I didn't say "agendas". I wasn't referring to what they believe but rather how they go about achieving goals... in other words, their behavior. I was also referring to the people who control the parties, not so much the rank and file.
To distill my point further: people at the pinnacle of hierarchies tend to all behave the same - unethically - regardless what the name is on the clubhouse or what its purpose is. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Political parties are never an exception.
... in the US both parties are controlled by the same people.
You're exaggerating or kidding, right? They aren't controlled by the same people. Those different people do have the same motivations, though, so the resulting behaviors are often identical. Your declaration would have been accurate enough if you'd said, "controlled by people who behave the same", but you didn't say that.
It's good to know that's one Bad Thing my government actually hasn't done. Now if they'd just stop doing the dozens/hundreds of other Bad Things, the forecast would be truly rosy.
If what I read at the russianspaceweb,com site is true, that NASA refused (or was prohibited) to help revive this craft merely because of the presence of a Chinese component, well... that has gotta be THE most small-minded juvenile thing my government has done lately.
... the registrars seem helpless to do anything about it.
Not helpless: careless, as in "we couldn't care less". How exactly do these thefts hurt their reputation or profits or bottom line? It doesn't, which is exactly why they don't care. These registrars will continue to not-care unless and until the victims can make the thefts affect the registrars in some measurable way.
So much for your obscure security... you just put out a press release for the whole world. You couldn't have done worse if you'd painted big bullseyes on your garage and roof - don't wanna exclude yourself from satellite view - with a red $ sign where the dot should be. *snicker*
If you're willing to make a bit of effort, that is.
Just yesterday I was just investigating the Highpoint Rocket 1220 and 1222 HBAs, which imbues its possessor with the power of Creation... the power to create hybrid magnetic-flash storage devices. Hook up an SSD and a good old moving-platter drive to it, and the HBA does the heavy lifting to create a virtual hybrid drive that will appear as a single device to the host system. It's similar to what is being done with some RAID enclosures of the last couple years, using chipsets like the JMicron JMB393 to create singular virtual drives that are really RAID arrays. I have no doubt there will be other brand HBAs of a similar sort joining these Highpoint ones soon enough.
With products like this Highpoint HBA, it's not necessary to be a lady-in-waiting to to some royal manufacturer's whim. You can pick and choose an SSD and disk drive of prices and capacities and characteristics that suit your specific needs, rather than waiting breathlessly for some one-size-fits-all solution that benefits the maker more than the buyer.
Why does US companies think they can thump on everyone else?
Quite simply because, as you already seem to know, we in the US hold the copyright on bad corporate behavior and we ain't gonna license it to anyone else!
You don't understand the real purpose of a corporation, do you? It's not PEOPLE who are being taxed, it's the MONEY, the "gains", and the same gains are not taxed twice. What the principals take out is taxed, AND what they sequester (hide) in the corporation is also taxed. Not taxing both would be like taxing only half of their true material gains.
No, "they" - the principals of the corporate tribe - don't pay twice the tax, because the whole point of the corporation is to shield them from liability and sequester some of their assets. It's absolutely fair to tax BOTH what those principals take home as personal gains as well as what they sequester in the corporation itself. The corporation exists for their benefit specifically. The same material wealth isn't taxed twice.
It's a shame you didn't do a better job of discrediting my argument. You actually supported it, apparently without even realizing it, in your zeal to concoct *something* to ease the unidentified anxiety you felt after reading my post.
In terms of my argument, it doesn't even matter if there are members of a corporate tribe whose interests don't all align perfectly with those of the corporation as a whole. In terms of the argument, it's simply not necessary that ALL elements of the set benefit equally or at all from the potential double representation; what matters is that SOME elements of the set do in fact benefit, and benefit handsomely, from having their interests effectively represented twice in Congress: once as wealthy influential individuals and again as decision-makers of a corporation. Who decides what the interests of the corporate tribe are going to be? Those are the people at issue in my argument: those decision-makers are the ones who especially shouldn't be given double representation, because they are the ones who benefit most from it. As usual, the corporation's other employees are effectively pawns, pawns to legitimize the double representation by virtue of their employment creating the entity that generates the extra representation for the corporation's principals.
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
And thus it has always been. Everyone knows the cliches "to the victor goes the spoils" and "victors write the history books", but there's another unspoken corollary: "victors write the laws", and also get to choose when and against whom they are actually enforced.
Both you and the AC that replied to you before me are equally right, and at the same time both wrong.
In the current state of affairs and absence of sufficient collective awareness and conscience, private entities not beholden to the tug-of-war of politics are the only entities likely to be able to fund a continued space presence (much less an expansion of that presence).
