Thanks for all the details - people like you are the reason I still bother with Slashdot.
I understand that the various positioning satellites are pretty friendly on the frequencies that they use - so why did the negotiations between China and the EU progress so poorly a few years ago?
Perhaps a way around it, though, is to define what "speaking" is. A person giving money - sure. A corporation giving money... I'd say not. Otherwise, you'd be giving the people within that corporation a 2nd mouth.
That's already the case - a corporation cannot donate to a candidate directly.
However, organizations like Citizens United and MoveOn.org can use their "free speech right" to run ads during the election campaign. I think we can all agree that this is a problem, but we have to figure out a way to prevent it while still allowing the NY Times to endorse one of the candidates in their editorial section.
If it is anything like our school system, you can't just fire a teacher because they suck. At best, a "bad" teacher that does nothing overt to get fired can only get put on probation for 6 months. At the end of probation, their record is cleaned so there is no record of a teacher persistently being put on probation.
Until very recently, unions were very reluctant to score teachers in any meaningful way - even now, they don't want to include standardized tests in any teacher evaluation. I can understand their stance, but at the same time I recognize that any profession will have bad eggs, and there needs to be a weeding process in place. Like all issues with more than one actor, eventually some compromise will be reached. It is important to protect teachers from vindictive administration, too.
Too bad corporations can't go back to a more symbiotic instead of parasitic (profit maximizing) relationship with society, and that corporate and financial laws and regulations really won't allow this to happen, either (shareholder "rights", etc).
This is exactly the discussion we should be having. What do we want a corporation to be, and what rights should we grant them?
A lot of people disagree with the Citizens United decision, but have more trouble vocalizing how you would restrict them but not the New York Times. If the discussion were framed differently, people wouldn't just dismiss the court as a bunch of conservative kooks. Even the dissent (Stevens) focuses more on how it's just a bad idea to let corporations buy unlimited air time near elections than it talks about points of law.
The ancient examples of "corporations" are churches and governments - a far cry from a modern corporation. Some would even say that the church and the government were the same thing at the time. Partnerships and guilds also do little to insulate the members from liability, make ownership difficult, and differ in many other ways. Google, Apple, Microsoft, GM... none could exist in anything like their current form as a partnership.
A "corporation" is only whatever the government says it is.
In short, I wasn't talking about when a town or church "incorporates" in the ancient sense, I'm talking about when I give the state of Nevada $1500 bucks to found an LLC.
Originally, corporations were solely able to be established through an act of the state, for example through royal charter or an act of Parliament.
It was only in the mid nineteenth century, the first being through the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 in the United Kingdom, that private individuals could through a simple registration procedure be considered to have established a corporation with limited liability.
How in the world are corporations not a creation of government?
I think there are two camps advocating for this: the old-school Waldorf educators... they've been at it for over 100 years and studies are conflicted as to whether Waldorf has any overall advantage. And the other is people advocating for the disadvantaged. The idea is that kids coming from a broken or abusive home need some consistency in their life, especially at the elementary age level. I don't think the effect is important for affluent kids, and you don't see it pushed there. At my own school district, we border on a poor area of the city, so we have disadvantaged kids - but those kids have parents that care about education enough to get them into our district so I don't think it would help us.
NYC still can't get past rubber rooms, so I don't think you'll see it introduced there:)
Maybe it was private money? Or money from a single country? I'm obviously not as knowledgeable as you on the matter, but I can't find any information about money being spent by the EU on the project until 2003 after the ESA review. It certainly makes sense that stakeholders would have been spending at least something on it prior. I still think it's a waste of billions of dollars, but it's not my money and the US certainly wastes billions on other stupidness so I won't be too critical:)
Agreed. I was pointing it out as a reason it could not replace the ICANN system. I certainly have no problem with systems that combat censorship (e.g. FreeNet, TOR, etc).
The principle that we each should be in charge of the release of our personal information is a protection for you and me as well as for aging actresses.
What about politicians? Shouldn't an investigative reporter be allowed to muck around all they want? I would think there are some limits to privacy depending on the situation.
