I don't think the EU "consitution" would have fixed everything. It wouldn't have replaced all those old treaties that some countries still profit disproportionally from. Because they'd veto anything that does anythin remotely like that. Although I admit it would still have been a good step in the right direction. (Note that some of the NO-voters did so because the step was too small. But you're right that the majority probably had no idea what it was all about, and certainly the Dutch government was really awful at explaining it.)
I think the best way to make a fresh start is to do exactly that: dissolve the current union and start a new one. Leave all the old stuff out, and do it better this time.
The test of whether a country is a police state is in accountability. If you can complain about police behaviour, and that complaint is taken seriously and can get the officer in trouble, possibly court (and won't get the person who filed the complaint in trouble), then you've got proper accountability.
If, on the other hand, police officers can and do get away with anything, are usually believed on their word in court, and complaints are generally ignored (or worse!), then you've got the makings of a police state.
How bad the situation in the US is, I don't know. Sometimes everything seems the way it should be (especially in crime TV series of course), but many anecdotes from real people really scare me. Sometimes it appears as if a road cop is well within his rights to shoot you for any reason when he stops you. There seems to be a lot of fear and paranoia involved in police encounters.
It doesn't matter what you do to get the police to trample all over your rights. The problem is that the police can trample all over those rights in the first place, and can do so with practical impunity. That makes the country essentially a police state. (Whether it's effectively a police state depends on to what extend the police actually makes use of that power.)
I've got the Larousse, but still haven't opened it. Neither has my wife (who is an awesome cook). My problem with most cook books is that they don't teach me what I want to know. I think this geek-oriented approach could work well for me.
Among all the interesting stuff in this review, there's one thing that seems to have been omitted: taste. How do you mix different tastes into something that tastes well? For do you choose appropriate herbs and spices? I've got no clue.
I'm not saying they can't ever get there. They just seem a bit too eager to dive off the other end. Turkey has its issues, but at least they've been moving slowly in the right direction over the past two decades.
I guess that means that for women it's even more important to emphasize aspects that might repel the flood of indiscriminating men.
Or, if they're unrepellable, just ignore them and actively go looking for interesting men. Approach those that are honest about negative aspects that you can live with (or even like).
There's a simple way for guys to stop dancing like a frog in a blender -just stop dancing.
If you're doing it wrong, stop doing it.
Then you'll never learn. I'd rather see people try and fail than not try at all. I was a crappy dancer when I was a kid, but now I'm okay. Or at least I've got my own style. I think the trick is not to care what other people will think. It'll make you less self-conscious, more confident, and will therefore make you dance better. Even if it is odd.
I don't see the second guy as dancing like a jerk. The first guy just shuffles around with his head down, and little variation or inspiration. The second guy is more active, more confident, and uses a lot more variation. More dominant? Certainly less timid than the first guy. More in control and more creative too. Doesn't surprise me at all that he's considered more attractive. There's really very little attraction to the first guy's dancing (if you can even call it that).
But personally I can't think of any kind of dance moves that I'd consider douchebaggy. The only people on the dancefloor that I consider jerks are people who bring beer or cigarettes with them, and idiots who think slam dancing means you need to actively assault people. And maybe people who just stand around without dancing at all.
If the videos are good samples of what they used, then the research is kinda crap for proving what the summary claimed, which was: "the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs."
Either that or the videos are mislabelled. Because the "good video" sure has a lot more arm flailing and rapid leg movement than the bad one.
I was rather surprised about the summary's description of sexy dance moves. The first article about this research (on a Dutch news site; it mentioned Carlton from The Fresh Prince too) that I read said exactly what you just said: arm movement and rapid leg movement is good.
Personally I don't care. I just get my head in the music and spasm like crazy (which includes swinging arms and lots of rapid leg movement). And it works too. After seeing me dance, a girl I'd known for years was suddenly rather impressed with me. She said she didn't know I was such a good dancer, and seemed rather interested in me all of a sudden. Although I have to say it's the only time I can remember that someone complimented me on my dancing.
Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".
But TV (as well as a surprising number of webforums) have no qualms censoring a variety of words, and can get in trouble if they don't. US free speech isn't anywhere near as unqualified as you make it out to be. The restrictions are just different.
The basic idea behind the EU really is a very good idea. The actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of examples:
The EU is not very democratic. A country governed in the same way would not be allowed to join for that very reason. The power of the EuroParliament is very limited. Most of the real decisions are made behind closed doors without any checks and balances.
National governments abuse EU legislature to circumvent their national democratic system. When a country can't get a law through their own parliament, they can just propose it in the Council of the EU (or the European Council? They're different and often mixed up) and later blame the unpopular law on the EU, further undermining public trust in the EU.
The EU is based on some really very old treaties that should be obsolete by now. It's impossible to repeal those treaties, because there's always one country that profits enough from it that it vetoes any attempt to change it.
I'm sure there's more. Still, there are some good bits too.
Why should membership be arbitrarily limited by geography?
In my opinion it shouldn't. I think a looser and more democratic version of the EU could make a really nice proto-world government. (Unfortunately recent developments aren't exactly in that direction.)
I'm imagining a two-tiered system: Any country that agrees with EU values on human/civil rights, free press, democracy, etc can join, receiving full access to internal goods market, economic stimulus, etc. Any country that has a similar economic level gets the full thing: no borders, citizens can move wherever they want, etc.
In any case, Turkey is rather a pivotal case. They want to join for economic reasons, and lots of people want them to join for those reasons. But Turkey has been incredibly slow in the necessary reforms in civil rights and stuff like that. It wasn't long ago that torture and police brutality were common. They still have trouble treating the Kurds as full citizens. And with recent anti-islam tendencies in the EU, Turkey has been feeling less than welcome, and seems to be moving away from the EU.
(But Syria and Israel? Not a chance. Not for a long while.)
Note that this is merely the European Parliament, the least powerful and only democratically elected body at EU level. It wouldn't surprise my if the council or the commission manage to find a way to circumvent it in this matter. If it has the power to block the ACTA at all.
From what I understand, Bollywood is a bigger film industry than Hollywood. "Its region" is bigger than Europe and the US combined. And I'm seeing more and more Bollywood movies appear in European theaters recently.
This debate is heavily tainted by misuse of words. Piracy means robbing ships on the high seas, theft means depriving someone of his property. Copyright infringement is just that: violating someone's legally granted monopoly.
Copyright is a legally granted monopoly on the copying and distribution of a particular presentation. Violating that is illegal, but not identical to theft.
Its arguable that the pirates don't steal anything. personaly i see it as closer to some one taking pictures of a painting and the gallary sending some one to there house to burn down the walls, saying "lets see you hang your photo now".
And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism
Piracy isn't vigilantism. They're not punishing people, they're robbing people. On the high seas. (That is what we're talking about, isn't it?) It would only be vigilantism if the Somalian former fishermen focused their attention completely on the super trawlers that are emptying their seas. They don't.
More to the point: your point seems to be that vigilantism is okay because there are people who do bad stuff. I consider vigilantism bad stuff, and therefore not okay. In my book, crime doesn't justify more crime. To you, apparently it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Understanding it and building it are two very different skill sets.
I don't think the EU "consitution" would have fixed everything. It wouldn't have replaced all those old treaties that some countries still profit disproportionally from. Because they'd veto anything that does anythin remotely like that. Although I admit it would still have been a good step in the right direction. (Note that some of the NO-voters did so because the step was too small. But you're right that the majority probably had no idea what it was all about, and certainly the Dutch government was really awful at explaining it.)
I think the best way to make a fresh start is to do exactly that: dissolve the current union and start a new one. Leave all the old stuff out, and do it better this time.
The test of whether a country is a police state is in accountability. If you can complain about police behaviour, and that complaint is taken seriously and can get the officer in trouble, possibly court (and won't get the person who filed the complaint in trouble), then you've got proper accountability.
