Alcohol and tobacco are HEAVILY taxed and heavily regulated precisely because there are social costs. Now, it is unlikely that if someone chain smokes an entire pack of KOOLS they are going to drop dead, jump off a building or otherwise put themselves or anyone else in _immediate_ danger. Sure, second hand smoke blah blah blah, there just aren't many cases of a smoker overdosing and gunning down the neighborhood. Ditto for alcohol. Yes, we have drunk driving, bar fights whatever and that's a problem, but by and large, people drink without much incident and most of the _immediate_ damage is what you see at a soccer match.
Narcotics, on the other hand, when improperly manufactured or administered have HUGE dangers both to the person taking the drug and, depending on the drug, to those around them. Tell my old Homeowner's Association that speed is a victimless crime and they'll laugh you out of the room because some A-Hole almost blew the side of the building off cooking it up in the tub. Since it was a high rise that could have been muy malo. In contrast, although it is possible, it is HIGHLY unlikely that someone could take the building down with a line of tequila shooters and a pack of Swisher Sweets.
If you say "Hi, we're Six Flags and we're cheaper than Disney[land|world](tm)," if that happens to be true, you're in the clear. If it's a load of crap, then you've got a lawsuit. As long as a comparison is TRUE, you're free to slather you marketing with as many names and trademarks as you want. Because most product superiority claims are rather dubious, you get the mantra "compared to the leading brand of widget" along with amusingly similar, yet not entirely accurate, arrangements of colors and shapes that make it patently obvious who they're talking about. If you were to say "our competitors are selling piss and vinegar in a bottle and marking it 'wine'" and you display the indisputable logo of a competitor, you're in deep shit. However, if you are stating verifiable facts, there is no law against it, although your lawyers might try to convince you to play nice, just in case. At the end of the day, trademark laws are in place to make sure some joker doesn't add a speck to someone else's logo and claim it's unique. If some image or slogan is close enough to create the possibility that some poor sod will buy brand X thinking it is brand Y, that's where the notion of confusion comes in. Think "Skinny and Sweet" vs. "Rid-O-Rat" from the movie "9 to 5." Even then, there are allowances for unrelated industries, so even a product that when confused for another with the potential for death might not be cause an immediate claim since, well, you rarely find the rat poison next to the artificial sweeteners at the grocery store so you'd have to be a pretty monumental idiot to confuse the two and clearly the intent to confuse is not there.
Basically they've packaged a software synth into a cheap keyboard. I'd rather spend the cash on a decent dedicated, properly weight keyboard and connect it via midi to whatever. Software synths have been around for ages, this is nothing but bells and whistles.
"Semi-weighted?" What the hell is that? A euphamism for "cheap piece of crap?"
Whatever. No professional will be impressed. Oooh, a $1500 computer with a $500 keyboard for $6,500. Wow. I'm thrilled.
Let's see, a fully weighted proper 88 key Korg SP-500 is about $1,500. That leaves me $5,000 for rack mounted synth modules and computers. Considering rackmount Triton modules go for about $1,400, you could have three of 'em plus a decent keyboard AND a proper computer with scoring software for the same price.
It's not quite that cut and dry. If that were so, virtually every state law down to every county and city ordninance would be rendered useless. That's just not the way democratic government works and by "government" I don't mean the United States of America, I mean every functioning democracy in the world.
As an example, if you're driving 195Mph around the Washington beltway and you happen do be stopped by representatives of a number of district and federal law enforcement agencies--a likely result--you cannot reasonably expect to get off saying that the constitution does not allow the abridging of your right to freedom of movement and interstate commerce and since the speed limit was not enacted as an amendment to the constitution, the ninth amendment implicitly guarantees you the "right" to drive 195Mph. It would also be highly suspect to suggest that such an argument would rest well with your fellow citizens. Further, even if the federal government happened to abolish all inducements (in effect, unless you cross state lines, the laws you are breaking are not in fact federal laws, but state and local laws, even if you commit murder--and even if you're in the District of Columbia, for that matter) for states and local governments to enact laws regarding substances of any kind, those state and local governments would be free to restrict the use, traffic or sale of those substances as they saw fit. This is why I can booze it up until 4AM in New York, but the bar closes at 2AM in California and why I can't buy hard liquor at all in certain parts of Tennessee.
