I'm no Microsoft fan, but if they have the good grace to agree to an interview, at least treat them with courtesy and respect when conducting it. You screwed up a pretty good opportunity with your childishness. Way to go.
The art of balancing between pushing people to actually answer the question asked without making them hostile is a damn hard one. Considering that the subject interviewed here never seemed to be particurarly offended/annoyed and that they seemed to have an overall friendly tone, I'd say Martin did a damn good job, and if anything he was being too lenient.. This is after all an opinion site, where the editors make no secret that they have agendas, why should they conceal that when they interview? You don't get the hard questions answered unless you make their side-stepping obvious.
Mayhap you prefer bland, straight-out one-way pre-scripted interviews like the American Presidential debates?
Am I alone in saying that no company should be able to profit off of my existance? If that's not bad enough that ChoicePoint has made a living selling my information of which I won't see a dime, now criminals have my personal information and now I have to stay on guard to see if the criminals do anything notably bad in my name.
Heya, We agree with you; come to Europe! We actually have laws protection your personal data, and prohibit the trading/sales of them.
In my opinion, stories like this go a long way of showing how fundamentally different the underlying differences between europe and the US are, especially the concept of "freedom". And I don't like your version at all: "America, all the freedom you need to be screwed over, hard!"
Q-tips, Kleenex, Jell-O, Cheerios, Jiff, the Green Bay Packers, and Tide
Worth to note is that none of those are global brand names either. I haven't seen any of them sold in here in Europe atleast (maybe bar Q-tips, but I didn't think the Q-tips sold here were "genuine")
[...] a but why should a corporation be anti-American and pro-terroist by undermining American economy? [...]
anti-American? Free trade? Free competition..those are good right? Isn't it the premise of capitalism, the end-all optimal society that you're pushing on everybody? Or is it only good when the WTO forces developing countries to privatize essential infrastructure as water and power? Or is it only good as long as it's American companies with cash to spare buying up foreign companies and funneling the profits from the back home?
So the answer to; why a corporation should be anti-American and do what profits them most? Because it's what corporations are supposed to do! You created your society, now live in it!
Pro-terrorist? Are you honestly implying that out-sourcing to india is pro-terrorist? Are you trolling? If not; Get a grip!
[...]Yes but includes the cool, anti-American libertarian view of it as well.
Failing to include protectionism to your own industry is hardly anti-American. Its the bloody premise of your whole ideology!
What's up with all the bitterness about how companies which exists to earn money earn money? EA makes games that sell, on low cost (low cost labour is available, aren't they morally obliged to their shareholders to use it?) and market them well. This is capitalism 101 right?
Whenever sweatshopping/Nike/Asia comes up, there are millions of drones claiming its just capitalism and if they took the jobs, the workers clearly wanted them and are thus better off anyways. This doesn't apply when it's happening to you?
On the other hand, if you start on crappy island / area in Civ 3, there is no way you will ever be able to compete with the core grassland civilization.
In Civ 2 I managed to fight myself out of corners repeatedly (especially on the hardest difficulty level) through good military tactics. In Civ 3 I've yet to turn a game I considered a loss due to a bad start. You can conquer all you want, if your core cities aren't growing you've lost. I hate absolutly hate it.
Wait 'till you get mod-points:).. It's random.
It happens occasionally.. more often if you're logged in alot, get modded up yourself and actually spend your mod-points wisely when you get them.
Well.. whatever the convention says still doesn't change the fact that you're invading a country, rounding up people defending themselves and sending them to a state-run torture-camp.
And your main defense is that you're using a loophole in the geneva convention? (which I must admit I haven't read, so I have no way to discern the validity of your claims)
OSS encourages individuals to trade directly with each other. VS Communism makes person to person trade a crime against the state, and labels it economic sabotage.
You ever been to a marketplace in old Russia / China? They are(were) pretty much bustling with life from indiviuals selling their goods etc. Don't fall for the textbook stereotypes!
Communism gives you products like the Trabant and makes you wait 12 years for delivery.
While pure capitalism gives you wonderfull stuff like tragic poverty rates, people stuck in trashy jobs they hate and openly corrupt governments.
My grandparents visited Russia 25 years ago actually, and stayed with a married couple who were both Doctors. They were amazed by how "poor" (standard appartment, same paid vacations to the sunny south every second year as everyone else) they were. When they asked about it, the couple said they thought it was perfectly reasonable that they who had nice jobs they loved were payed significantly lower wages than those poor bastards who worked their asses of in the mines..... That kind of reasoning is hard to argue against:/ . I mean, who made the greater sacrifice for the common good?
Communism is enforced by the barrel of a gun, dissidents get killed.
