there would be far less electromagnetic radiation around the place (which is probably responsible for a lot of people getting sick etc)
Since when was non-ionizing EM radiation dangerous? Besides, even if it was, I highly doubt that your computer PSU or little brick power supply for your cordless phone are wasting that much energy as EM. When you consider that most little brick power supplies are running most of the waste is lost to heat and not EM I highly doubt it amounts to much. Even your typical PC PSU runs less then 100-150 watts unless you are a dual processor 15 HD fiend.
I'd be willing to bet that you get a larger dose of EM from your box fan, AC motor or refrigerator compressor.
How do you feel about that judge who displayed the ten commandments
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. I definitely disagree with my friends at the ACLU when they make Federal cases out of the Pledge or Nativity scenes in public squares. Heck, even as an Atheist I'd rather see Christmas as a religious holiday then the massively commercialized greed-fest it has become. Regarding the judge though -- I'd probably side with them (ACLU/et. all) on this one. A town square is a common public area -- a courtroom is an instrument of Government and as such should be free of religious influences. In any case he definitely crossed the line when he refused to obey the lawful order of a higher court. For a judge that's pretty shameful.
or the Kansas school board teaching intelligent design alongside science?
That I have a serious problem with. The keyword in your sentence is "alongside". If public schools want to teach creationism (that's what it is -- ID is a marketing ploy) then it should be taught in the context of theology -- not science. I recall spending an entire semester on theology and the study of the big three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) in High School. That would be the correct forum to talk about creationism.
I'm also at a loss for why people are still opposed to the teaching of evolution. Are they so insecure about their faith that they are afraid to let their children learn about a scientific theory? Will we ban discussion about the Big Bang or carbon dating next?
But it still annoys me when liberals want to stop things like this on the dubious basis of the separation of church and state.
The aforementioned battles against the pledge of allegiance or nativity scenes really bother me. And I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and registered in the Working Families Party. Out of all of my friends (most of whom are liberals) I'm probably the furthest to the left. Despite all that I do get really annoyed when we go to war over such trivial stuff.
Rather then talking about nativity scenes I'd rather see the left spend our political capital on stuff that actually matters -- living wages, social security, etc etc. I do think the ID/creationism fight is one worth fighting though. I guess it's all about being reasonable.
I know that if I for instance went into a bank dressed as a ninja I'd be arrested.
Actually, you wouldn't unless you were breaking some other law. If you were just dressed as a ninja you'd be fine. If you were carrying around a six foot long sword you might have a problem depending on local weapons laws.
My brother happens to have a pistol permit because he deals with a cash business. He can walk into the local credit union wearing his weapon and nothing happens to him.
Call whatever you want but it happens. INS drives up to a group of Mexican men waiting to do day labor and asks them for ID literally on a daily basis.
And if they should say "I'm a natural born American citizen, go fuck yourself", then what exactly does the INS do? They can't detain an American citizen for not having a Green Card. I can totally understand the frustration at illegal immigration but it seems to me that it would be a lot more effective for them to go after the companies providing jobs to these day laborers. If we had a nationwide database to verify social security numbers/passports/licenses (you need either a passport or an actual social security card and other form of ID to fill out an I-9 form) as being legitimate then a major source of employment for illegals would cease.
In the state of Texas (and I can only claim to have knowledge of the laws of the state of Texas) there is a misdemeanor offense called "Failure to Identify" which means that if I (as a peace office, which I no longer am) ask you for your ID and you don't give it to me then I can take you to jail
That effectively requires you to carry ID on your person at all times. Here in New York there is no such requirement. You don't technically even need to carry your license on your person when you drive -- as long as you can present it to the court within 24 hours. Of course not having it when you get pulled over is likely to annoy the officer and piss away any chance you had of getting a warning:)
Are you sure the meaning behind that law is to require physical ID? If you approach me and ask for ID and I say "I don't have any, but my name is [whatever]" I've broken that law? I really find that hard to believe. If that's actually the case then it's one more reason that I'm glad I don't live in a red state.
I can charge you with any number of very subjective and annoying small crimes and take you to jail. I can then hold you for up to 24 hours without filing a charge
That's SOP for most police departments. The difference being that if you attempted in that most of New York State the judge would have some pretty harsh things to say to the police officers involved -- repeated occurrences of that behavior would likely lead to sanctions if not charges against them. Thus the police are deterred from using such methods except in extreme cases. The NY Penal Law also requires that you are arraigned within 72 hours.
And as I said the French aren't interested in you bringing your culture to their country. They don't want Moslem mosques anymore than they want American McDonalds. France is for the French and if immigrants don't get with the program they're going to be facing something that looks like a twisted French parody of the American south in the 50's
On that we agree. I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you over it -- only pointed it out to explain the hypocrisy of Europeans who lecture us about human rights. I highly doubt this would be happening in the United States.
