, a large influx of immigrants), as well as the prevalent ideology of multiculturalism, international relocation is extremely feasible (as long as you are not a completely useless human being, and even that should not be much of an impediment). Recently, major western cities have been filling up with large amounts of immigrants from the third and second world (myself included), so my theory as to the ease of international relocation appears to be well supported; in fact, the only western country probably not affected by this trend at the moment is Japan, and frankly, I doubt the only country that you are willing to relocate to happens to be Japan.
Given only the contents of a work, how can I determine whether it has been accidentally copied from an existing copyrighted work?
"Given only the contents of the work," "accidentally copied"? What are you talking about? I was clearly referring to "the creation of satire without inclusion of the original subject matter in one's own work" as you so kindly quoted me.
Free market? Copyright opposes the free market, as it is a government grant of monopoly.
I was referring to the the proposal by Mr. Lessig. Please do not attempt to pervert my words; however, as you brought up the subject, I suppose I may be persuaded to address it (even though it is completely tangential). Copyright is not "a government grant of monopoly" in the sense that a patent is a government grant of monopoly. The probability that two individuals will come up with the exact same work, without one stealing ideas from the other, is extremely small in matters where copyright has any bearing, especially when compared to matters where patents have a bearing. Instead, copyright is designed to allow the person who provided the large fixed cost to amortize the cost even though the marginal cost of production is near zero; otherwise, those who do not product the work shall always have an advantage over those who do as they do not have to amortize the large fixed cost, and can instead make a profit from simply selling other peoples work (as their own personal fixed cost for e
How ghastly! Perusing my post, I have come upon the horrendous realization that I seem to have misspoken in one of my paragraphs; perhaps I should retire for the night, but before I do, please allow me the opportunity to correct the aforementioned paragraph, which I shall now include: I am unfamiliar with the finer nuances of the English language. When one refers to an entire group ("opponents"), without using an adjective such as "some," does one imply that the rest of the sentence applies to every person belonging to that group? Can one be an opponent of "free read-write culture" without having strong financial and political (whatever that means) backing? If I were to become an opponent of "free read-write culture," would I instantaneously receive "strong financial and political backing?" Is the intention to imply that one cannot be an opponent of the ideology espoused by this individual by one's own convictions, but rather, only by having some sort of sinister motive or receiving a large cash payoff?
Lessig says that, by today's standards, the simple act of creating a video mashup renders its creator a 'pirate' and argued for sweeping changes that would embrace a fair use culture.
I suppose that the validity of that statement is rather dependent upon the jurisdiction under which you have chosen to live. As for the dire consequences of this particular example, I shall be hard pressed to lose much sleep; first of all, the statement only applies in those circumstances in which the creator of the video clip does not desire to allow you to use their product in such a manner; if one find such a practice objectionable, one is free (nay, encouraged) to go forth and produce more free content which one may then release under more permissive conditions. Surely society would be well served by an increase in the amount of original content facilitated by such a course of action. Furthermore, the primary valid reason which would prompt one to desire to create a "video mashup" would appear to be satire, which I believe is still protected under most jurisdictions irrespective of the wishes of the person whose work is being satirized; as such, I fail to notice the problem. In the unseemly circumstance that the owner of the work does not desire to allow their work to be satirized, and the jurisdiction under which one finds themselves actually cares about such matters, one is presented with two options: relocation, or the creation of satire without inclusion of the original subject matter in one's own work. Neither of these two options seem all that horrendous.
Lessig asked the audience to consider sharing works under a Creative Commons license and redirect money they would spend on restricted content to organizations that support a fair use and free culture.
Both of those appear to be reasonable courses of actions; I am impressed with the apparent understanding of both the philosophy of individual liberty and the workings of the free market exhibited by this individual.
He says that opponents of a free read-write culture have strong financial and political backing so unified community support is crucial.
I am unfamiliar with the finer nuances of the English language. When one refers to an entire group ("opponents"), without using an adjective such as "some," does one imply that the rest of the sentence applies to every person belonging to that group? Can one be a proponent of "free read-write culture" without having strong financial and political (whatever that means) backing? If I were to become a supporter of "free read-write culture," would I instantaneously receive "strong financial and political backing?" Is the intention to imply that one cannot be a proponent of the ideology espoused by this individual by one's own convictions, but rather, only by having some sort of sinister motive or receiving a large cash payoff?