Communism as a concept is not enforced by the gun. Most implementations of it has been though (although Venezuela and China seems to be getting somewhere nowadays). Either way, our own laws are mired in the capitalistic paradigm, and anybody not following them is promptly thrown in jail.
100 million people have been killed by Communist regimes.
Compared to travesties commited by so-called christian democrasies I honestly believe we should keep our mouths shut. Pick a century (any century) and find out who commited the most fucked up acts?
Now.. there is no doubt that Capitalism is very effiencint for direct costs(like transport, wages, raw materia pricing etc), however it is very bad at distributing wealth reasonably (on the premise that 10K $ will mean a significantly better life to someone poor, but won't make a difference to someoen rich) aswell as extremely bad at counting the hidden general costs (pollution, wild-life parks/areas, quality-of-life concerning workers etc). If you were to design the world now, would you honestly think shipping rubber from South America to Asia, Shoes from Asia to the US, Branded Shoes from the US to Europe to be the optimal solution? Its what the capitalist algorithm seems to do claim atleast.
Should we not kill illegal combatants who fight and kill civilians and US soldiers while wearing the clothes of civilians?
Which civilians spefically had these people killed? How many of the captured have been later on been accused of killing civilians?
They were targetted in by your military raids against military camps. It doesn't seem like you guys had much trouble discerning wether they were military or not. The whole concept of Illegal Combatant is laughable to the extreme. I mean, if they were actually trying to hide themselves among civilians you'd might have a point. Bottom line is; they didn't. They were fighting.
Come on, throw away your preconceptions of what you're being told and read what you're actually saying!
Wearing uniforms is part of the laws and customs of war.
They were armed men camped in military camps. They were targetted by american bombers, who identified the camps as military targets. And still they weren't combatants? They hadn't ordered matching suits yet, so they were breaking the rules of war?
If being bombed, remember to not fight back unless you have the proper attire. I'll keep that in mind!
Terrorists who target civilians without wearing uniforms are terrorists and not uniformed soldiers of a nation-state. Don't assume ambiguity when there isn't.
What about terrorists who defended their country from invaders, operating out of well-known armed mility bases? Its mainly those you have imprisoned, and with them never having attacked any civilians I'm hard pressed to see them meeting your definition of a "terrorist". Are you implying guilt by assosication?
From wikipedia concerning third geneva convention(not the best source, but easy to look up atleast):
4A(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under the First Additional Protocol);
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Which of these criteria did the Afghanistan defenders fail to meet?
Why should we apply nation-state status to terrorist groups
1. Slippery slope: if you're "allowed" to by-pass the convention by claiming somebody terrorists (without any semblenance of due process being needed), what stops your enemies from doing it?
2. Were they really terrorists? There was no doubt Al-Qeida training camps existed in Afghanistan, however as far as I've understood, they were training foreign volunteers for the fundamendalist regime there. Now; some random country invades the whole country on basis of what a few members of the organisiation running the training camps did, and they're not supposed to be soldiers when they grab their weapons and defend themselves? That's just plain silly! What on earth do you have to do be counted a soldier? What is your criteria for when someone is allowed to defend themselves (soldier) or not (illegal combatants)?
Just answering a few of parents points concerning Iran with examples of the US. This holier than thou attitudie is offensive to the extreme.
murder of a child,
Go find out which countries in the world allows deathpenalty on minors. Its a fairly interesting list.
, no seperation of church and state,
You heard your president make any references to 'GOD' or 'Christians morals' lately? His whole bloody campaign was based on religion. You may have seperation in theory, but sure as hell not in practice.
it's endless, picture yourselves in her position where your family and entire society want you dead to satisfy their fear and dogma
Well..shit happens everywhere. As far as I've understood from my Iranian friends, there are far worse countries when it comes to womens rights, generaly unrest and general safety. Iran has a an active opposition, and an active student body with a growing intellectualism. The more we alienate them with our "holier than thou" attitude and meddling in their internal affairs, the less influence we have on them.
I mean, bitching about one dead girl might be slighlty hypocretical considering we killed about 1 million people through sanctioning iraq, and a few more after the actual invasion (but they aren't important enough to actually try counting atleast. Link is only verified deaths, and is probably dwarfed by the real numbers)
We're bloody great at seeing the needle in someone elses eye, but can't see the log in our own. Everything is all about stories, and the big numbers which actually mean something are forgotten. Sometimes, I honestly think Muslim Fundamentalists have a bloody good point in wanting us exterminated(for the record I'm atheist).
Can a country legally stake a claim to international waters?
Legally according to whose law? US? Russian? Or god forbid(according to you guys atleast); UN?
Sadly, there is no such things as international laws, only mildly binding intranational agreements.
Re:What if they're already here and observing.
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
So you personally e-mailed the SETI founders, asked them a deep and complicated question, and made the groundbreaking move of choosing not to support then based on their inability to answer your personal question? How dare they not be at your beck and call!