BTW: Your quoting style is unique to say the least;)
Our INS people randomly stop people all of the time to see if they have green cards. There is no outrage because it rarely happens in places where people are "outraged" by this happening. How do I know this? Texas peace officer for 5 years. I worked with INS on a fairly regular basis.
I call bullshit. How would the INS randomly stop somebody to check for a Green Card? What happens if they stop me (natural born US Citizen) and I tell them to go fuck themselves? Are they going to deport me? If they are stopping people who look like immigrants then they are profiling and it probably wouldn't survive a court case (equal protection, what?).
Now, if during the course of normal business they should ask a known immigrant for his ID card then that's another matter. But I doubt you'll find the INS stopping groups of people in immigrant neighborhoods and asking for Green Cards.
Police officers ask civilians for their ID at almost every encounter without starting massive riots.
Yes and if that encounter is part of normal police business then nobody has any reason to get pissed. I had a police officer ask me for my ID because I was a witness to a car accident. That's all well and good. But if a police officer walks up to me on the street and asks for ID I'm going to politely decline. If an INS officer asked me for my Green Card I probably would tell him to go fuck himself.
If you immigrate to a country (any country) the onus is on you to comply with the laws of that county
Just because there's a law doesn't make it just or right. There's a bit of a cultural difference across the Atlantic but you have to admit that such a law would never pass muster in the United States. Why is such a law even required? Are the French people so afraid of religion that they don't want their kids to look at somebody wearing a cross/star of david/etc?
You are also going to find that your success or failure in that county is directly affected by the level to which you integrate into that culture
That's true. But some cultures (America) actually welcome you and will assimilate parts of your culture into their own. I would agree that if you move here you should learn our language and our customs. But we have a lot to learn from you as well and you should not be forced to give up your customs either. Especially on something as trivial as clothing and jewelry. Tell me, who the hell does it hurt if my kid goes to school with somebody wearing traditional Muslim dress?
Yes, they would force him to remove his collar when he attends a public school. The law also banned crosses, skull caps and any other religious clothing. The French govt. is secular so any public service should and needs to be seperated from religion.
Yes and if the teacher was forcing his students to wear Jewish skullcaps or Muslim veils then you'd have an argument. Separating religion from public service does not mean that you have to force anybody who is using that public service to remove religious items.
What's next? Will you ban skull caps on public transportation? Will you ban them in airports? What if I need to visit a French consulate? I'm a friggen Atheist and I am still appalled by this law and the fact that people are actually defending it.
It was not. Catholics kids cannot wear big crosses (then you'd ask : "what's 'big' ?", the answer would be : anything you can see), and same for Jewish kids about a star of david, and same thing for any other religion. The main problem here would be that such "religious signs" for Muslims tend to be more visible than the christian equivalent (using those two as an example here, it could apply to many other religions), so yes Muslims are more affected, but it doesn't mean they're the only target of this law.
Really? So a yarmulke is equally illegal? I stand corrected -- it wasn't targeting Muslims -- it was targeting religious minorities. That's so much better.
Are the French people as a whole so afraid of other cultures that they don't want their kids to look at a piece of religious jewelry or clothing? You are really making me glad to be an American.
No, because the law doesn't make it illegal for a muslim woman to wear a hijab, or a Sikh man to wear a turban in the streets either.
Just in schools, right? Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you justify it or how you limit it. Will they have separate water fountains and bathrooms for them next?
It was not intended to strip ones liberty of faith, but rather put everybody on the same level : no religion (quite) no differences. See it like the UK uniform tradition. Religion being an important matter, it aims not to bring possible 'tensions' at school.
It doesn't strip your liberty of faith to not be able to wear the items of that faith when you attend public school? I presume that school is mandatory for all children in France the way it is in the United States?
Such a law would never survive a court challenge over here. It would never even get passed in the first place.
The issue IS about religious freedom, this point being about freedom FROM religion. The Joe-average french person usually see religious matters to be private, and best kept to yourself. This of course causes problems with people with a different background-culture about religion.
And the Joe-average American feels the same way. Tell me, how does somebody wearing religious clothing force you to adopt their faith? I see Muslim women in full dress with veil quite often -- and I don't even live in a major city (Binghamton, NY). And guess what: It doesn't bother me! How does it even remotely impact me?
In any case, the law was totally directed at Muslims. Did they make it illegal for a Catholic priest to wear his collar? For some reason I think not.
In several states people, in motor vehicles, are stopped at 'random' locations to see if they have been drinking. This involves the use of police road blocks and check every car that wishes to go thru.
