You win the epic short-sightedness award!
If the state reinstates property rights and redistributes property to the people, one generation later, the people will have voluntarily sold the property to international developers. And what's so bad about that? They'll have traded their way to that position. The point isn't to stop capitalism, but to ensure that Cubans have a reasonable starting position, and an incentive to take what should be theirs from the government.
The US should push for Cuban property to be given (or sold) to the Cuban population.
What international entreprise should have long written off can become an incentive for revolution, and an opportunity for trade on the part of the Cubans and the US.
What would be an utter failure would be for Cubans to feel as the Russians do, that state oppression has been replaced with private sector oppression. Cubans deserve the property that their government has taken from then, as well as international entreprises, which would otherwise have created the opportunity for mutual benefit.
If a write-off is politically untenable, then compensation is called for, but the Cubans should not pay for it.
Re:Equating the sides? (Re: .Sig)
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
When both sides want the whole thing, it makes resolution nigh-impossible.
The Israeli side wants the whole thing, yes, but it is willing to accept half of the thing. The Arabs don't.
I'm not sure that politicians attempting to impress one another speak for the people; most people on both sides would, most likely settle for half. People are not an amorphous mass.
regardless of perspective.
So, you are accusing Israel of not being sufficiently careful in avoiding collateral damage, and equate that with the Arabs, who seek to maximize it (but can't)... Wow...
No, I'm saying that you've missed out a component: centralised premeditation. For some people this will make the Israelis worse, the others, the Palestinians.
Like I said, it depends upon your attitude to authority.
[...] by saying that the other side is worse.
Yes, in any conflict the behavior of one side can not be examined without that of another.
To see if the response is justified, yes, but not as a point of reference.
But my page does not seek to convince anyone of the justice of the Israel's struggle, no. It only tries to "raise awareness" of what militant Arabs mean, when they say "occupation".
This is a reasonable point, if you could prove that this was what the average Palestinian meant by the term. Putting one's justification in another's mouth is worthy of Chomsky.
This is tricky. When both sides want the whole thing, it makes resolution nigh-impossible.
I find the whole Palastinian/Israeli conflict, or rather the typical Westerner's view on it as an exercise in selective blindness, regardless of perspective. The cartoon on that page is instructive as a case in point. Of the Palestinian side, you have individual acts of senseless killing (and suicide); on the Israeli side, you have centrally organised counterstrikes when there is little effort to minimise collateral damage. The cartoon is seeking to justify a practice that is borderline indefensible by saying that the other side is worse. Yet only one side is acting on the basis of centrally premeditated policy.
The side that you come down upon mostly comes down to one's attitude to authority together with some personal factors.
I am no manager. The quote is about attitude, in that if you assume to know everything and won't learn then there is no way to progress. Sometimes it is better to be humble and accept that there is still more to learn and that you don't always have the only answer. Very Buddhist, but would deny the world of the arrogance of genius.
Civil servants might believe that, as might the government, but the civil servant's first duty is to the people. That means: he or she blabs when it is appropriate.
Insiders tend to believe that the short-term integrity of the hierarchy is synonymous with the public good. They are wrong.
"Best be the idiot that has learnt, than the genius who won't."
Stubbornness is part of genius; without it, you get people who learn to do things the "safe" and obvious way, rather than refusing to do so, and trying the brilliant and inventive way, failing several times along the way.
Yeah, Ron Paul has a lot of strange ideas, but far more interesting is how Rudy, with 3% of the vote gets coverage when RP, with 10%, does not.
The real story isn't RPs amazing 10%, but that RP is so far outside the mainstream media's sense of reality that you get what looks like inept censorship.
The cute little "FAQ" contained in your first link would make perfect sense if RP had 1% of the vote, but media coverage as if he had 1% of the vote is not "The Voting Public".
I'm not saying that he'd be likely to win, even given proper coverage, nor am I saying that there's a conspiracy. I simply think that journalists don't take well to having their sense of reality jolted, indeed, to think of reality as a matter of consensus, rather than something physical, is part of the thinking of the typical individual who becomes a journalist.
Is how the mainstream media really don't want to give him any coverage. It's easy to put it down to interests, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that it's because his popularity has little to do with them.