If, on the other hand, police officers can and do get away with anything, are usually believed on their word in court, and complaints are generally ignored (or worse!), then you've got the makings of a police state.
How bad the situation in the US is, I don't know. Sometimes everything seems the way it should be (especially in crime TV series of course), but many anecdotes from real people really scare me. Sometimes it appears as if a road cop is well within his rights to shoot you for any reason when he stops you. There seems to be a lot of fear and paranoia involved in police encounters.
It doesn't matter what you do to get the police to trample all over your rights. The problem is that the police can trample all over those rights in the first place, and can do so with practical impunity. That makes the country essentially a police state. (Whether it's effectively a police state depends on to what extend the police actually makes use of that power.)
I've got the Larousse, but still haven't opened it. Neither has my wife (who is an awesome cook). My problem with most cook books is that they don't teach me what I want to know. I think this geek-oriented approach could work well for me.
Among all the interesting stuff in this review, there's one thing that seems to have been omitted: taste. How do you mix different tastes into something that tastes well? For do you choose appropriate herbs and spices? I've got no clue.
While teaching someone else to cook is great of course, wouldn't the obvious solution in your case have been to make you the cook of the household?
I solve practical problems. F'r instance, how am I gonna eat this cow? The answer: use fire. And if that don't work? Use more fire.
That's proper engineering. Adam Savage would be proud of you.
I'm a Canadian engineer, and almost all our equipment (of U.S. origin) and designs are specced in Imperial units rather than metric.
Imperial? Are you sure? Not English?
I'm not saying they can't ever get there. They just seem a bit too eager to dive off the other end. Turkey has its issues, but at least they've been moving slowly in the right direction over the past two decades.
For Obama that cultural choice is definitely weird. He was brought up by his white family, and was not related to any African Americans.
(Note: "was". Now he's obviously related to his kids.)
I guess that means that for women it's even more important to emphasize aspects that might repel the flood of indiscriminating men.
Or, if they're unrepellable, just ignore them and actively go looking for interesting men. Approach those that are honest about negative aspects that you can live with (or even like).
There's a simple way for guys to stop dancing like a frog in a blender -just stop dancing.
If you're doing it wrong, stop doing it.
Then you'll never learn. I'd rather see people try and fail than not try at all. I was a crappy dancer when I was a kid, but now I'm okay. Or at least I've got my own style. I think the trick is not to care what other people will think. It'll make you less self-conscious, more confident, and will therefore make you dance better. Even if it is odd.
I don't see the second guy as dancing like a jerk. The first guy just shuffles around with his head down, and little variation or inspiration. The second guy is more active, more confident, and uses a lot more variation. More dominant? Certainly less timid than the first guy. More in control and more creative too. Doesn't surprise me at all that he's considered more attractive. There's really very little attraction to the first guy's dancing (if you can even call it that).
But personally I can't think of any kind of dance moves that I'd consider douchebaggy. The only people on the dancefloor that I consider jerks are people who bring beer or cigarettes with them, and idiots who think slam dancing means you need to actively assault people. And maybe people who just stand around without dancing at all.
If the videos are good samples of what they used, then the research is kinda crap for proving what the summary claimed, which was: "the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs."
Either that or the videos are mislabelled. Because the "good video" sure has a lot more arm flailing and rapid leg movement than the bad one.
I was rather surprised about the summary's description of sexy dance moves. The first article about this research (on a Dutch news site; it mentioned Carlton from The Fresh Prince too) that I read said exactly what you just said: arm movement and rapid leg movement is good.
Personally I don't care. I just get my head in the music and spasm like crazy (which includes swinging arms and lots of rapid leg movement). And it works too. After seeing me dance, a girl I'd known for years was suddenly rather impressed with me. She said she didn't know I was such a good dancer, and seemed rather interested in me all of a sudden. Although I have to say it's the only time I can remember that someone complimented me on my dancing.