This is the big illusion people are up against--that the FEDERAL government is where their behavior is being curtailed. That isn't true. Generally, your bogeyman is really your city, county and state government. Once you get down to the local level, there's very little that cannot be enacted if the residents vote on it down to the color of your house, the neatness of your shrubbery and, yes, your right to buy, sell or carry whatever substances are currently considered unseemly, like, say, an open can of beer.
Now, yes, in cases where the federal government has stepped up and taken over where state government should have (as in marijuana cases in California), the state governments have rightly and generally been officially pissed off. However, although California has been trying to legalize marijuana, other drugs still remain a no-no all the way down to the city level and there's nothing the federal government can do about that, nor do I think there should be as this is a union of states, not a monolithic state and if North Dakotans want to make it mandatory that you wear a John Deere hat on alternate Thursdays, god bless 'em.
At any rate, here is a brief history of interpretation of the 9th amendment.
Sure. Which is why the payphone across the street from my last apartment was subject to a sting as the entire neighborhood complained and the police were then able to take action.
No, I don't have any moral or ethical issues with drug use. I truly do not care. What I _DO_ care about is that by nature of being illegal, people are forced to get their drugs from god knows who, who in turn probably got it from whomever and on and on. Sure, there's a sense of "but I _know_ MY dealer" and "I know my limit," but come on, EVERYONE says that and still people end up with bad [speed|pot|acid|extacy|whatever] and then they end up in the hospital. I spent a decade of my life working in Medicaid and social services so I know the costs and I saw the cases every friggen day for ten years.
Fundamentally, all I am stating is that A) the laws are there, like it or not and B) there IS a public health component to them and C) the cost is enormous. How hard is that to grasp? Should be hard at all because it's all FACT. You want to tell me that the 17yo kid who did too much crank and ended up with his chest sawed open for open-heart surgery didn't "have a public health component" to his drug use? PLEASE.
Personally, I think drug use SHOULD be legalized so that the public health issues can be dealt with in a more reasonable way (not the least of which is ensuring you're snorting methamphetamines and not DRAIN-O for godssake) than is so in the criminal system we have in place now. The current situation with drugs is like abortions in the fifties. People will still do it, but it would be nice if they didn't have to go down under the docks to a complete stranger and end up dead in the process. However, I get the impression that for many people, the underground nature of it all is half the thrill, so they'd really prefer that it stay illegal and stay dangerous while they harp about the evils of government conspiracies to control their lives.
In the meantime, you live in a democracy that has laws and those laws state that you do NOT have the right to ingest whatever substance you choose. Why? Because when stupid people overdose, it costs the rest of us billions of dollars we'd rather spend on other things. I don't care about the moral and ethical issues of drug use and I know PLENTY of recreational drug users. However, the bottom line is that it's expensive. Someone does too much meth, maybe pops a viagra, and all of a sudden they're in cardiac care at $10,000/day. There IS a public interest in that.
All anyone has to do to see this in action is examine Disney's "Celebration" where all power lies in unelected Disney representatives. Sure, it's similar to any HOA, except that there are no HOs in the A.
The more frightening aspect is that people actively seek to bind themselves into such living arrangements and will no doubt do the same online--eschewing more democratic means for the corporate controlled and then prancing around talking about the freedoms they've just signed away to some random company for a few bucks a month.
Sorry, but the drugging and raping of a friend of mine that was arranged online I find "harmed" that person. The several minors I know who were taken into prostitution rings from online "friends" were "harmed" and the friends of mine who overdosed and racked up huge hospital bills so their meth party that was arranged online wouldn't kill them were "harmed."
People just piss themselves with all the joys of anonymity as if there were not consequences with very clear legal implications.
"The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state. "
---Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
It goes on to protect more rights than exist in the United States. In the end, only government is "bound."
How about India, the largest democracy in the world? Here's their preamble:
"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; In our consituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution."