Where, after all, is the media trail of his development? From the newspaper's perspective, Ron Paul is one big discontinuity.
Microsoft's culture is primarily because of one man.
True that now that Bill is separating himself out from MS, he has less influence, but you cannot suddenly isolate responsibility from him just like that. Besides, how much of his new-found generousity is "in kind", favouring one company's products?
Although, in order to keep people's eye on the ball, my comment was somewhat simplistic, yours is even more so. Legal fictions are not reality, and Bill still has a lot of influence.
In practice, there is a drive to weaken the criteria that you have to meet to call a product "organic". In principle, you're right; in practice, producers want the right to lie to the consumer.
Manditory labeling is a tricky issue, since it is a minor infrigement of the manufacturer's liberty, but a line is crossed when they can lie by degrees.
What you say is absolutely true, but is missing an important principle: the customer's right to reject a product on any brain-dead reason that they choose.
Customers are expecting non-cloned meat; they're not expecting meat from an animal who resides in a barn with a north-facing door. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for them to know the former, but not the latter.
I do hope that the FDA allow producers to label their meat non-cloned only if it isn't in fact cloned. Yes, scientific studies are important, but in the end, as with organic produce, the customer should at the very least not be lied to. For some, after all, they have an almost religious zeal in their choice. Would be accept non-kosher meat being sold as kosher? The health argument here misses the point.
Good will does not increase the bottom line of their stock portfolio or give them a fat dividend check.
So because they're acting in the way that one would expect, we shouldn't criticise them because it would generate undeserved ill-will?
Quite apart from being wrong (it's going to have some effect, for some slashdotters will be favouring AMD when all other things are near enough equal), your position is a little odd. Intel deserve criticism if they're doing wrong by the critic. Aren't all actors meant to be working in their own interests? Well, for some of us, our interests include the success of projects such as the OLPC. If you believe that "interest" necessarily means self-interest, you haven't studied your economics throughly. Supply and demand doesn't care about the cause of the motive, just its existance.
Will the GNOME Foundation's indifferent response to Richard Stallman's appeal drive him to throw his weight behind KDE?
It's funny how in articles, the politics appears as primary, and policy secondary. Of course the politics is important, but surely the interesting question is that of freedom, rather than Stallman's partisanship?
It amuses me how so much journalism seeks to make the world a smaller place. There are bigger things than personalities.
Censorship is the restriction of (well, okay, a little more than political speech). The kind of speech that is blocked is pretty clear to more people. There is no exact rule, but your example "Bush is bad..." is ridiculous because it is so very different from the kind of speech that we're talking about. Documenting torture is different, even if you can't make the boundary precise.
As for the rest, people can, in theory, go to Live Leak. So censorship by You Tube is less bad than censorship by (say) the US government, in that the information will still be avilable, albeit to far fewer people.
People don't in general move from their habitual sites, so a banning from You Tube is a severe restiction in availablity. Saying that you're being disingenuous is a short way of saying that you're describing an option that people don't take: an interesting theoretical possibility. That you're a troll is obvious, so I have already answered you; terseness is not a failure to reply.
Something being censored might be censored because of a purported violation of TOS, but that is a reason for censorship, not a denial that it is occuring. So is it your opinion that when a spammer gets their account suspended, it is censorship? Hmm. What did I say later on? Oh yeah.
you're attempting to redefine "censorship" to mean something other than restricting political speech.
Hey, even restricting political hate speech is censorship, although it has to be said that people generally accept that as reasonable and democratic restraint. Censorship is a word that has a meaning; it does not mean "bad restraint of political speech". Those who oppose all censorship tend to have reasons why restraint of political speech is bad (eg. the proper opposition comes in the form of the expression of opposing ideas), but "bad" is not part of the definition.
People who go to Liveleak are people who make a point to inform themselves about these matters. They will have already taken the time to read relevant articles; they will know. For the video to be accessable to the general population, it needs to be on You Tube. People are just as capable of clicking a link to liveleak as they are of clicking a link to youtube. Sorry, this is simply disingenuous. You're either a troll, or else you really don't give a shit.
Censorship IS NOT the failure to allow someone to abuse the TOS of your service.
Something being censored might be censored because of a purported violation of TOS, but that is a reason for censorship, not a denial that it is occuring.