Unlike France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Ireland, Poland and Sweden, the USA does not qualify its definition of free speech. A US citizen can make a fool out of themselves without fear of prosecution, and we all know that is taken advantaged of a lot. A redneck pastor in Florida can burn the Kuran and there is nothing the US government can do about it. There is no laws against "hate speech", "denying the holocaust", "blasphemy", "promoting immoral activities", or "seditious speech".
But TV (as well as a surprising number of webforums) have no qualms censoring a variety of words, and can get in trouble if they don't. US free speech isn't anywhere near as unqualified as you make it out to be. The restrictions are just different.
Why is this modded troll? It's not.
The basic idea behind the EU really is a very good idea. The actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of examples:
The EU is not very democratic. A country governed in the same way would not be allowed to join for that very reason. The power of the EuroParliament is very limited. Most of the real decisions are made behind closed doors without any checks and balances.
National governments abuse EU legislature to circumvent their national democratic system. When a country can't get a law through their own parliament, they can just propose it in the Council of the EU (or the European Council? They're different and often mixed up) and later blame the unpopular law on the EU, further undermining public trust in the EU.
The EU is based on some really very old treaties that should be obsolete by now. It's impossible to repeal those treaties, because there's always one country that profits enough from it that it vetoes any attempt to change it.
I'm sure there's more. Still, there are some good bits too.
Why should membership be arbitrarily limited by geography?
In my opinion it shouldn't. I think a looser and more democratic version of the EU could make a really nice proto-world government. (Unfortunately recent developments aren't exactly in that direction.)
I'm imagining a two-tiered system: Any country that agrees with EU values on human/civil rights, free press, democracy, etc can join, receiving full access to internal goods market, economic stimulus, etc. Any country that has a similar economic level gets the full thing: no borders, citizens can move wherever they want, etc.
In any case, Turkey is rather a pivotal case. They want to join for economic reasons, and lots of people want them to join for those reasons. But Turkey has been incredibly slow in the necessary reforms in civil rights and stuff like that. It wasn't long ago that torture and police brutality were common. They still have trouble treating the Kurds as full citizens. And with recent anti-islam tendencies in the EU, Turkey has been feeling less than welcome, and seems to be moving away from the EU.
(But Syria and Israel? Not a chance. Not for a long while.)
Note that this is merely the European Parliament, the least powerful and only democratically elected body at EU level. It wouldn't surprise my if the council or the commission manage to find a way to circumvent it in this matter. If it has the power to block the ACTA at all.
It's copyright infringement, not theft or piracy. It helps clear up this muddied discussion if you use words by their actual meaning.
From what I understand, Bollywood is a bigger film industry than Hollywood. "Its region" is bigger than Europe and the US combined. And I'm seeing more and more Bollywood movies appear in European theaters recently.
Theft leaves someone without something.
This debate is heavily tainted by misuse of words. Piracy means robbing ships on the high seas, theft means depriving someone of his property. Copyright infringement is just that: violating someone's legally granted monopoly.
Copyright is a legally granted monopoly on the copying and distribution of a particular presentation. Violating that is illegal, but not identical to theft.
It is just me? after reading TFA I still don't know how Apple got its name.
I do. Same as for most companies: one of the founders suggested it, and it stuck.
Its arguable that the pirates don't steal anything. personaly i see it as closer to some one taking pictures of a painting and the gallary sending some one to there house to burn down the walls, saying "lets see you hang your photo now".
This is a remarkably good analogy.
And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism
Piracy isn't vigilantism. They're not punishing people, they're robbing people. On the high seas. (That is what we're talking about, isn't it?) It would only be vigilantism if the Somalian former fishermen focused their attention completely on the super trawlers that are emptying their seas. They don't.
More to the point: your point seems to be that vigilantism is okay because there are people who do bad stuff. I consider vigilantism bad stuff, and therefore not okay. In my book, crime doesn't justify more crime. To you, apparently it does.
Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.
You might claim that, but that's not what GP said. He just said that DoS attacks are immoral and should be highly illegal.
You seem to claim that two wrongs will make a right, whereas GP says that wrong = wrong.