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Sounds like they're taking a page from the French, not the Americans, non? Regardless, _the people_ are constituting _themselves_ into a form of government. Couldn't be clearer.
The point is that although the words may be slightly different, the United States is hardly the only country where the state is limited and bound by law and where the power of the government comes from the people. That is the case in nearly every democracy in the world. Americans are so quick to assume that either everyone discovered democracy through them or they must not have democracy. That just isn't true.
There is one similarity to "right to refuse service" that seems to escape people. If you run a bar/restaurant/coffeehouse and are seen as enabling or tolerating illegal activities, by commission or omission, you get fined, your license(s) suspended or just flat out shut down.
Why should an "virtual" space be any different than that? It works for the rest of private property, why not here?
Unfortunately, drug deals are solicited and arranged in chat rooms. Prostitution is solicitied (in both directions) and arranged in chatrooms. Sex is solicited in chat rooms and often is of a less-than-legal variety (read: paedophilia). Stolen property from the real world is sold on Ebay with no way of tracing it.
Unfortunately, the negative effects of allowing a virtual no-man's land of legal scrutiny in online social systems are far too vast to ignore. I've seen both sides of all of the above for as long as the personal computer and modem have existed. Make no mistake, there is PLENTY of reality going on online and it has been going on for more than twenty years.
There are a couple reasons behind SUN's success in research that have nothing to do with individual price/performance.
First, just look at the name. SUN=Stanford University Network. Mmmkay. Check.
Second, look at their pricing structure. You can fill an entire academic division with SUN equipment for what I spent outfitting my home office with a modestly huge stack of x86 boxes. They have DEEP discounts for academic research.
Third, their servers are huge and if you can bundle up a stack or workstations and thin clients with your PO for your servers and have an uniform operating environment are you going to run and buy a stack of DELLS and then try to shoehorn in some slapjob of an authentication system? Uhm, no.
Last, if you spent years in academic research and then shuffle off to whore yourself off to corporate IT, who are you going to call?
It's precisely the same marketing strategy MS and Apple have been using since day one to get the general user on their platforms. No mystery here.
"when we are talking about how to deal with the Soviet Union or how to deal with Iran, we are talking about how to deal with another culture and the government system that is the reflection of that culture, and not how to deal with other individuals."
Textbook Kenneth Waltz. However, levels of analysis are not inherently "liberal" or "conservative." If anything, your "group 3" is "conservative" as that represents a stock "realist" point of view where individuals, cultures and forms of government are of little to no importance in so much as the resulting global influence is the only real concern. Right. Lived on three continents, been to four and have a degree in IR. I'm clear on this idea.
These articles are nothing more than journalism in the strictest sense of the term: a presentation of facts with as little emphasis as possible on analysis. We have seen in this country (the USA) a dramatic shift away from true journalism. These articles were very close to that ideal. A few judgements here and there, but generally, just a series of observations--a "journal" if you will.
In that sense, my comments were directed at those who seeing facts that did not fit with their own analysis, reacted against them as if the writer's analysis was contrary to fact when the writer actually did very little, if any, real analysis, choosing instead to report the facts as seen. There is at least a tacit understanding that any such journalism is not complete and thus if I say "Arabs seem to wear white alot, they like computers, can be called geeks and these ones say XYZ about ABC," I'm not analyzing, I'm reporting. THAT is why the responses seen in this thread are completely out of context.
In the current environment of 24/7 "news" that is almost nothing BUT editorializing analysis (read: by definition _not_ "journalism"), it is difficult for people to recognize actual journalism when it does appear. These articles, it is safe to say, are nothing more than journalism and damned good, timely journalism at that.
I find it interesting that ANY attempt to portray any other aspect of Saudi life, with all that implies, that doesn't include the familiar propaganda, which of course may be true, is met with furious opposition as any statement other than the party line on the subject should be put down.
The articles in question were vignettes on a much more human, reasonable side of Saudi life. Oh, the heresy. These complaints smack of 1980's propaganda about the Soviet Union wherein any attempt to humanize even the most lowly of citizens on the other side to a degree that didn't fit that approved portrayal was viewed as practically treasonous.