Bellowing "censorship" like you're doing is EXACTLY what OP was complaining about, and yet still you don't get it.
Actually, the GP is trying to change the meaning of the word censorship to something like "government censorship". Pointing out that the word has been redefined is not bellowing anything. Did I use all caps? Disagreement is not belowing.
I get it fine. There are worse cases of censorship, to be sure, but drastically reducing the audience for coverage of human rights abuse? Censorship is the proper term.
Putting these abuses up on another site means that only people who already know about such abuse will find out about it.
Um, what? Please explain this comment, as it strikes me as...well honestly, kind of dumb. Liveleak is an example that shows you're wrong.
Simple. People who go to Liveleak are people who make a point to inform themselves about these matters. They will have already taken the time to read relevant articles; they will know. For the video to be accessable to the general population, it needs to be on You Tube.
Again, all you did was say it was censorship over and over. You did nothing to prove it, and advanced no relevant arguments that take this beyond a TOS violation.
And you've given no reasons why censoring someone because of a purported TOS violation isn't censorship. Instead, you're attempting to redefine "censorship" to mean something other than restricting political speech.
Slashdot Mirror
This should avoid inflationary effects.
If the state reinstates property rights and redistributes property to the people, one generation later, the people will have voluntarily sold the property to international developers.
And what's so bad about that? They'll have traded their way to that position. The point isn't to stop capitalism, but to ensure that Cubans have a reasonable starting position, and an incentive to take what should be theirs from the government.
What international entreprise should have long written off can become an incentive for revolution, and an opportunity for trade on the part of the Cubans and the US.
What would be an utter failure would be for Cubans to feel as the Russians do, that state oppression has been replaced with private sector oppression. Cubans deserve the property that their government has taken from then, as well as international entreprises, which would otherwise have created the opportunity for mutual benefit.
If a write-off is politically untenable, then compensation is called for, but the Cubans should not pay for it.
The Israeli side wants the whole thing, yes, but it is willing to accept half of the thing. The Arabs don't.
I'm not sure that politicians attempting to impress one another speak for the people; most people on both sides would, most likely settle for half. People are not an amorphous mass.So, you are accusing Israel of not being sufficiently careful in avoiding collateral damage, and equate that with the Arabs, who seek to maximize it (but can't)... Wow...
No, I'm saying that you've missed out a component: centralised premeditation. For some people this will make the Israelis worse, the others, the Palestinians.Like I said, it depends upon your attitude to authority.
Yes, in any conflict the behavior of one side can not be examined without that of another.
To see if the response is justified, yes, but not as a point of reference.But my page does not seek to convince anyone of the justice of the Israel's struggle, no. It only tries to "raise awareness" of what militant Arabs mean, when they say "occupation".
This is a reasonable point, if you could prove that this was what the average Palestinian meant by the term. Putting one's justification in another's mouth is worthy of Chomsky.I find the whole Palastinian/Israeli conflict, or rather the typical Westerner's view on it as an exercise in selective blindness, regardless of perspective. The cartoon on that page is instructive as a case in point. Of the Palestinian side, you have individual acts of senseless killing (and suicide); on the Israeli side, you have centrally organised counterstrikes when there is little effort to minimise collateral damage. The cartoon is seeking to justify a practice that is borderline indefensible by saying that the other side is worse. Yet only one side is acting on the basis of centrally premeditated policy.
The side that you come down upon mostly comes down to one's attitude to authority together with some personal factors.
Civil servants might believe that, as might the government, but the civil servant's first duty is to the people. That means: he or she blabs when it is appropriate. Insiders tend to believe that the short-term integrity of the hierarchy is synonymous with the public good. They are wrong.
Score one for the FUD machine.
Above link with a clearer URL: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MlI8ESfxZ3MJ:www.cyberlawcentre.org/2007/ooxml/background_v12.pdf+Office+Open+XML+Opportunity+or+minefield%3F+site:cyberlawcentre.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
Are you a manager, by any chance?
The real story isn't RPs amazing 10%, but that RP is so far outside the mainstream media's sense of reality that you get what looks like inept censorship.
The cute little "FAQ" contained in your first link would make perfect sense if RP had 1% of the vote, but media coverage as if he had 1% of the vote is not "The Voting Public".