And I find that disgusting and I've spoken out against the restriction of our freedoms in the name of combating DWI before. Dive into my comment history if you doubt me. My biggest peeve about that is how you have no right to refuse to give evidence against yourself (implied consent laws).
But in any case, there is a huge difference between stopping all cars to check for drunks and stopping dark skinned people in immigrant neighborhoods to check for the French version of a green card. Recall the outrage in the United States if there is even the perception that a black man got pulled over just because he was driving a nice car or happened to be in the wrong neighborhood. Where's the outrage in France?
In any case, the show portrayed some African slaves to which the neighbor commented how the slave features resembled those of monkeys. I was shocked. You'd never hear something like in US (at least I hope not).
If you did hear something like that in the US you'd be utterly demonized by the mainstream and most decent people. Careers have been destroyed over a lot less then that over here.
On the other side of the coin, I can get a permit for a KKK rally in Central Park. In France that wouldn't be allowed under the hate speech laws. No doubt some people will defend those laws -- but I'd rather have the true freedom to allow people to say whatever they want. Even with the KKK and the neo-Nazi's free to spew their garbage we are still light-years ahead of Europe in race relations. What does that say about American culture?
"not setting up fascist dictatorships for some 30-odd years to help thieve the oil from blindingly poor Islamic countries and violently oppress the resistant few before finally forcing what appears to be democracy at last into a single country in the middle of the desert through mass-bombing"
As opposed to the French, who fought (and lost) a long and expensive war for no other reason then to retain their imperialistic colony of Algeria?
The crap that the United States has pulled in the past pales in comparison to the rape of the African continent done by the European powers. Don't even get me started.
Or maybe Europe is closer in location and historic ties to the muslim parts of the world than the US is? Maybe this has nothing to do with a war, but more with a large influx of muslims seeking riches, but not finding it?
That's funny, because just one of our states (Michigan) has a larger Muslim population then any other Western nation save France, and overall we have the largest number of Muslims in the United States then any other Western country. I don't see any riots here.
And it's not just about economics either my friend. I don't see Mexicans/Latinos rioting in the United States when they come here to seek their fortune and don't find it. We embrace other cultures and assimilate them into our own. A lot of other countries just reject them outright.
Well my understanding of the thing is that they never were allowed to wear those in the first place (since the laïcité law from the early 1900s).
If that's the case then perhaps they should have repealed that law instead of adding to it? How can you claim to have true religious freedom and care about Human Rights otherwise?
It's interesting to see what goodwill (none) France has gotten by pandering to the Islamists. Perhaps that will influence future French behaviour when dealing with radical Islamic states. Hope springs eternal.
I love your insightful score because it's about time reality hit France but in all seriousness these riots have nothing to do with French foreign policy.
They have everything to do with these people feeling screwed over by the system. They have no money, they live in the worst neighborhoods, they are scorned and spit on (as many immigrants have been throughout history). The French did themselves no favors with the ban on religious headwear either.
And you shouldn't forget that this whole mess started because French police stopped a group of people doing absolutely nothing wrong just so they could check immigrant IDs. Two of them ran away and died when they hid in an electrical substation. Say what you will about the United States but if our police/INS officers started randomly stopping people just to check if they had Green Cards there would be an outrage. I don't see any outrage in the French press -- other then that directed at the people who are getting screwed over to begin with.
I believe the term is "exculpatory", and the way my legal environment professor explained it was this: "If clauses like that worked, we'd all be driving around with signs on the front of our cars that say, 'Not responsible if I hit you'." (IANAL, of course.)
So what your telling me is that my bumper sticker that says "If you can read this I'm about to lock my brakes" won't shield me from legal liability?
Of course, the free speach should weigh heavy, but they should dampen the ones that try to fuel the fire.
Bullshit! There is no valid reason to restrict speech unless it presents an immediate danger and serves no valid point of discussion (yelling fire in a movie theater).
Simply banning all speech that might be "violent" is a very slippery slope. It would probably have made it illegal for me to encourage people to take to the streets to protest the Florida fiasco in 2000. They might do better by looking at the reason why these people are rioting in the first place. Perhaps because they feel cheated by the system? Perhaps because they aren't even allowed to wear their religious headwear to school anymore?
As a sidenote: I don't ever want to hear people slime the United States again. It's rather interesting that Muslim youth over here aren't rioting -- even though we are the ones "at war" with certain followers of that faith. Perhaps that's because we have better religious freedom?
That's why HIV carriers are on a drug cocktail. It's far less likely the virus is going to develop an immunity to all the different drugs at once. If you were to give the drugs one at a time, however, evolution predicts the rise of an HIV virus that could resist them all.