If the articles concluded that Saudi Arabia was a wonderful idyllic land of nothing but brotherly and sisterly love with no social problems, fine, fire away. However, the writer has acknowledged the problems and chosen to move on, leaving that analysis to the droves of writers that have already written volumes on the subject and continue every day.
This sort of journalism illustrates what isn't on the standard yellow journalistic boilerplate and does so with integrity. The endless spewing of vitriol at such an objective account shows the fragility of the standard-issue American view on all things foreign and belies its assumed basis in truth.
No, I don't think the American military is full of idiots. However, the ones who immediately think that anyone not in the American military with more experience in war must be living in a cave strapping bombs to their daughters certainly qualify. It's not that I don't have any respect for the U.S. military. It's just that you don't seem to have respect for anyone BUT the U.S. military.
Since to keep that respect for battlefield experience requires the maintenance of ongoing war every four to eight years, that's a very dangerous attitude.
...no, there are just a vast number of people who are of the common opinion that the military does not hold a monopoly in competency and that not everyone entering the military does so at a time when they are deserving of the sort of derision that drips off your every word.
Bear in mind, there are more civilians in the world with more hands-on experience in war than the average American in any branch of our military. We just have bigger weapons and, perhaps as you have so perceptively noted, bigger balls.
Spoken like someone who didn't enter with much upstairs. When you were a private, were you such a "dumb ass" with "personal issues?"
I've known too many dumb-ass E-9's (Sergeant Major/Master Chief) and above to accept that the grade comes with any claim to superior intelligence and intelligence is far more important than the size of your balls as any idiot with an IQ of 65 can yell and fire a gun.
The actions of Microsoft (as HEAVILY documented in the anti-trust litigation) vis-a-vis DR-DOS and OS/2 are far from vague in terms of belying this bullshit about the market choosing MS-DOS. I was around for it twenty years ago and I remember it well.
The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That you are not aware of a fact that a single report of other facts omitted does not cause that fact to cease to exist.
While the argument from efficiency is largely true, at least with mammals, it is less true with fish and almost silly with mollusks and crustaceans. For godssake, they eat shit and multiply like bacteria. How much more efficient can a food source be? The ethical problem in killing a carnivorous creature for food--that is to say, eating something that would as quickly eat one of us is a stalement, n'est-ce pas? There is perhaps an "ethical" argument concerning eating herbivores as they would not eat us, but should one be confronted with a mountain lion or a German cannibal bent on having lunch, the ethical question of returning the favor is not exactly a difficult one to answer. An argument to the contrary is more an artifact of being urbanized and removed from that potential decision (well, at least in the case of the mountain lion) than of some higher ethic.
But, seriously... This "I don't eat anything that eats things I wouldn't eat" pretty much eliminates anything but, well, eating people. Mmmmm, peeeeople.
I would highly recommend that you do not eat crustaceans from the Chesapeake bay then, despite the fact that they are delicious. In fact, all crustaceans would be verboten in that case as I doubt that putrid decaying animals and fecal matter would be things you'd want to eat yourself.
The fact remains that when Bill Gates had nothing to give to the world, he stole the work of someone else and would not be where he is today but for outright theft. I'm all for respecting people on their merits. Had he produced his own work to compete with D.R., he would be worthy of his accolades. He didn't. He resorted to theft and should be regarded as nothing more than a very successful thief. To do otherwise is to condone every other form of larceny from petty to grand.
You also missed the part where IBM approached Gary Killdall to license CP/M but failed and then went to Microsoft who stole CP/M, rebranded it and licensed it to IBM. So, you can't really say that IBM just "handed Microsoft their Monopoly."
I used both CP/M and DR-DOS and remember being rightfully pissed off as the slapjob that was MS-DOS took over. Unfortunately, I think the greater blame falls on Killdall's head as he had the OS IBM wanted and the opportunity license it, but blew it. Big time.