'If the debate is controlled by lawyers and lobbyists...," says Lessig, 'this debate will be lost.'"
How can a debate be controlled by "lawyers and lobbyists," and even if such a thing was possible, how would this lead to the loss of the debate? If you have truth and reason on your side, you shall surely win the debate if both parties are allowed to express themselves. That being said, one may surely lose the battle of having one's ideas implemented by law, but seeing as the two ideas mentioned by the individual above were matters of individual choice and working within the free market, I fail to see what "lawyers and lobbyists" have to do with anything. After all, neither lobbyists nor lawyers shall prevent free citizens from "sharing works under a Creative Commons license and redirect money they would spend on restricted content to organizations that support a fair use and free culture" as long as the citizens in questions can be referred to as free.
I believe that you just restated the exact same thing as the post to which you replied (see "Literal : You well ma == ?" in that post). That being said, if you want to correct the post to which you replied, you should have probably picked upon the fact that the poster neglected to include the tone marks (specifically, the numbers associated with them in PinYin).
that the government's search for backdated options among tech companies is going too far
Well, what else can one expect from the SEC under the stewardship of the extremely evil yet stunningly incompetent Chimpy McBu$hitlerburtongharib administration and its Rovian crony-capitalist neo-conservative zionist overlords?
And many claim to be Christians and go to church to worship a person who advocated pacifism and told people that when you are attacked you should turn the other cheek.
It should be noted that "turn the other cheek" would not have meant the same thing in Jesus' setting as you probably believe it to (see here). That being said, Jesus (the mythological character presented in the New Testament) definitely suffers from some form of intellectual deficiency, as becomes apparent when Jesus' life is contrasted with the more historical and far less mythological Mohammed (Jesus: killed 0 people, marryed/slept with 0/1 women, led 0 armies into war, conquered 0 land, was complicit in his own murder; Mohammed: killed many people, married and slept with many women, led meny armies to victory, conquered much land and many people, was not crucified). Furthermore, the influence of Jesus' illconceived ideas upon modern faux liberal thought (not to be confused with classical liberalism, or "liberalism" up to and including JFK, but preceding the rise of Carter) is quite apparent, leading me (and I assume others) to cheer the left's de-Christianization policies.
spends roughly the same amount of money on so-called defense[sic] as the rest of the world combined,
Perhaps in absolute terms, but remember that the US also has far higher manufacturing costs and much higher salary costs than a country such as China. This is also due to the non-Communist US economy performing a bit better than that of other countries; if you look at US Military Expenditure in terms of GDP, you shall find that the US is 26th in the world, far behind many countries that you like a lot more than the US.
fighting a war on Iraq that everyone from the UN Secretary General, to the late Pope, to the Dali Lama has bluntly called illegal.
Oooh, a war condemned by three unelected pompous theocrats (including the UN Sec. Gen.). If the war in Iraq was truly illegal (as you assert) and not just poorly thought out and executed, you would not find the need to invoke the name of the aforementioned three theocrats, but could instead produce a logical argument for its very illegailty.
As someone who is "pissed off" about pacifism, you're simply reflecting the attitude of the US
Correct. Anybody who rejects pacifrism as a ideologially sound system, or as a pragmatically functional system is merely "reflecting the attitude of the US." You have certainly won this argument, sir.
the country which has launched more interventions and wars of aggression in the past century than any other country by far.
Aside from your claim being unsubstantiated, let us examine the wars in which the US has participated during the 20th century. WWI (justified, with the collapse of the Eastern Front, necessary in order to prevent British and French defeat, and ensure Ottoman defeat), WWII (I'm neither blue eyed, not blonde haired, so I cannot say I have much sorrow for the 3rd Reich, as for the Japanese, they attacked the US first, so that was their own undoing), Korea (UN Sanctioned, not that it matters, South Korea -- now rich, democratic country, North Korea -- starving peasants in poor totalitarian, ultra-militarized "country"), Vietnam (poorly executed in that the North Vietnamese were not properly attacked and defeated by the US, noone on the left seems to care as to what happened in Vietnam after the US departed (the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, the war with Cambodia, the war with China, the Boat people, furthermore, based upon the South Korean/North Korean Model*, a free S. Vietnam would have prob
Because nothing says "free" (liber, not gratis) like imposing seemingly arbitrary limits upon what one can do with the "free" software in question.