Your theory is perfectly valid with bacteria (natural selection prefers resistant bacteria) but I don't think it applies to HIV.
IANAMD but as I recall the HIV cocktail reinforces your immune system so that your body be more successful at fighting off HIV. The drugs don't do anything (directly) to the HIV virus. We have yet to come up with a drug that will directly attack any virus -- let alone HIV.
I only wish $1450 could be inconsequential.... Paying a bill takes maybe one minute a month, or just buy the lifetime and be done with it. Still cheaper than MCE.
How does it take "maybe one minute a month"? Does TiVo have some sort of "Bill Me" option that I'm unaware of? They automatically charge my credit card in my case.
I understand users/groups/file permissions. I assume you do too. What about your parents?
What would they need to know? There's a separate password to access the "administrator" account. When you buy the computer (presumably preloaded with Windows) you set that password and create accounts for everybody in your family. From that point on you only use that password to install software for everybody to use.
It shouldn't even be required to use that password to install software for just yourself. If I go out and buy Sim City 4000 and I only want to be able to use it on my user account, then why should I need admin rights to install it? This would be the same behavior as --prefix on Unix -- but a lot more user friendly.
You'd still have the problem of social engineering (download our new screensaver!!!!) but it would be a lot easier to tell people to never enter that password when prompted by a website then it would be to block access to bad scripts or ActiveX controls.
They will try it in the next version of Windows apparently. I don't see what's stopping it from being in XP SP3 (or why it wasn't in SP2 for that matter). That would be even better because it would give software publishers time to get used to the model before Vista is released.
It can if your running as root and as clueless as the typical Windows user.
That's still one of the biggest problems on Windows. Why, when Microsoft can force people to adopt new "standards" just by releasing a new version of Word, they can't force software companies to create software for Windows that doesn't rely on the assumption of administrator privileges is beyond me.
Would it be so hard to say that you only use the administrator account for installing shared (amongst all local users) software? The Windows version of a ~ directory is already in place (documents and settings). What's stopping MS from implementing a Unix-style security model?
If criminal activities are involved, those responsible will be tried, prosecuted, and punished. Thats the system. Its to discourage others doing the same thing. If the system isn't working, the laws need to be made harsher.
I'm sure that all the Enron management doing 10 years of minimum security white collar prison really makes up for all the people who lost their life savings and retirement accounts. A more fitting punishment would be holding them personally liable for what they did and taking every last penny they have.
I'm very happy for you, its your money and all, but if you take a bath because of this, you have only yourself to blame, not shadowy figures in some board room. And if there is one thing I have learned the real hard way, its that you always have less money than you think.
I'm going to take a bath investing my money in profitable and stable businesses that happen to be local? I never suggested investing in local businesses "just because". I research them just as much as I would research anything that I want to invest in. I just make a point of having some of my money invested locally because that's the kind of person I am.
Life is a contact sport, and I really empathise with anyone that has been wiped out like I was, but no one has a right to any job.
They do have the right not to be lied to by management. They do have the right to expect that management won't run the company into the ground on purpose to inflate their own stock options. They do have the right to expect that management is looking out for the long term future of the company. And you are only talking about employees. What about the investors who got screwed? That's ok because "life is a contact sport"? We have laws and civilization for a reason.
Hardly anybody is watching it for free over their air or cable TV. Why should this get anyone else to watch it? Their ratings keep sliding into a black hole for good reasons...
Good reasons eh? And what's better? 24 hour non-stop politicized news coverage? The polarized blogsphere?
Network news is dying a slow death for a number of reasons that may or may not be correctable -- but I don't see any reason to root for it's demise. You can't seriously tell me that we are better off for having CNN/Fox News/et. all. I'm starting to agree with Jon Stewart where those guys are concerned.
Besides, who really cares, if a CEO dumps all over his company and it collapses in a few years, others will arise to fill the vacuum.
Who cares? Did you really ask that? Gee, the employees who retirement funds were wiped out/whose jobs were lost. The shareholders whose wealth was wiped out? Oh, I suppose in your world they got what they deserved for not researching it properly. As if you can conduct proper research to figure out a good position on a stock when the books/accounting are rigged.
If you're holding onto stock due to some idea of company loyalty you shouldn't be playing the markets anyway.
So it's a bad thing to hold onto some stock because you are loyal to the company or the ideas/business that they are in? I make it a point to make sure that a significant sum of my portfolio is composed of local businesses. They might not give me that 15% growth rate but that's a trade off I'm willing to make.