GPS still has L2 all to itself. L5 is a brand-new signal for GPS. The old GPS L1 signal is being replaced by a new L1 signal that is backwards compatible and also plays nice with Galileo.
it's hard to argue against wanting to maintain control over one's personal information. Very hard
How can you make a blanket statement like that? Different situations have different standards. If you choose to be in the public eye, you should have pretty much no expectation of privacy. Being an actress is like being a politician - if you can't handle people knowing something as trivial as your age, being a public figure might not be the occupation for you.
Independence is well worth it and the research and experience will probably pay off for other projects as well.
There are 3 systems already: Russian, American, and the not-yet-complete Chinese. To be fair, the Chinese system is "secret", but there are already dual GLONASS/GPS receivers on the market. I can't imagine what calamity could wipe out 3 independent systems while sparing the new European one, but hey.
It means we make movies, music, and television and you buy them. You even bought our top beer company, despite insisting that it tastes like watered down urine. You can pretend that you hate American culture, but you import it on a massive scale. We get BMWs, Belgian chocolate, and French wine, and you get disposable media. Seems fair.
I'd rather my ally be upfront with their war contingency plans. Pretending that the US wouldn't shoot down something and actually having secret plans to do so is not what a good ally would do.
Actually, if the US promised NOT to shoot them down, it would be very suspicious.
Galileo isn't so much about military competition as commercial competition.
Not sure the numbers work there. Even if you ignore the approximately $5 billion in initial costs, it costs $750 million/year to maintain. Was the US really ever going to charge the EU $750 million/year?
Redundancy is fine, but I think this is mainly French nationalism and a reflection of the world's recent distrust of the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for all the details - people like you are the reason I still bother with Slashdot.
I understand that the various positioning satellites are pretty friendly on the frequencies that they use - so why did the negotiations between China and the EU progress so poorly a few years ago?
Actually, you might be right! It's like warlord-ism.
Perhaps a way around it, though, is to define what "speaking" is. A person giving money - sure. A corporation giving money... I'd say not. Otherwise, you'd be giving the people within that corporation a 2nd mouth.
That's already the case - a corporation cannot donate to a candidate directly.
However, organizations like Citizens United and MoveOn.org can use their "free speech right" to run ads during the election campaign. I think we can all agree that this is a problem, but we have to figure out a way to prevent it while still allowing the NY Times to endorse one of the candidates in their editorial section.
If it is anything like our school system, you can't just fire a teacher because they suck. At best, a "bad" teacher that does nothing overt to get fired can only get put on probation for 6 months. At the end of probation, their record is cleaned so there is no record of a teacher persistently being put on probation.
Until very recently, unions were very reluctant to score teachers in any meaningful way - even now, they don't want to include standardized tests in any teacher evaluation. I can understand their stance, but at the same time I recognize that any profession will have bad eggs, and there needs to be a weeding process in place. Like all issues with more than one actor, eventually some compromise will be reached. It is important to protect teachers from vindictive administration, too.
Too bad corporations can't go back to a more symbiotic instead of parasitic (profit maximizing) relationship with society, and that corporate and financial laws and regulations really won't allow this to happen, either (shareholder "rights", etc).
This is exactly the discussion we should be having. What do we want a corporation to be, and what rights should we grant them?
A lot of people disagree with the Citizens United decision, but have more trouble vocalizing how you would restrict them but not the New York Times. If the discussion were framed differently, people wouldn't just dismiss the court as a bunch of conservative kooks. Even the dissent (Stevens) focuses more on how it's just a bad idea to let corporations buy unlimited air time near elections than it talks about points of law.
Fair enough, but in the context of this discussion it is clear that we are talking about legal entities.
The ancient examples of "corporations" are churches and governments - a far cry from a modern corporation. Some would even say that the church and the government were the same thing at the time. Partnerships and guilds also do little to insulate the members from liability, make ownership difficult, and differ in many other ways. Google, Apple, Microsoft, GM... none could exist in anything like their current form as a partnership.
A "corporation" is only whatever the government says it is.