As for pacifism, I defer to Mr. George Orwell's thoughts on the matter: "Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U." from Pacifism and the War by George Orwell, 1942.
Addendum: I have devised a system by which an even older method can be used to detect the vast majority of contemporary terrorists. This method, which involves only a pen and paper, consists of offering each passanger the opportunity to illustrate a cartoon involving the prophet Mohammed* if they desire to be fast tracked through the screening process. Anyone who refuses the fast track process could then be subjected to a system involving far more scrutiny.
*This method is supported by the empirical evidence that has been collected during the Danish Cartoon Riots and Crisis.
the restriction on all liquids force even mothers with young children to have to test bottled milk to prove that it isn't a dangerous liquid.
This isn't a matter of "even;" it's a matter of "especially." See this story; quote: "A HUSBAND and wife arrested in the British terror raids allegedly planned to take their six-month-old baby on a mid-air suicide mission.
Scotland Yard police are quizzing Abdula Ahmed Ali, 25, and his 23-year-old wife Cossor over suspicions they were to use their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb."
I've used AIM and IRC excessively in the past few years, and it has led me to getting a nearly perfect score on my English SAT exams.
I'm pretty sure that "it has led me to getting" is grammatically incorrect. You might want to try "it has led to me getting" instead; while it involves splitting an infinitive, a practice frowned upon by some, I believe it to be far more correct than your version.
Some people may actually improve based on the widespread use of IMs, just like emails or passing notes in class...
Furthermore, "just like emails or passing notes in class" is not a complete clause, so I don't believe your other sentence to be grammatically correct either. I intend no offense; however, you attaining a near perfect sore on your "SAT exam" may say more about the aptitude of the SAT to measure your proficiency with the English language than it does about your own aptitude.
P.S. English is my third language. If I have made any grammatical mistakes in my post, feel free to correct them; however, if you do happen to come across such mistakes, please keep my ameliorating circumstance in mind.
Design News discusses Boston's Big Dig and begs the question - is it one of engineering's greatest failures?
No, it really does not "beg the question." Begging the question refers to a logical fallacy; it has nothing to do whatsoever with "raising the question" or "asking the question." Capisce?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I'm getting the same thing. Could it only be available to citizens of certain countries e.g. US, available at a later time, or is the slashdot post just full of "it."
The parent post now stands at -1, Flamebait. I guess some people (probably youths) just cannot take a joke. :P
Frankly, I'd prefer it if young people were kept off the Internet (or given read-only access). Honestly, what exactly do they add?
If I were you, I would not be bragging about how my country's government punishes people for writing or publishing books. Just saying...
Always with the pejoratives and the argumentum ad hominem...
Do you even know what GDP measures? Any idea whatsoever? Please read this in it's entirety and you may understand the error of your ways. Also see my post here.
Why didn't you name some? Please name some; I'd like to see you try.
Hardly the case. If it may seem the case when conversing with you, it is merely because I am rebutting your points which are all over the place all the time (see: Cuba's health care in a discussion about internet connectivity, focusing on one comment about Spain in a page long post, etc.)
Yes; how else do you indend to compare the "richness"/well-being in two different countries. Oh, I know: you prefer to simply compare two GDP numbers, without even knowing what such macrovariables indicate. Allow me to reiterate: no economist will ever say Country A is richer than Country B and use GDP numbers to back up their claim. Not one.
Well, the richness of each country is related to the richness of the citizens in each country. How do you propose we compare the well-being in two countries without looking at how well off the citizens in those countries are? Oh, I know, we'll simply compare those magical GDP numbers. How smart we are.
Pasting this sentence in the middle of your post may indicate that you are suffering from that very affliction. Regardless, I shall not dwell on it because I, unlike some people, reallize that it is completely tangential to the discussion at hand.
Oooh. Name dropping without any supporting arguments. So, how exactly did I misrepresent your point so as to make it easier to refute? I should think it would be quite difficult for me to do so, as your points are extremely easy to refute to begin with. But if you'd care to enlighten me, I await the "enlightenment."
Which is why I asked you why Cuba was poor. It wouldn't make much sense for me to ask you why you thought Cuba was poor if you had already answered that in your post, now would it?