Besides, what the hell does dividends have to do with company loyalty? The GP and I were lamenting the fact that nowadays it's all based on pump and dump, short-term and shortsighted thinking. What happened to investing for the dividends and sane rates of growth? What happened to planning for the next few decades instead of the next few weeks? What happened to returning your profits to the investors instead of your insiders?
The whole fucking game nowadays is rigged against the common man. It doesn't matter if that man is an employee or a shareholder. The only ones who still seem to win are CEOs, board members and politicians. If the business community keeps heading in this direction they are going to prove Marx right.
Slashdot Mirror
there would be far less electromagnetic radiation around the place (which is probably responsible for a lot of people getting sick etc)
Since when was non-ionizing EM radiation dangerous? Besides, even if it was, I highly doubt that your computer PSU or little brick power supply for your cordless phone are wasting that much energy as EM. When you consider that most little brick power supplies are running most of the waste is lost to heat and not EM I highly doubt it amounts to much. Even your typical PC PSU runs less then 100-150 watts unless you are a dual processor 15 HD fiend.
I'd be willing to bet that you get a larger dose of EM from your box fan, AC motor or refrigerator compressor.
But you're sentiment is correct. Edison never really believed in AC power.
Actually he was a pretty firm supporter of AC where the electric chair was concerned.
The original example of FUD!
How do you feel about that judge who displayed the ten commandments
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. I definitely disagree with my friends at the ACLU when they make Federal cases out of the Pledge or Nativity scenes in public squares. Heck, even as an Atheist I'd rather see Christmas as a religious holiday then the massively commercialized greed-fest it has become. Regarding the judge though -- I'd probably side with them (ACLU/et. all) on this one. A town square is a common public area -- a courtroom is an instrument of Government and as such should be free of religious influences. In any case he definitely crossed the line when he refused to obey the lawful order of a higher court. For a judge that's pretty shameful.
or the Kansas school board teaching intelligent design alongside science?
That I have a serious problem with. The keyword in your sentence is "alongside". If public schools want to teach creationism (that's what it is -- ID is a marketing ploy) then it should be taught in the context of theology -- not science. I recall spending an entire semester on theology and the study of the big three (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) in High School. That would be the correct forum to talk about creationism.
I'm also at a loss for why people are still opposed to the teaching of evolution. Are they so insecure about their faith that they are afraid to let their children learn about a scientific theory? Will we ban discussion about the Big Bang or carbon dating next?
But it still annoys me when liberals want to stop things like this on the dubious basis of the separation of church and state.
The aforementioned battles against the pledge of allegiance or nativity scenes really bother me. And I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and registered in the Working Families Party. Out of all of my friends (most of whom are liberals) I'm probably the furthest to the left. Despite all that I do get really annoyed when we go to war over such trivial stuff.
Rather then talking about nativity scenes I'd rather see the left spend our political capital on stuff that actually matters -- living wages, social security, etc etc. I do think the ID/creationism fight is one worth fighting though. I guess it's all about being reasonable.
I know that if I for instance went into a bank dressed as a ninja I'd be arrested.
Actually, you wouldn't unless you were breaking some other law. If you were just dressed as a ninja you'd be fine. If you were carrying around a six foot long sword you might have a problem depending on local weapons laws.
My brother happens to have a pistol permit because he deals with a cash business. He can walk into the local credit union wearing his weapon and nothing happens to him.
Call whatever you want but it happens. INS drives up to a group of Mexican men waiting to do day labor and asks them for ID literally on a daily basis.
And if they should say "I'm a natural born American citizen, go fuck yourself", then what exactly does the INS do? They can't detain an American citizen for not having a Green Card. I can totally understand the frustration at illegal immigration but it seems to me that it would be a lot more effective for them to go after the companies providing jobs to these day laborers. If we had a nationwide database to verify social security numbers/passports/licenses (you need either a passport or an actual social security card and other form of ID to fill out an I-9 form) as being legitimate then a major source of employment for illegals would cease.
In the state of Texas (and I can only claim to have knowledge of the laws of the state of Texas) there is a misdemeanor offense called "Failure to Identify" which means that if I (as a peace office, which I no longer am) ask you for your ID and you don't give it to me then I can take you to jail
That effectively requires you to carry ID on your person at all times. Here in New York there is no such requirement. You don't technically even need to carry your license on your person when you drive -- as long as you can present it to the court within 24 hours. Of course not having it when you get pulled over is likely to annoy the officer and piss away any chance you had of getting a warning :)
Are you sure the meaning behind that law is to require physical ID? If you approach me and ask for ID and I say "I don't have any, but my name is [whatever]" I've broken that law? I really find that hard to believe. If that's actually the case then it's one more reason that I'm glad I don't live in a red state.