Slashdot Mirror
Alcohol and tobacco are HEAVILY taxed and heavily regulated precisely because there are social costs. Now, it is unlikely that if someone chain smokes an entire pack of KOOLS they are going to drop dead, jump off a building or otherwise put themselves or anyone else in _immediate_ danger. Sure, second hand smoke blah blah blah, there just aren't many cases of a smoker overdosing and gunning down the neighborhood. Ditto for alcohol. Yes, we have drunk driving, bar fights whatever and that's a problem, but by and large, people drink without much incident and most of the _immediate_ damage is what you see at a soccer match.
Narcotics, on the other hand, when improperly manufactured or administered have HUGE dangers both to the person taking the drug and, depending on the drug, to those around them. Tell my old Homeowner's Association that speed is a victimless crime and they'll laugh you out of the room because some A-Hole almost blew the side of the building off cooking it up in the tub. Since it was a high rise that could have been muy malo. In contrast, although it is possible, it is HIGHLY unlikely that someone could take the building down with a line of tequila shooters and a pack of Swisher Sweets.
...no it is entirely about confusion.
If you say "Hi, we're Six Flags and we're cheaper than Disney[land|world](tm)," if that happens to be true, you're in the clear. If it's a load of crap, then you've got a lawsuit. As long as a comparison is TRUE, you're free to slather you marketing with as many names and trademarks as you want. Because most product superiority claims are rather dubious, you get the mantra "compared to the leading brand of widget" along with amusingly similar, yet not entirely accurate, arrangements of colors and shapes that make it patently obvious who they're talking about. If you were to say "our competitors are selling piss and vinegar in a bottle and marking it 'wine'" and you display the indisputable logo of a competitor, you're in deep shit. However, if you are stating verifiable facts, there is no law against it, although your lawyers might try to convince you to play nice, just in case. At the end of the day, trademark laws are in place to make sure some joker doesn't add a speck to someone else's logo and claim it's unique. If some image or slogan is close enough to create the possibility that some poor sod will buy brand X thinking it is brand Y, that's where the notion of confusion comes in. Think "Skinny and Sweet" vs. "Rid-O-Rat" from the movie "9 to 5." Even then, there are allowances for unrelated industries, so even a product that when confused for another with the potential for death might not be cause an immediate claim since, well, you rarely find the rat poison next to the artificial sweeteners at the grocery store so you'd have to be a pretty monumental idiot to confuse the two and clearly the intent to confuse is not there.
Basically they've packaged a software synth into a cheap keyboard. I'd rather spend the cash on a decent dedicated, properly weight keyboard and connect it via midi to whatever. Software synths have been around for ages, this is nothing but bells and whistles.
"Semi-weighted?" What the hell is that? A euphamism for "cheap piece of crap?"
Whatever. No professional will be impressed. Oooh, a $1500 computer with a $500 keyboard for $6,500. Wow. I'm thrilled.
Let's see, a fully weighted proper 88 key Korg SP-500 is about $1,500. That leaves me $5,000 for rack mounted synth modules and computers. Considering rackmount Triton modules go for about $1,400, you could have three of 'em plus a decent keyboard AND a proper computer with scoring software for the same price.
Screw these guys. This is crap.
It's not quite that cut and dry. If that were so, virtually every state law down to every county and city ordninance would be rendered useless. That's just not the way democratic government works and by "government" I don't mean the United States of America, I mean every functioning democracy in the world.
9 .h tml
As an example, if you're driving 195Mph around the Washington beltway and you happen do be stopped by representatives of a number of district and federal law enforcement agencies--a likely result--you cannot reasonably expect to get off saying that the constitution does not allow the abridging of your right to freedom of movement and interstate commerce and since the speed limit was not enacted as an amendment to the constitution, the ninth amendment implicitly guarantees you the "right" to drive 195Mph. It would also be highly suspect to suggest that such an argument would rest well with your fellow citizens. Further, even if the federal government happened to abolish all inducements (in effect, unless you cross state lines, the laws you are breaking are not in fact federal laws, but state and local laws, even if you commit murder--and even if you're in the District of Columbia, for that matter) for states and local governments to enact laws regarding substances of any kind, those state and local governments would be free to restrict the use, traffic or sale of those substances as they saw fit. This is why I can booze it up until 4AM in New York, but the bar closes at 2AM in California and why I can't buy hard liquor at all in certain parts of Tennessee.