You actually stated that Cuba had very good healthcare for a "poor country," which is what prompted me to ask you why you thought Cuba was a "poor country." Perhaps whan you stated "Strawman," you weren't really accusing me of carrying out one, but simply openly declaring your intentions to engage in such a logical fallacy?
The entire paragraph is about health care. Must I spell everything out for you? Fine. Here is my original paragraph, with the implied words in square brackets. "As for better healthcare, while I have never been to Cuba, I doubt it [that Cuba actually has better health care], for the simple reason that people like you said the same thing about the Eastern Bloc (remember us?) [having better health care than the free West], and that [claim that the Ea
Culturally, he is a Spaniard. There is no doubt about that. Where he was actually born matters little.
GDP is simply a measure of the formality of the economy and a rough macro indicator of economic activity. While increases in GDP are often correleated with increases in the wellbeing ("richness") of the average citizen, the actual GDP value is a rather poor indicator of the "richness" of the average citizen. Now, taking your examples in order:
1. Liechtenstein: I very much doubt Liechtenstein is poorer than Spain. The standard of living of the average Liechtensteinian is higher than that of the average Spanish citizen.
2. Greece: While Classical Greece is considered the birthplace of Western Civilization it is in the east of the European subcontinent (look at a map if you don't believe me). The claim that Greece is in "Westen Europe" is laughable to anyone who has ever glanced at a map.
3. Malta: A tiny island east of Tunis and north of Libya is hardly in "Western Europe." Again, look at a map to see how ridiculous that claim is.
4. Portugal: Spain's Iberian neighbour, and Spain's only contender for the title of "poorest" Western European country. That being said, simply comparing GDP/capita is no way to prove that one country is richer than another (no one who has studied economics in any depth would accept such a claim; one of the first things you learn from macroeconomics is what a poor indicator of relative wellbeing comparing GDP values is.) In recent history, the standard of living of the average Portugese citizen has been higher than that of the average Spanish citizen. Recently, the rate of change may have been in Spain's favour, but I'm still not convinced that the average Spanish citizen (especially outside the major Spanish cities) is better off than the average Portugese citizen.
Which says very little as Spain has a lot more citizens. Nobody considers Austria, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Hong Kong, or Singapore poorer than Spain even though those countries all have "smaller economies" than Spain (measured by GDP).
Not at all. I am basing expectations of someone's professional competency upon their culture and upon the performance of similar people in similar roles throughout history. It is a fact that countries ruled by cultural Spaniards (see most of "Latin America," Spain) do not perform all that well, and have not since Spain was replaced as the world's superpower (and even before that), which was a very long time ago.
Finally, as everyone seems to prefer to argue only over that single throwaway line, I take it that no one can debate the rest of my points (which is what my post was actually supposed to be about), which bodes very well for me.
All I did was address the points that you raised in your "5, Insightful" post. It's not my fault you replied to a story about "Internet Connectivity" with a post about how great Cuba and its public healthcare are supposed to be. If my reply (which did nothing more than address the random assertions that you made) is an OT rant, than surely your original post was one as well.
Funny, because I seem to recall you implying in your original reply that it was extremely easy for you to rebut my stupid, little points, but you simply lacked the time. Since then, you went on and made 5 more posts over the course of an hour, and yet still have not rebutted my "stupid, little" points. Why is that?
I hope your claim that you did not have enough time to refute my argument (which was then factually disproved by the fact than you then went on to make (not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5!) 5 more posts on slashdot over the course of an hour) was not a lie concocted so that you would not have to admit that you could not actually refute my points. That would truly be a shame.
What does Cuban healthcare have to do with Internet Connectivity? The sentence you are referring to was in a P.S. at the end of my post. I'll tell you what: you don't have to address the P.S. of my post. Simply rebut the main body thereof.
I thought that you were the one who was implying that. Again, simply rebut the main body of my post. You can ignore the P.S. (where all the peripheral content that you seem to be namedropping now is found) if you want.
If I am simply "pulling facts out of [my] ass," (to the extent that making observation based upon personal experiences can be construed as such) as you so eloquently put it, then surely you can find one more fact that I "pulled out of [my] ass." After you do that (which should be easy according to you), and rebut my points (which again should be easy according to you), perhaps you could pick up a book on logic, a book on debate, and a book on civilized discourse.