Except for the 'no games' factor thats pretty much exactly how we did it at my house. We never had to make any rules about it though, as stuff like 'No TV during dinner' really is just common sense.
The TV should be something you choose to watch because there is something you want to see, not something you do by default. When I get a kid, he's going to have to earn computer/tv-time through soccer etc, and he'll be all the better for it.
What I don't get is that how adults have sex, and what their parents do in bed isn't something a child is particularly interested in. He's far far more likely to say 'eeewww, what they are doing?' and turn away from the TV and do something else.
Children don't need protection from something they don't want to see anyways... and keeping stuff from teenagers is impossible anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Hereby nominated for post-of-the-year :)
That comment works on so many levels it scary.
The art of balancing between pushing people to actually answer the question asked without making them hostile is a damn hard one. Considering that the subject interviewed here never seemed to be particurarly offended/annoyed and that they seemed to have an overall friendly tone, I'd say Martin did a damn good job, and if anything he was being too lenient.. This is after all an opinion site, where the editors make no secret that they have agendas, why should they conceal that when they interview? You don't get the hard questions answered unless you make their side-stepping obvious.
Mayhap you prefer bland, straight-out one-way pre-scripted interviews like the American Presidential debates?
Heya, We agree with you; come to Europe! We actually have laws protection your personal data, and prohibit the trading/sales of them.
In my opinion, stories like this go a long way of showing how fundamentally different the underlying differences between europe and the US are, especially the concept of "freedom". And I don't like your version at all:
"America, all the freedom you need to be screwed over, hard!"
Worth to note is that none of those are global brand names either. I haven't seen any of them sold in here in Europe atleast (maybe bar Q-tips, but I didn't think the Q-tips sold here were "genuine")
anti-American? Free trade? Free competition..those are good right? Isn't it the premise of capitalism, the end-all optimal society that you're pushing on everybody? Or is it only good when the WTO forces developing countries to privatize essential infrastructure as water and power? Or is it only good as long as it's American companies with cash to spare buying up foreign companies and funneling the profits from the back home?
So the answer to; why a corporation should be anti-American and do what profits them most? Because it's what corporations are supposed to do! You created your society, now live in it!
Pro-terrorist? Are you honestly implying that out-sourcing to india is pro-terrorist? Are you trolling? If not; Get a grip!
[...]Yes but includes the cool, anti-American libertarian view of it as well.
Failing to include protectionism to your own industry is hardly anti-American. Its the bloody premise of your whole ideology!
Whenever sweatshopping/Nike/Asia comes up, there are millions of drones claiming its just capitalism and if they took the jobs, the workers clearly wanted them and are thus better off anyways. This doesn't apply when it's happening to you?
In Civ 2 I managed to fight myself out of corners repeatedly (especially on the hardest difficulty level) through good military tactics. In Civ 3 I've yet to turn a game I considered a loss due to a bad start. You can conquer all you want, if your core cities aren't growing you've lost. I hate absolutly hate it.
Wait 'till you get mod-points :) .. It's random.
It happens occasionally.. more often if you're logged in alot, get modded up yourself and actually spend your mod-points wisely when you get them.
Well.. whatever the convention says still doesn't change the fact that you're invading a country, rounding up people defending themselves and sending them to a state-run torture-camp.
And your main defense is that you're using a loophole in the geneva convention? (which I must admit I haven't read, so I have no way to discern the validity of your claims)
Doesn't anything strike you as odd here?
You ever been to a marketplace in old Russia / China? They are(were) pretty much bustling with life from indiviuals selling their goods etc. Don't fall for the textbook stereotypes!
Communism gives you products like the Trabant and makes you wait 12 years for delivery.
While pure capitalism gives you wonderfull stuff like tragic poverty rates, people stuck in trashy jobs they hate and openly corrupt governments.
My grandparents visited Russia 25 years ago actually, and stayed with a married couple who were both Doctors. They were amazed by how "poor" (standard appartment, same paid vacations to the sunny south every second year as everyone else) they were. When they asked about it, the couple said they thought it was perfectly reasonable that they who had nice jobs they loved were payed significantly lower wages than those poor bastards who worked their asses of in the mines..... That kind of reasoning is hard to argue against :/ . I mean, who made the greater sacrifice for the common good?
Communism is enforced by the barrel of a gun, dissidents get killed.
Communism as a concept is not enforced by the gun. Most implementations of it has been though (although Venezuela and China seems to be getting somewhere nowadays). Either way, our own laws are mired in the capitalistic paradigm, and anybody not following them is promptly thrown in jail.
100 million people have been killed by Communist regimes.