On the other hand, the consequences for the human collective if such an infrastructure is left in private hands would be nothing less than THE END of any chance of reigning in the One Percent that nearly controls everything now. Can you imagine the "network neutrality" debate translated into the infrastructure required for space exploration and colonization?
Never mind that ALL discussions of so-called network neutrality are a deliberate mis-frame, because the only true neutrality would be public ownership of the infrastructure - the wires - and THAT has never even been part of the main discussion; it's only been unimportant people like me with no voice even mentioning it at all. (Meanwhile the government in Australia finally gets something right that doesn't repeat our political stupidities, with its plan to buy back their wires as part of its own broadband initiative.)
Frankly, we don't dare even allow Space-X or any single government to get a controlling foothold off-planet until we've evolved the necessary collective awareness and wisdom to prevent the result from reading like the plot from any one of dozens of dystopian science fiction novels. WE NEED TO OWN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, all of us; it needs to be a co-op enterprise. The human push into space must be a SOCIAL endeavor, and by social I mean the entire human tribe, not just one splinter group of it.
We've all known that corporations (and even sole proprietors) engage in deceit to sell more product or sell at higher prices. They manipulate, misframe, mislead, and generally miseducate at every opportunity within the bounds of the law... and those bounds leave a lot of wiggle room.
We know they do it, and do it constantly. Why act indignant and butt-hurt when one gets caught a bit outside the bounds? It's a foul, they went over the line, so call it and let's get on with the Black Friday game.
If we really want to make a difference in how much of this manipulation takes place, how about we enact some laws that drastically tighten those bounds and serve the goals of the 99% for a change? The Occupy movement may not be the precise remedy, but a revolution is definitely overdue.
Seems to me (though not having been quite old enough myself to be drafted at the time) that the American audiovisual access to events in Vietnam during the war there, while not quite the real-time access being discussed here, might arguably be considered the genesis of this Panopticon Nation.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say "agendas". I wasn't referring to what they believe but rather how they go about achieving goals... in other words, their behavior. I was also referring to the people who control the parties, not so much the rank and file.
To distill my point further: people at the pinnacle of hierarchies tend to all behave the same - unethically - regardless what the name is on the clubhouse or what its purpose is. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Political parties are never an exception.
Deal with the superfluous attachments first and then see how you feel. Attachments are often unnecessary baggage.
... in the US both parties are controlled by the same people.
You're exaggerating or kidding, right? They aren't controlled by the same people. Those different people do have the same motivations, though, so the resulting behaviors are often identical. Your declaration would have been accurate enough if you'd said, "controlled by people who behave the same", but you didn't say that.
I notice your short-list of examples conveniently excludes ALL reasonably comparable nations with similar values, lifestyles, and economies.
It's not, read the other reply!
It's good to know that's one Bad Thing my government actually hasn't done. Now if they'd just stop doing the dozens/hundreds of other Bad Things, the forecast would be truly rosy.
If what I read at the russianspaceweb,com site is true, that NASA refused (or was prohibited) to help revive this craft merely because of the presence of a Chinese component, well... that has gotta be THE most small-minded juvenile thing my government has done lately.
... the registrars seem helpless to do anything about it.
Not helpless: careless, as in "we couldn't care less". How exactly do these thefts hurt their reputation or profits or bottom line? It doesn't, which is exactly why they don't care. These registrars will continue to not-care unless and until the victims can make the thefts affect the registrars in some measurable way.
You and I might see their behavior as hypocritical and double-standardish, but they don't. I doubt we have a pin sharp enough to burst their bubble.
So much for your obscure security... you just put out a press release for the whole world. You couldn't have done worse if you'd painted big bullseyes on your garage and roof - don't wanna exclude yourself from satellite view - with a red $ sign where the dot should be. *snicker*
If you're willing to make a bit of effort, that is.
Just yesterday I was just investigating the Highpoint Rocket 1220 and 1222 HBAs, which imbues its possessor with the power of Creation... the power to create hybrid magnetic-flash storage devices. Hook up an SSD and a good old moving-platter drive to it, and the HBA does the heavy lifting to create a virtual hybrid drive that will appear as a single device to the host system. It's similar to what is being done with some RAID enclosures of the last couple years, using chipsets like the JMicron JMB393 to create singular virtual drives that are really RAID arrays. I have no doubt there will be other brand HBAs of a similar sort joining these Highpoint ones soon enough.