I'm not saying that he'd be likely to win, even given proper coverage, nor am I saying that there's a conspiracy. I simply think that journalists don't take well to having their sense of reality jolted, indeed, to think of reality as a matter of consensus, rather than something physical, is part of the thinking of the typical individual who becomes a journalist.
Where, after all, is the media trail of his development? From the newspaper's perspective, Ron Paul is one big discontinuity.
True that now that Bill is separating himself out from MS, he has less influence, but you cannot suddenly isolate responsibility from him just like that. Besides, how much of his new-found generousity is "in kind", favouring one company's products?
Although, in order to keep people's eye on the ball, my comment was somewhat simplistic, yours is even more so. Legal fictions are not reality, and Bill still has a lot of influence.
Is Microsoft going to stop looking for new ways to be anticompetitive, now?
Not wanting to spoil the optimistic spirit of your own post :o)
Manditory labeling is a tricky issue, since it is a minor infrigement of the manufacturer's liberty, but a line is crossed when they can lie by degrees.
Customers are expecting non-cloned meat; they're not expecting meat from an animal who resides in a barn with a north-facing door. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for them to know the former, but not the latter.
I do hope that the FDA allow producers to label their meat non-cloned only if it isn't in fact cloned. Yes, scientific studies are important, but in the end, as with organic produce, the customer should at the very least not be lied to. For some, after all, they have an almost religious zeal in their choice. Would be accept non-kosher meat being sold as kosher? The health argument here misses the point.
Quite apart from being wrong (it's going to have some effect, for some slashdotters will be favouring AMD when all other things are near enough equal), your position is a little odd. Intel deserve criticism if they're doing wrong by the critic. Aren't all actors meant to be working in their own interests? Well, for some of us, our interests include the success of projects such as the OLPC. If you believe that "interest" necessarily means self-interest, you haven't studied your economics throughly. Supply and demand doesn't care about the cause of the motive, just its existance.
By virtue of having minds, we don't have to be slaves of our biological programming.
Recommended reading: Leo Strauss's "The City and Man".
You insensitive clod!
It amuses me how so much journalism seeks to make the world a smaller place. There are bigger things than personalities.
Censorship is the restriction of (well, okay, a little more than political speech). The kind of speech that is blocked is pretty clear to more people. There is no exact rule, but your example "Bush is bad..." is ridiculous because it is so very different from the kind of speech that we're talking about. Documenting torture is different, even if you can't make the boundary precise.
As for the rest, people can, in theory, go to Live Leak. So censorship by You Tube is less bad than censorship by (say) the US government, in that the information will still be avilable, albeit to far fewer people.
People don't in general move from their habitual sites, so a banning from You Tube is a severe restiction in availablity. Saying that you're being disingenuous is a short way of saying that you're describing an option that people don't take: an interesting theoretical possibility. That you're a troll is obvious, so I have already answered you; terseness is not a failure to reply.
you're attempting to redefine "censorship" to mean something other than restricting political speech.
Hey, even restricting political hate speech is censorship, although it has to be said that people generally accept that as reasonable and democratic restraint. Censorship is a word that has a meaning; it does not mean "bad restraint of political speech". Those who oppose all censorship tend to have reasons why restraint of political speech is bad (eg. the proper opposition comes in the form of the expression of opposing ideas), but "bad" is not part of the definition.
People who go to Liveleak are people who make a point to inform themselves about these matters. They will have already taken the time to read relevant articles; they will know. For the video to be accessable to the general population, it needs to be on You Tube. People are just as capable of clicking a link to liveleak as they are of clicking a link to youtube. Sorry, this is simply disingenuous. You're either a troll, or else you really don't give a shit.I get it fine. There are worse cases of censorship, to be sure, but drastically reducing the audience for coverage of human rights abuse? Censorship is the proper term.
Simple. People who go to Liveleak are people who make a point to inform themselves about these matters. They will have already taken the time to read relevant articles; they will know. For the video to be accessable to the general population, it needs to be on You Tube. And you've given no reasons why censoring someone because of a purported TOS violation isn't censorship. Instead, you're attempting to redefine "censorship" to mean something other than restricting political speech.