This is the big illusion people are up against--that the FEDERAL government is where their behavior is being curtailed. That isn't true. Generally, your bogeyman is really your city, county and state government. Once you get down to the local level, there's very little that cannot be enacted if the residents vote on it down to the color of your house, the neatness of your shrubbery and, yes, your right to buy, sell or carry whatever substances are currently considered unseemly, like, say, an open can of beer.
Now, yes, in cases where the federal government has stepped up and taken over where state government should have (as in marijuana cases in California), the state governments have rightly and generally been officially pissed off. However, although California has been trying to legalize marijuana, other drugs still remain a no-no all the way down to the city level and there's nothing the federal government can do about that, nor do I think there should be as this is a union of states, not a monolithic state and if North Dakotans want to make it mandatory that you wear a John Deere hat on alternate Thursdays, god bless 'em.
At any rate, here is a brief history of interpretation of the 9th amendment.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt
The "IBM PC" was geared more at accountants and analysts than engineers. The illustration on Wikipedia is quite clear about this.
C on cept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC#The_IBM_PC_
Sure. Which is why the payphone across the street from my last apartment was subject to a sting as the entire neighborhood complained and the police were then able to take action.
No, I don't have any moral or ethical issues with drug use. I truly do not care. What I _DO_ care about is that by nature of being illegal, people are forced to get their drugs from god knows who, who in turn probably got it from whomever and on and on. Sure, there's a sense of "but I _know_ MY dealer" and "I know my limit," but come on, EVERYONE says that and still people end up with bad [speed|pot|acid|extacy|whatever] and then they end up in the hospital. I spent a decade of my life working in Medicaid and social services so I know the costs and I saw the cases every friggen day for ten years.
Fundamentally, all I am stating is that A) the laws are there, like it or not and B) there IS a public health component to them and C) the cost is enormous. How hard is that to grasp? Should be hard at all because it's all FACT. You want to tell me that the 17yo kid who did too much crank and ended up with his chest sawed open for open-heart surgery didn't "have a public health component" to his drug use? PLEASE.
Personally, I think drug use SHOULD be legalized so that the public health issues can be dealt with in a more reasonable way (not the least of which is ensuring you're snorting methamphetamines and not DRAIN-O for godssake) than is so in the criminal system we have in place now. The current situation with drugs is like abortions in the fifties. People will still do it, but it would be nice if they didn't have to go down under the docks to a complete stranger and end up dead in the process. However, I get the impression that for many people, the underground nature of it all is half the thrill, so they'd really prefer that it stay illegal and stay dangerous while they harp about the evils of government conspiracies to control their lives.
In the meantime, you live in a democracy that has laws and those laws state that you do NOT have the right to ingest whatever substance you choose. Why? Because when stupid people overdose, it costs the rest of us billions of dollars we'd rather spend on other things. I don't care about the moral and ethical issues of drug use and I know PLENTY of recreational drug users. However, the bottom line is that it's expensive. Someone does too much meth, maybe pops a viagra, and all of a sudden they're in cardiac care at $10,000 /day. There IS a public interest in that.
All anyone has to do to see this in action is examine Disney's "Celebration" where all power lies in unelected Disney representatives. Sure, it's similar to any HOA, except that there are no HOs in the A. The more frightening aspect is that people actively seek to bind themselves into such living arrangements and will no doubt do the same online--eschewing more democratic means for the corporate controlled and then prancing around talking about the freedoms they've just signed away to some random company for a few bucks a month.
Sorry, but the drugging and raping of a friend of mine that was arranged online I find "harmed" that person. The several minors I know who were taken into prostitution rings from online "friends" were "harmed" and the friends of mine who overdosed and racked up huge hospital bills so their meth party that was arranged online wouldn't kill them were "harmed."
People just piss themselves with all the joys of anonymity as if there were not consequences with very clear legal implications.
"The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state. "
:
---Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
It goes on to protect more rights than exist in the United States. In the end, only government is "bound."
How about India, the largest democracy in the world? Here's their preamble:
"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
In our consituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution."