I can charge you with any number of very subjective and annoying small crimes and take you to jail. I can then hold you for up to 24 hours without filing a charge
That's SOP for most police departments. The difference being that if you attempted in that most of New York State the judge would have some pretty harsh things to say to the police officers involved -- repeated occurrences of that behavior would likely lead to sanctions if not charges against them. Thus the police are deterred from using such methods except in extreme cases. The NY Penal Law also requires that you are arraigned within 72 hours.
And as I said the French aren't interested in you bringing your culture to their country. They don't want Moslem mosques anymore than they want American McDonalds. France is for the French and if immigrants don't get with the program they're going to be facing something that looks like a twisted French parody of the American south in the 50's
On that we agree. I wasn't looking to pick an argument with you over it -- only pointed it out to explain the hypocrisy of Europeans who lecture us about human rights. I highly doubt this would be happening in the United States.
BTW: Your quoting style is unique to say the least ;)
Our INS people randomly stop people all of the time to see if they have green cards. There is no outrage because it rarely happens in places where people are "outraged" by this happening. How do I know this? Texas peace officer for 5 years. I worked with INS on a fairly regular basis.
I call bullshit. How would the INS randomly stop somebody to check for a Green Card? What happens if they stop me (natural born US Citizen) and I tell them to go fuck themselves? Are they going to deport me? If they are stopping people who look like immigrants then they are profiling and it probably wouldn't survive a court case (equal protection, what?).
Now, if during the course of normal business they should ask a known immigrant for his ID card then that's another matter. But I doubt you'll find the INS stopping groups of people in immigrant neighborhoods and asking for Green Cards.
Police officers ask civilians for their ID at almost every encounter without starting massive riots.
Yes and if that encounter is part of normal police business then nobody has any reason to get pissed. I had a police officer ask me for my ID because I was a witness to a car accident. That's all well and good. But if a police officer walks up to me on the street and asks for ID I'm going to politely decline. If an INS officer asked me for my Green Card I probably would tell him to go fuck himself.
If you immigrate to a country (any country) the onus is on you to comply with the laws of that county
Just because there's a law doesn't make it just or right. There's a bit of a cultural difference across the Atlantic but you have to admit that such a law would never pass muster in the United States. Why is such a law even required? Are the French people so afraid of religion that they don't want their kids to look at somebody wearing a cross/star of david/etc?
You are also going to find that your success or failure in that county is directly affected by the level to which you integrate into that culture
That's true. But some cultures (America) actually welcome you and will assimilate parts of your culture into their own. I would agree that if you move here you should learn our language and our customs. But we have a lot to learn from you as well and you should not be forced to give up your customs either. Especially on something as trivial as clothing and jewelry. Tell me, who the hell does it hurt if my kid goes to school with somebody wearing traditional Muslim dress?
Yes, they would force him to remove his collar when he attends a public school. The law also banned crosses, skull caps and any other religious clothing. The French govt. is secular so any public service should and needs to be seperated from religion.
Yes and if the teacher was forcing his students to wear Jewish skullcaps or Muslim veils then you'd have an argument. Separating religion from public service does not mean that you have to force anybody who is using that public service to remove religious items.
What's next? Will you ban skull caps on public transportation? Will you ban them in airports? What if I need to visit a French consulate? I'm a friggen Atheist and I am still appalled by this law and the fact that people are actually defending it.
It was not. Catholics kids cannot wear big crosses (then you'd ask : "what's 'big' ?", the answer would be : anything you can see), and same for Jewish kids about a star of david, and same thing for any other religion. The main problem here would be that such "religious signs" for Muslims tend to be more visible than the christian equivalent (using those two as an example here, it could apply to many other religions), so yes Muslims are more affected, but it doesn't mean they're the only target of this law.
Really? So a yarmulke is equally illegal? I stand corrected -- it wasn't targeting Muslims -- it was targeting religious minorities. That's so much better.
Are the French people as a whole so afraid of other cultures that they don't want their kids to look at a piece of religious jewelry or clothing? You are really making me glad to be an American.
No, because the law doesn't make it illegal for a muslim woman to wear a hijab, or a Sikh man to wear a turban in the streets either.
Just in schools, right? Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you justify it or how you limit it. Will they have separate water fountains and bathrooms for them next?
It was not intended to strip ones liberty of faith, but rather put everybody on the same level : no religion (quite) no differences. See it like the UK uniform tradition. Religion being an important matter, it aims not to bring possible 'tensions' at school.
It doesn't strip your liberty of faith to not be able to wear the items of that faith when you attend public school? I presume that school is mandatory for all children in France the way it is in the United States?
Such a law would never survive a court challenge over here. It would never even get passed in the first place.