Compared to travesties commited by so-called christian democrasies I honestly believe we should keep our mouths shut. Pick a century (any century) and find out who commited the most fucked up acts?
Now.. there is no doubt that Capitalism is very effiencint for direct costs(like transport, wages, raw materia pricing etc), however it is very bad at distributing wealth reasonably (on the premise that 10K $ will mean a significantly better life to someone poor, but won't make a difference to someoen rich) aswell as extremely bad at counting the hidden general costs (pollution, wild-life parks/areas, quality-of-life concerning workers etc). If you were to design the world now, would you honestly think shipping rubber from South America to Asia, Shoes from Asia to the US, Branded Shoes from the US to Europe to be the optimal solution? Its what the capitalist algorithm seems to do claim atleast.
Which civilians spefically had these people killed? How many of the captured have been later on been accused of killing civilians?
They were targetted in by your military raids against military camps. It doesn't seem like you guys had much trouble discerning wether they were military or not. The whole concept of Illegal Combatant is laughable to the extreme. I mean, if they were actually trying to hide themselves among civilians you'd might have a point. Bottom line is; they didn't. They were fighting.
Come on, throw away your preconceptions of what you're being told and read what you're actually saying!
These men hadn't targetted civilians. They were living in Afghanistan for christs sake.
They were armed men camped in military camps. They were targetted by american bombers, who identified the camps as military targets. And still they weren't combatants? They hadn't ordered matching suits yet, so they were breaking the rules of war?
If being bombed, remember to not fight back unless you have the proper attire. I'll keep that in mind!
What about terrorists who defended their country from invaders, operating out of well-known armed mility bases? Its mainly those you have imprisoned, and with them never having attacked any civilians I'm hard pressed to see them meeting your definition of a "terrorist". Are you implying guilt by assosication?
From wikipedia concerning third geneva convention(not the best source, but easy to look up atleast):
4A(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under the First Additional Protocol);
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Which of these criteria did the Afghanistan defenders fail to meet?
What irony?
Currency
Corporate
Insurance
Due to the massive
Bush wanted to
Because
I mean, parent seems moderatly informed about whats going on, how the fuck can he be so bad at spelling/expressing himself?
signed; a thouroughly confused norwegian.
1. Slippery slope: if you're "allowed" to by-pass the convention by claiming somebody terrorists (without any semblenance of due process being needed), what stops your enemies from doing it?
2. Were they really terrorists? There was no doubt Al-Qeida training camps existed in Afghanistan, however as far as I've understood, they were training foreign volunteers for the fundamendalist regime there. Now; some random country invades the whole country on basis of what a few members of the organisiation running the training camps did, and they're not supposed to be soldiers when they grab their weapons and defend themselves? That's just plain silly! What on earth do you have to do be counted a soldier? What is your criteria for when someone is allowed to defend themselves (soldier) or not (illegal combatants)?
murder of a child,
Go find out which countries in the world allows deathpenalty on minors. Its a fairly interesting list.
, no seperation of church and state,
You heard your president make any references to 'GOD' or 'Christians morals' lately? His whole bloody campaign was based on religion. You may have seperation in theory, but sure as hell not in practice.
it's endless, picture yourselves in her position where your family and entire society want you dead to satisfy their fear and dogma
Well..shit happens everywhere. As far as I've understood from my Iranian friends, there are far worse countries when it comes to womens rights, generaly unrest and general safety. Iran has a an active opposition, and an active student body with a growing intellectualism. The more we alienate them with our "holier than thou" attitude and meddling in their internal affairs, the less influence we have on them.
I mean, bitching about one dead girl might be slighlty hypocretical considering we killed about 1 million people through sanctioning iraq, and a few more after the actual invasion (but they aren't important enough to actually try counting atleast. Link is only verified deaths, and is probably dwarfed by the real numbers)
We're bloody great at seeing the needle in someone elses eye, but can't see the log in our own. Everything is all about stories, and the big numbers which actually mean something are forgotten. Sometimes, I honestly think Muslim Fundamentalists have a bloody good point in wanting us exterminated(for the record I'm atheist).
Legally according to whose law? US? Russian? Or god forbid(according to you guys atleast); UN?
Sadly, there is no such things as international laws, only mildly binding intranational agreements.
A little full of ourselves are we?
If the rest of the world think you're raving lunatics, you ain't got an image problem, you got a 'too many raving lunatics'-problem.
Why? I couldn't care less about the abillties of current parachutes.
Why is obvious that something left/right can't be trusted? Is really your(ours) media in a that sorry state?
The TV should be something you choose to watch because there is something you want to see, not something you do by default. When I get a kid, he's going to have to earn computer/tv-time through soccer etc, and he'll be all the better for it.
Children don't need protection from something they don't want to see anyways... and keeping stuff from teenagers is impossible anyways.