With products like this Highpoint HBA, it's not necessary to be a lady-in-waiting to to some royal manufacturer's whim. You can pick and choose an SSD and disk drive of prices and capacities and characteristics that suit your specific needs, rather than waiting breathlessly for some one-size-fits-all solution that benefits the maker more than the buyer.
'Alternative Medicine' (Clinic) Attempts To Silence Critics
Wow, now here's behavior we've NEVER seen before!
Say, is Scientology considered alternative medicine?
Why does US companies think they can thump on everyone else?
Quite simply because, as you already seem to know, we in the US hold the copyright on bad corporate behavior and we ain't gonna license it to anyone else!
Already asked and answered... and debunked.
You don't understand the real purpose of a corporation, do you? It's not PEOPLE who are being taxed, it's the MONEY, the "gains", and the same gains are not taxed twice. What the principals take out is taxed, AND what they sequester (hide) in the corporation is also taxed. Not taxing both would be like taxing only half of their true material gains.
No, "they" - the principals of the corporate tribe - don't pay twice the tax, because the whole point of the corporation is to shield them from liability and sequester some of their assets. It's absolutely fair to tax BOTH what those principals take home as personal gains as well as what they sequester in the corporation itself. The corporation exists for their benefit specifically. The same material wealth isn't taxed twice.
It's a shame you didn't do a better job of discrediting my argument. You actually supported it, apparently without even realizing it, in your zeal to concoct *something* to ease the unidentified anxiety you felt after reading my post.
In terms of my argument, it doesn't even matter if there are members of a corporate tribe whose interests don't all align perfectly with those of the corporation as a whole. In terms of the argument, it's simply not necessary that ALL elements of the set benefit equally or at all from the potential double representation; what matters is that SOME elements of the set do in fact benefit, and benefit handsomely, from having their interests effectively represented twice in Congress: once as wealthy influential individuals and again as decision-makers of a corporation. Who decides what the interests of the corporate tribe are going to be? Those are the people at issue in my argument: those decision-makers are the ones who especially shouldn't be given double representation, because they are the ones who benefit most from it. As usual, the corporation's other employees are effectively pawns, pawns to legitimize the double representation by virtue of their employment creating the entity that generates the extra representation for the corporation's principals.
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
And thus it has always been. Everyone knows the cliches "to the victor goes the spoils" and "victors write the history books", but there's another unspoken corollary: "victors write the laws", and also get to choose when and against whom they are actually enforced.
Thanks for mentioning that.
Both you and the AC that replied to you before me are equally right, and at the same time both wrong.
In the current state of affairs and absence of sufficient collective awareness and conscience, private entities not beholden to the tug-of-war of politics are the only entities likely to be able to fund a continued space presence (much less an expansion of that presence).
On the other hand, the consequences for the human collective if such an infrastructure is left in private hands would be nothing less than THE END of any chance of reigning in the One Percent that nearly controls everything now. Can you imagine the "network neutrality" debate translated into the infrastructure required for space exploration and colonization?
Never mind that ALL discussions of so-called network neutrality are a deliberate mis-frame, because the only true neutrality would be public ownership of the infrastructure - the wires - and THAT has never even been part of the main discussion; it's only been unimportant people like me with no voice even mentioning it at all. (Meanwhile the government in Australia finally gets something right that doesn't repeat our political stupidities, with its plan to buy back their wires as part of its own broadband initiative.)
Frankly, we don't dare even allow Space-X or any single government to get a controlling foothold off-planet until we've evolved the necessary collective awareness and wisdom to prevent the result from reading like the plot from any one of dozens of dystopian science fiction novels. WE NEED TO OWN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, all of us; it needs to be a co-op enterprise. The human push into space must be a SOCIAL endeavor, and by social I mean the entire human tribe, not just one splinter group of it.
Neither: we're going to cancel it outright, a month after the next President gets sworn-in.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
We've all known that corporations (and even sole proprietors) engage in deceit to sell more product or sell at higher prices. They manipulate, misframe, mislead, and generally miseducate at every opportunity within the bounds of the law... and those bounds leave a lot of wiggle room.
We know they do it, and do it constantly. Why act indignant and butt-hurt when one gets caught a bit outside the bounds? It's a foul, they went over the line, so call it and let's get on with the Black Friday game.
If we really want to make a difference in how much of this manipulation takes place, how about we enact some laws that drastically tighten those bounds and serve the goals of the 99% for a change? The Occupy movement may not be the precise remedy, but a revolution is definitely overdue.
Seems to me (though not having been quite old enough myself to be drafted at the time) that the American audiovisual access to events in Vietnam during the war there, while not quite the real-time access being discussed here, might arguably be considered the genesis of this Panopticon Nation.