The issue IS about religious freedom, this point being about freedom FROM religion. The Joe-average french person usually see religious matters to be private, and best kept to yourself. This of course causes problems with people with a different background-culture about religion.
And the Joe-average American feels the same way. Tell me, how does somebody wearing religious clothing force you to adopt their faith? I see Muslim women in full dress with veil quite often -- and I don't even live in a major city (Binghamton, NY). And guess what: It doesn't bother me! How does it even remotely impact me?
In any case, the law was totally directed at Muslims. Did they make it illegal for a Catholic priest to wear his collar? For some reason I think not.
In several states people, in motor vehicles, are stopped at 'random' locations to see if they have been drinking. This involves the use of police road blocks and check every car that wishes to go thru.
And I find that disgusting and I've spoken out against the restriction of our freedoms in the name of combating DWI before. Dive into my comment history if you doubt me. My biggest peeve about that is how you have no right to refuse to give evidence against yourself (implied consent laws).
But in any case, there is a huge difference between stopping all cars to check for drunks and stopping dark skinned people in immigrant neighborhoods to check for the French version of a green card. Recall the outrage in the United States if there is even the perception that a black man got pulled over just because he was driving a nice car or happened to be in the wrong neighborhood. Where's the outrage in France?
In any case, the show portrayed some African slaves to which the neighbor commented how the slave features resembled those of monkeys. I was shocked. You'd never hear something like in US (at least I hope not).
If you did hear something like that in the US you'd be utterly demonized by the mainstream and most decent people. Careers have been destroyed over a lot less then that over here.
On the other side of the coin, I can get a permit for a KKK rally in Central Park. In France that wouldn't be allowed under the hate speech laws. No doubt some people will defend those laws -- but I'd rather have the true freedom to allow people to say whatever they want. Even with the KKK and the neo-Nazi's free to spew their garbage we are still light-years ahead of Europe in race relations. What does that say about American culture?
"not setting up fascist dictatorships for some 30-odd years to help thieve the oil from blindingly poor Islamic countries and violently oppress the resistant few before finally forcing what appears to be democracy at last into a single country in the middle of the desert through mass-bombing"
As opposed to the French, who fought (and lost) a long and expensive war for no other reason then to retain their imperialistic colony of Algeria?
The crap that the United States has pulled in the past pales in comparison to the rape of the African continent done by the European powers. Don't even get me started.
Or maybe Europe is closer in location and historic ties to the muslim parts of the world than the US is? Maybe this has nothing to do with a war, but more with a large influx of muslims seeking riches, but not finding it?
That's funny, because just one of our states (Michigan) has a larger Muslim population then any other Western nation save France, and overall we have the largest number of Muslims in the United States then any other Western country. I don't see any riots here.
And it's not just about economics either my friend. I don't see Mexicans/Latinos rioting in the United States when they come here to seek their fortune and don't find it. We embrace other cultures and assimilate them into our own. A lot of other countries just reject them outright.
Well my understanding of the thing is that they never were allowed to wear those in the first place (since the laïcité law from the early 1900s).
If that's the case then perhaps they should have repealed that law instead of adding to it? How can you claim to have true religious freedom and care about Human Rights otherwise?
It's interesting to see what goodwill (none) France has gotten by pandering to the Islamists. Perhaps that will influence future French behaviour when dealing with radical Islamic states. Hope springs eternal.
I love your insightful score because it's about time reality hit France but in all seriousness these riots have nothing to do with French foreign policy.
They have everything to do with these people feeling screwed over by the system. They have no money, they live in the worst neighborhoods, they are scorned and spit on (as many immigrants have been throughout history). The French did themselves no favors with the ban on religious headwear either.
And you shouldn't forget that this whole mess started because French police stopped a group of people doing absolutely nothing wrong just so they could check immigrant IDs. Two of them ran away and died when they hid in an electrical substation. Say what you will about the United States but if our police/INS officers started randomly stopping people just to check if they had Green Cards there would be an outrage. I don't see any outrage in the French press -- other then that directed at the people who are getting screwed over to begin with.
I believe the term is "exculpatory", and the way my legal environment professor explained it was this: "If clauses like that worked, we'd all be driving around with signs on the front of our cars that say, 'Not responsible if I hit you'." (IANAL, of course.)
So what your telling me is that my bumper sticker that says "If you can read this I'm about to lock my brakes" won't shield me from legal liability?
God damn it!
Of course, the free speach should weigh heavy, but they should dampen the ones that try to fuel the fire.
Bullshit! There is no valid reason to restrict speech unless it presents an immediate danger and serves no valid point of discussion (yelling fire in a movie theater).