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Sounds like they're taking a page from the French, not the Americans, non? Regardless, _the people_ are constituting _themselves_ into a form of government. Couldn't be clearer.
The point is that although the words may be slightly different, the United States is hardly the only country where the state is limited and bound by law and where the power of the government comes from the people. That is the case in nearly every democracy in the world. Americans are so quick to assume that either everyone discovered democracy through them or they must not have democracy. That just isn't true.
There is one similarity to "right to refuse service" that seems to escape people. If you run a bar/restaurant/coffeehouse and are seen as enabling or tolerating illegal activities, by commission or omission, you get fined, your license(s) suspended or just flat out shut down.
Why should an "virtual" space be any different than that? It works for the rest of private property, why not here?
Unfortunately, drug deals are solicited and arranged in chat rooms. Prostitution is solicitied (in both directions) and arranged in chatrooms. Sex is solicited in chat rooms and often is of a less-than-legal variety (read: paedophilia). Stolen property from the real world is sold on Ebay with no way of tracing it.
Unfortunately, the negative effects of allowing a virtual no-man's land of legal scrutiny in online social systems are far too vast to ignore. I've seen both sides of all of the above for as long as the personal computer and modem have existed. Make no mistake, there is PLENTY of reality going on online and it has been going on for more than twenty years.
There are a couple reasons behind SUN's success in research that have nothing to do with individual price/performance.
First, just look at the name. SUN=Stanford University Network. Mmmkay. Check.
Second, look at their pricing structure. You can fill an entire academic division with SUN equipment for what I spent outfitting my home office with a modestly huge stack of x86 boxes. They have DEEP discounts for academic research.
Third, their servers are huge and if you can bundle up a stack or workstations and thin clients with your PO for your servers and have an uniform operating environment are you going to run and buy a stack of DELLS and then try to shoehorn in some slapjob of an authentication system? Uhm, no.
Last, if you spent years in academic research and then shuffle off to whore yourself off to corporate IT, who are you going to call?
It's precisely the same marketing strategy MS and Apple have been using since day one to get the general user on their platforms. No mystery here.
Textbook Kenneth Waltz. However, levels of analysis are not inherently "liberal" or "conservative." If anything, your "group 3" is "conservative" as that represents a stock "realist" point of view where individuals, cultures and forms of government are of little to no importance in so much as the resulting global influence is the only real concern. Right. Lived on three continents, been to four and have a degree in IR. I'm clear on this idea.
These articles are nothing more than journalism in the strictest sense of the term: a presentation of facts with as little emphasis as possible on analysis. We have seen in this country (the USA) a dramatic shift away from true journalism. These articles were very close to that ideal. A few judgements here and there, but generally, just a series of observations--a "journal" if you will.
In that sense, my comments were directed at those who seeing facts that did not fit with their own analysis, reacted against them as if the writer's analysis was contrary to fact when the writer actually did very little, if any, real analysis, choosing instead to report the facts as seen. There is at least a tacit understanding that any such journalism is not complete and thus if I say "Arabs seem to wear white alot, they like computers, can be called geeks and these ones say XYZ about ABC," I'm not analyzing, I'm reporting. THAT is why the responses seen in this thread are completely out of context.
In the current environment of 24/7 "news" that is almost nothing BUT editorializing analysis (read: by definition _not_ "journalism"), it is difficult for people to recognize actual journalism when it does appear. These articles, it is safe to say, are nothing more than journalism and damned good, timely journalism at that.
I find it interesting that ANY attempt to portray any other aspect of Saudi life, with all that implies, that doesn't include the familiar propaganda, which of course may be true, is met with furious opposition as any statement other than the party line on the subject should be put down.
The articles in question were vignettes on a much more human, reasonable side of Saudi life. Oh, the heresy. These complaints smack of 1980's propaganda about the Soviet Union wherein any attempt to humanize even the most lowly of citizens on the other side to a degree that didn't fit that approved portrayal was viewed as practically treasonous.
If the articles concluded that Saudi Arabia was a wonderful idyllic land of nothing but brotherly and sisterly love with no social problems, fine, fire away. However, the writer has acknowledged the problems and chosen to move on, leaving that analysis to the droves of writers that have already written volumes on the subject and continue every day.