I await your list of the many facts that "I pulled out of [my] ass" and your rebuttal to my original arguments, both which I am sure you will do shortly, as you claim they are both very easy tasks that you only need some free time (of which you seem to have plenty) to complete.
Oh, how convenient. You didn't have time to refute every point. That's ok. I'll wait until you have more time to refute every point. Just tell me when I should check back and find your complete rebuttal. After all, even though you may not have enough time right now, you are bound to have some time at some point, and since my argument are so stupid, it should be rather easy to rebut them.
Not even close to being correct? Spain is certainly in the bottom 2; the only other contender being its Iberian neighbour Portugal. Tell me, have you seen either of those countries? Have you seen outside the major Spanish cities? Between the two, I think I would prefer Portugal. Interesting that you would also fixate upon the most tangential of my points; a clear sign of your desperation.
Ah. Here you showcase your true intellectual ability. Your futile attempts to use argumentum ad hominem impresses no one but yourself.
P.S. Don't forget to give me that complete rebuttal when you have the time. I better not catch you making any other comments on Slashdot before you rebut the majority of my points (which according to you, should be rather easy).
P.P.S Good job making a complete ass of yourself. I guess some people are completely incapable of rebutting arguments that contradict their firmly held beliefs, and when presented with such arguments panic and descend into a fury of asininity and desperation.
I very much doubt that the US has far fewer government controls. In accordance with the wishes of people like you, that hasn't been true in a very long time. You've also failed to isolate every other factor that may play a role, e.g. the size of the respective countries, and the demand for higher speed broadband in the US vs. in other countries. Therefore, you've proven nothing.
And why exactly is Cuba a "poor country"? Couldn't have anything to do with it's economic system could it? After all, just look at all those rich non-market countries like...
As for better healthcare, while I have never been to Cuba, I doubt it, for the simple reason that people like you said the same thing about the Eastern Bloc (remember us?), and that was blatantly wrong. Furthermore, many Eastern Bloc countries were richer than Cuba, and as they were unable to succeed, I doubt an island in the Caribbean ruled by a Spaniard dictator (Spain is the poorest Western European country) is able to succeed where so many others who were more likely to succeed failed.
But look, don't take my word for it. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Cubans who are convinced that you are wrong risk life and limb to escape Castro's fun land. You don't have to risk life or limb to live in your utopia; it's far easier for you to relocate. Frankly, I wish citizenship was transferable to people like you, who possess US citizenship, but do not vaue it in the least, could transfer it to people like me, who do not possess US citizenship, but would value it far more than an ingrate like you.
P.S. I notice that your handle is "Whiney Mac Fanboy." Interesting that you are not a "Whiney Fanboy" of a computer designed in many of the worker's paradises you keep having (fluid) dreams about e.g. former Eastern Bloc Countries, former USSR, PRC, DPRK, SRC, etc.
P.P.S. Funny how most of the people who constantly whine about Bush being a dictator idolize Cuba, which is run in a far more dictatorial fashion than Bush's tiny mind could even begin to fantasize about.
Crackpots and Opportunists say Crazy Crap (perhaps in hopes of securing some cash investments); Film at 11 on You Tube. Why is this on Slashdot?
Yes, you are given a choice as to where you desire to live. The only manner in which the voting population of your current country could limit that choice would be if they decided to completely seal off the country and not allow anyone to leave (as was done in many Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War, though that was definitely without the consent of the citizenry).
How exactly does one go about "accidentally copying part" of a work; I suppose it may make some sense if one refers to music, but aside from that, such an event could hardly occur, and frankly, if your work consists simply of "accidentally copied parts," it is hardly adding anything of value.
In which countries do you see an "increasing crackdown on illegal immigration?" You and I appear to be inhabiting two different worlds, though I hold my world to be built upon a slightly stronger foundation in reality. As for your inquiry as to how international relocation is feasible, allow me to ensure you that it is rather feasible. In fact, international relocation is now easier than at any other point in history, and as a result, we are seeing population migrations the likes of which have not been experienced since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. With the decline in western birth rates and the desire of socialist western government to keep their socialist Ponzi schemes alive through whatever means necessary (in this case, a large influx of immigrants), as well as the prevalent ideology of multiculturalism, international relocation is extremely feasible (as long as you are not a completely useless human being, and even that should not be much of an impediment). Recently, major western cities have been filling up with large amounts of immigrants from the third and second world (myself included), so my theory as to the ease of international relocation appears to be well supported; in fact, the only western country probably not affected by this trend at the moment is Japan, and frankly, I doubt the only country that you are willing to relocate to happens to be Japan.