In short, I wasn't talking about when a town or church "incorporates" in the ancient sense, I'm talking about when I give the state of Nevada $1500 bucks to found an LLC.
From your own link:
How in the world are corporations not a creation of government?
Corporations are a creation of the government. They are like copyrights and patents - they only exist in law. Separating the two is impossible.
The conversation would be much more constructive if the conversation were: "What do we want corporations to do/be?"
But then we wouldn't be able to join the red team or the blue team.
The value of his rookie card is going to go through the roof.
Thanks so much - that was very cool.
I think there are two camps advocating for this: the old-school Waldorf educators... they've been at it for over 100 years and studies are conflicted as to whether Waldorf has any overall advantage. And the other is people advocating for the disadvantaged. The idea is that kids coming from a broken or abusive home need some consistency in their life, especially at the elementary age level. I don't think the effect is important for affluent kids, and you don't see it pushed there. At my own school district, we border on a poor area of the city, so we have disadvantaged kids - but those kids have parents that care about education enough to get them into our district so I don't think it would help us.
NYC still can't get past rubber rooms, so I don't think you'll see it introduced there :)
Maybe it was private money? Or money from a single country? I'm obviously not as knowledgeable as you on the matter, but I can't find any information about money being spent by the EU on the project until 2003 after the ESA review. It certainly makes sense that stakeholders would have been spending at least something on it prior. I still think it's a waste of billions of dollars, but it's not my money and the US certainly wastes billions on other stupidness so I won't be too critical :)
Agreed. I was pointing it out as a reason it could not replace the ICANN system. I certainly have no problem with systems that combat censorship (e.g. FreeNet, TOR, etc).
Isn't QZSS secondary to GPS? Don't they have to yield to GPS signals by international treaty?
The principle that we each should be in charge of the release of our personal information is a protection for you and me as well as for aging actresses.
What about politicians? Shouldn't an investigative reporter be allowed to muck around all they want? I would think there are some limits to privacy depending on the situation.
GPS still has L2 all to itself. L5 is a brand-new signal for GPS. The old GPS L1 signal is being replaced by a new L1 signal that is backwards compatible and also plays nice with Galileo.
it's hard to argue against wanting to maintain control over one's personal information. Very hard
How can you make a blanket statement like that? Different situations have different standards. If you choose to be in the public eye, you should have pretty much no expectation of privacy. Being an actress is like being a politician - if you can't handle people knowing something as trivial as your age, being a public figure might not be the occupation for you.
Galileo was approved in 2003. Prior to that, no EU money had been spent on the program, and it really wasn't even mentioned prior to 1999.
The UK isn't half as distrustful of the US as France and Germany :)
Independence is well worth it and the research and experience will probably pay off for other projects as well.
There are 3 systems already: Russian, American, and the not-yet-complete Chinese. To be fair, the Chinese system is "secret", but there are already dual GLONASS/GPS receivers on the market. I can't imagine what calamity could wipe out 3 independent systems while sparing the new European one, but hey.
By the way, the Chinese use the same frequencies as the EU satellites, which means that the EU will always have to avoid interference with the Chinese system.
Merits aside, it would never happen for political reasons.
It means we make movies, music, and television and you buy them. You even bought our top beer company, despite insisting that it tastes like watered down urine. You can pretend that you hate American culture, but you import it on a massive scale. We get BMWs, Belgian chocolate, and French wine, and you get disposable media. Seems fair.
I'd rather my ally be upfront with their war contingency plans. Pretending that the US wouldn't shoot down something and actually having secret plans to do so is not what a good ally would do.
Actually, if the US promised NOT to shoot them down, it would be very suspicious.
By recent I meant 10-15 years.
Yes, but maybe I haven't been wearing my tinfoil hat.
Galileo isn't so much about military competition as commercial competition.
Not sure the numbers work there. Even if you ignore the approximately $5 billion in initial costs, it costs $750 million/year to maintain. Was the US really ever going to charge the EU $750 million/year?
Redundancy is fine, but I think this is mainly French nationalism and a reflection of the world's recent distrust of the US.