This sort of journalism illustrates what isn't on the standard yellow journalistic boilerplate and does so with integrity. The endless spewing of vitriol at such an objective account shows the fragility of the standard-issue American view on all things foreign and belies its assumed basis in truth.
No, I don't think the American military is full of idiots. However, the ones who immediately think that anyone not in the American military with more experience in war must be living in a cave strapping bombs to their daughters certainly qualify. It's not that I don't have any respect for the U.S. military. It's just that you don't seem to have respect for anyone BUT the U.S. military.
Since to keep that respect for battlefield experience requires the maintenance of ongoing war every four to eight years, that's a very dangerous attitude.
...no, there are just a vast number of people who are of the common opinion that the military does not hold a monopoly in competency and that not everyone entering the military does so at a time when they are deserving of the sort of derision that drips off your every word.
Bear in mind, there are more civilians in the world with more hands-on experience in war than the average American in any branch of our military. We just have bigger weapons and, perhaps as you have so perceptively noted, bigger balls.
Spoken like someone who didn't enter with much upstairs. When you were a private, were you such a "dumb ass" with "personal issues?"
I've known too many dumb-ass E-9's (Sergeant Major/Master Chief) and above to accept that the grade comes with any claim to superior intelligence and intelligence is far more important than the size of your balls as any idiot with an IQ of 65 can yell and fire a gun.
Oooh-friggen-rah.
The actions of Microsoft (as HEAVILY documented in the anti-trust litigation) vis-a-vis DR-DOS and OS/2 are far from vague in terms of belying this bullshit about the market choosing MS-DOS. I was around for it twenty years ago and I remember it well.
c s/ cyberlaw/microsoft/msnsued.html
/. could ever hope to.
The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That you are not aware of a fact that a single report of other facts omitted does not cause that fact to cease to exist.
Don't take my word for it, have a read:
http://courttv-web3.courttv.com/archive/legaldo
The story from the point of view of the former Digital Research is here:
http://www.maxframe.com/DR.HTM
By all means, let's not distort the facts. The Microsoft P/R team does a better job at that than anyone on
While the argument from efficiency is largely true, at least with mammals, it is less true with fish and almost silly with mollusks and crustaceans. For godssake, they eat shit and multiply like bacteria. How much more efficient can a food source be? The ethical problem in killing a carnivorous creature for food--that is to say, eating something that would as quickly eat one of us is a stalement, n'est-ce pas? There is perhaps an "ethical" argument concerning eating herbivores as they would not eat us, but should one be confronted with a mountain lion or a German cannibal bent on having lunch, the ethical question of returning the favor is not exactly a difficult one to answer. An argument to the contrary is more an artifact of being urbanized and removed from that potential decision (well, at least in the case of the mountain lion) than of some higher ethic.
Soylent Green is Peeeeople!
But, seriously... This "I don't eat anything that eats things I wouldn't eat" pretty much eliminates anything but, well, eating people. Mmmmm, peeeeople.
I would highly recommend that you do not eat crustaceans from the Chesapeake bay then, despite the fact that they are delicious. In fact, all crustaceans would be verboten in that case as I doubt that putrid decaying animals and fecal matter would be things you'd want to eat yourself.
The fact remains that when Bill Gates had nothing to give to the world, he stole the work of someone else and would not be where he is today but for outright theft. I'm all for respecting people on their merits. Had he produced his own work to compete with D.R., he would be worthy of his accolades. He didn't. He resorted to theft and should be regarded as nothing more than a very successful thief. To do otherwise is to condone every other form of larceny from petty to grand.
You also missed the part where IBM approached Gary Killdall to license CP/M but failed and then went to Microsoft who stole CP/M, rebranded it and licensed it to IBM. So, you can't really say that IBM just "handed Microsoft their Monopoly."
I used both CP/M and DR-DOS and remember being rightfully pissed off as the slapjob that was MS-DOS took over. Unfortunately, I think the greater blame falls on Killdall's head as he had the OS IBM wanted and the opportunity license it, but blew it. Big time.