"Given only the contents of the work," "accidentally copied"? What are you talking about? I was clearly referring to "the creation of satire without inclusion of the original subject matter in one's own work" as you so kindly quoted me.
I was referring to the the proposal by Mr. Lessig. Please do not attempt to pervert my words; however, as you brought up the subject, I suppose I may be persuaded to address it (even though it is completely tangential). Copyright is not "a government grant of monopoly" in the sense that a patent is a government grant of monopoly. The probability that two individuals will come up with the exact same work, without one stealing ideas from the other, is extremely small in matters where copyright has any bearing, especially when compared to matters where patents have a bearing. Instead, copyright is designed to allow the person who provided the large fixed cost to amortize the cost even though the marginal cost of production is near zero; otherwise, those who do not product the work shall always have an advantage over those who do as they do not have to amortize the large fixed cost, and can instead make a profit from simply selling other peoples work (as their own personal fixed cost for e
How ghastly! Perusing my post, I have come upon the horrendous realization that I seem to have misspoken in one of my paragraphs; perhaps I should retire for the night, but before I do, please allow me the opportunity to correct the aforementioned paragraph, which I shall now include:
I am unfamiliar with the finer nuances of the English language. When one refers to an entire group ("opponents"), without using an adjective such as "some," does one imply that the rest of the sentence applies to every person belonging to that group? Can one be an opponent of "free read-write culture" without having strong financial and political (whatever that means) backing? If I were to become an opponent of "free read-write culture," would I instantaneously receive "strong financial and political backing?" Is the intention to imply that one cannot be an opponent of the ideology espoused by this individual by one's own convictions, but rather, only by having some sort of sinister motive or receiving a large cash payoff?
I suppose that the validity of that statement is rather dependent upon the jurisdiction under which you have chosen to live. As for the dire consequences of this particular example, I shall be hard pressed to lose much sleep; first of all, the statement only applies in those circumstances in which the creator of the video clip does not desire to allow you to use their product in such a manner; if one find such a practice objectionable, one is free (nay, encouraged) to go forth and produce more free content which one may then release under more permissive conditions. Surely society would be well served by an increase in the amount of original content facilitated by such a course of action. Furthermore, the primary valid reason which would prompt one to desire to create a "video mashup" would appear to be satire, which I believe is still protected under most jurisdictions irrespective of the wishes of the person whose work is being satirized; as such, I fail to notice the problem. In the unseemly circumstance that the owner of the work does not desire to allow their work to be satirized, and the jurisdiction under which one finds themselves actually cares about such matters, one is presented with two options: relocation, or the creation of satire without inclusion of the original subject matter in one's own work. Neither of these two options seem all that horrendous.
Both of those appear to be reasonable courses of actions; I am impressed with the apparent understanding of both the philosophy of individual liberty and the workings of the free market exhibited by this individual.
I am unfamiliar with the finer nuances of the English language. When one refers to an entire group ("opponents"), without using an adjective such as "some," does one imply that the rest of the sentence applies to every person belonging to that group? Can one be a proponent of "free read-write culture" without having strong financial and political (whatever that means) backing? If I were to become a supporter of "free read-write culture," would I instantaneously receive "strong financial and political backing?" Is the intention to imply that one cannot be a proponent of the ideology espoused by this individual by one's own convictions, but rather, only by having some sort of sinister motive or receiving a large cash payoff?
How can a debate be controlled by "lawyers and lobbyists," and even if such a thing was possible, how would this lead to the loss of the debate? If you have truth and reason on your side, you shall surely win the debate if both parties are allowed to express themselves. That being said, one may surely lose the battle of having one's ideas implemented by law, but seeing as the two ideas mentioned by the individual above were matters of individual choice and working within the free market, I fail to see what "lawyers and lobbyists" have to do with anything. After all, neither lobbyists nor lawyers shall prevent free citizens from "sharing works under a Creative Commons license and redirect money they would spend on restricted content to organizations that support a fair use and free culture" as long as the citizens in questions can be referred to as free.
I believe that you just restated the exact same thing as the post to which you replied (see "Literal : You well
ma == ?" in that post). That being said, if you want to correct the post to which you replied, you should have probably picked upon the fact that the poster neglected to include the tone marks (specifically, the numbers associated with them in PinYin).
I see that you catch my drift; well done, sir.
P.S. Your penny arcade link appears to be broken (404).
It should be noted that "turn the other cheek" would not have meant the same thing in Jesus' setting as you probably believe it to (see here). That being said, Jesus (the mythological character presented in the New Testament) definitely suffers from some form of intellectual deficiency, as becomes apparent when Jesus' life is contrasted with the more historical and far less mythological Mohammed (Jesus: killed 0 people, marryed/slept with 0/1 women, led 0 armies into war, conquered 0 land, was complicit in his own murder; Mohammed: killed many people, married and slept with many women, led meny armies to victory, conquered much land and many people, was not crucified). Furthermore, the influence of Jesus' illconceived ideas upon modern faux liberal thought (not to be confused with classical liberalism, or "liberalism" up to and including JFK, but preceding the rise of Carter) is quite apparent, leading me (and I assume others) to cheer the left's de-Christianization policies.
Perhaps in absolute terms, but remember that the US also has far higher manufacturing costs and much higher salary costs than a country such as China. This is also due to the non-Communist US economy performing a bit better than that of other countries; if you look at US Military Expenditure in terms of GDP, you shall find that the US is 26th in the world, far behind many countries that you like a lot more than the US.
Oooh, a war condemned by three unelected pompous theocrats (including the UN Sec. Gen.). If the war in Iraq was truly illegal (as you assert) and not just poorly thought out and executed, you would not find the need to invoke the name of the aforementioned three theocrats, but could instead produce a logical argument for its very illegailty.
Correct. Anybody who rejects pacifrism as a ideologially sound system, or as a pragmatically functional system is merely "reflecting the attitude of the US." You have certainly won this argument, sir.
Aside from your claim being unsubstantiated, let us examine the wars in which the US has participated during the 20th century.
WWI (justified, with the collapse of the Eastern Front, necessary in order to prevent British and French defeat, and ensure Ottoman defeat), WWII (I'm neither blue eyed, not blonde haired, so I cannot say I have much sorrow for the 3rd Reich, as for the Japanese, they attacked the US first, so that was their own undoing), Korea (UN Sanctioned, not that it matters, South Korea -- now rich, democratic country, North Korea -- starving peasants in poor totalitarian, ultra-militarized "country"), Vietnam (poorly executed in that the North Vietnamese were not properly attacked and defeated by the US, noone on the left seems to care as to what happened in Vietnam after the US departed (the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, the war with Cambodia, the war with China, the Boat people, furthermore, based upon the South Korean/North Korean Model*, a free S. Vietnam would have prob
Because nothing says "free" (liber, not gratis) like imposing seemingly arbitrary limits upon what one can do with the "free" software in question.
As for pacifism, I defer to Mr. George Orwell's thoughts on the matter: "Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U." from Pacifism and the War by George Orwell, 1942.
Addendum:
I have devised a system by which an even older method can be used to detect the vast majority of contemporary terrorists. This method, which involves only a pen and paper, consists of offering each passanger the opportunity to illustrate a cartoon involving the prophet Mohammed* if they desire to be fast tracked through the screening process. Anyone who refuses the fast track process could then be subjected to a system involving far more scrutiny.
*This method is supported by the empirical evidence that has been collected during the Danish Cartoon Riots and Crisis.
I'm pretty sure that "it has led me to getting" is grammatically incorrect. You might want to try "it has led to me getting" instead; while it involves splitting an infinitive, a practice frowned upon by some, I believe it to be far more correct than your version.
Furthermore, "just like emails or passing notes in class" is not a complete clause, so I don't believe your other sentence to be grammatically correct either. I intend no offense; however, you attaining a near perfect sore on your "SAT exam" may say more about the aptitude of the SAT to measure your proficiency with the English language than it does about your own aptitude.
P.S. English is my third language. If I have made any grammatical mistakes in my post, feel free to correct them; however, if you do happen to come across such mistakes, please keep my ameliorating circumstance in mind.