Simply banning all speech that might be "violent" is a very slippery slope. It would probably have made it illegal for me to encourage people to take to the streets to protest the Florida fiasco in 2000. They might do better by looking at the reason why these people are rioting in the first place. Perhaps because they feel cheated by the system? Perhaps because they aren't even allowed to wear their religious headwear to school anymore?
As a sidenote: I don't ever want to hear people slime the United States again. It's rather interesting that Muslim youth over here aren't rioting -- even though we are the ones "at war" with certain followers of that faith. Perhaps that's because we have better religious freedom?
That's why HIV carriers are on a drug cocktail. It's far less likely the virus is going to develop an immunity to all the different drugs at once. If you were to give the drugs one at a time, however, evolution predicts the rise of an HIV virus that could resist them all.
Your theory is perfectly valid with bacteria (natural selection prefers resistant bacteria) but I don't think it applies to HIV.
IANAMD but as I recall the HIV cocktail reinforces your immune system so that your body be more successful at fighting off HIV. The drugs don't do anything (directly) to the HIV virus. We have yet to come up with a drug that will directly attack any virus -- let alone HIV.
I only wish $1450 could be inconsequential.... Paying a bill takes maybe one minute a month, or just buy the lifetime and be done with it. Still cheaper than MCE.
How does it take "maybe one minute a month"? Does TiVo have some sort of "Bill Me" option that I'm unaware of? They automatically charge my credit card in my case.
I understand users/groups/file permissions. I assume you do too. What about your parents?
What would they need to know? There's a separate password to access the "administrator" account. When you buy the computer (presumably preloaded with Windows) you set that password and create accounts for everybody in your family. From that point on you only use that password to install software for everybody to use.
It shouldn't even be required to use that password to install software for just yourself. If I go out and buy Sim City 4000 and I only want to be able to use it on my user account, then why should I need admin rights to install it? This would be the same behavior as --prefix on Unix -- but a lot more user friendly.
You'd still have the problem of social engineering (download our new screensaver!!!!) but it would be a lot easier to tell people to never enter that password when prompted by a website then it would be to block access to bad scripts or ActiveX controls.
They will try it in the next version of Windows apparently. I don't see what's stopping it from being in XP SP3 (or why it wasn't in SP2 for that matter). That would be even better because it would give software publishers time to get used to the model before Vista is released.
PSI/Linux cannot.
It can if your running as root and as clueless as the typical Windows user.
That's still one of the biggest problems on Windows. Why, when Microsoft can force people to adopt new "standards" just by releasing a new version of Word, they can't force software companies to create software for Windows that doesn't rely on the assumption of administrator privileges is beyond me.
Would it be so hard to say that you only use the administrator account for installing shared (amongst all local users) software? The Windows version of a ~ directory is already in place (documents and settings). What's stopping MS from implementing a Unix-style security model?
If criminal activities are involved, those responsible will be tried, prosecuted, and punished. Thats the system. Its to discourage others doing the same thing. If the system isn't working, the laws need to be made harsher.
I'm sure that all the Enron management doing 10 years of minimum security white collar prison really makes up for all the people who lost their life savings and retirement accounts. A more fitting punishment would be holding them personally liable for what they did and taking every last penny they have.
I'm very happy for you, its your money and all, but if you take a bath because of this, you have only yourself to blame, not shadowy figures in some board room. And if there is one thing I have learned the real hard way, its that you always have less money than you think.
I'm going to take a bath investing my money in profitable and stable businesses that happen to be local? I never suggested investing in local businesses "just because". I research them just as much as I would research anything that I want to invest in. I just make a point of having some of my money invested locally because that's the kind of person I am.
Life is a contact sport, and I really empathise with anyone that has been wiped out like I was, but no one has a right to any job.
They do have the right not to be lied to by management. They do have the right to expect that management won't run the company into the ground on purpose to inflate their own stock options. They do have the right to expect that management is looking out for the long term future of the company. And you are only talking about employees. What about the investors who got screwed? That's ok because "life is a contact sport"? We have laws and civilization for a reason.
Hardly anybody is watching it for free over their air or cable TV. Why should this get anyone else to watch it? Their ratings keep sliding into a black hole for good reasons...
Good reasons eh? And what's better? 24 hour non-stop politicized news coverage? The polarized blogsphere?
Network news is dying a slow death for a number of reasons that may or may not be correctable -- but I don't see any reason to root for it's demise. You can't seriously tell me that we are better off for having CNN/Fox News/et. all. I'm starting to agree with Jon Stewart where those guys are concerned.
Besides, who really cares, if a CEO dumps all over his company and it collapses in a few years, others will arise to fill the vacuum.
Who cares? Did you really ask that? Gee, the employees who retirement funds were wiped out/whose jobs were lost. The shareholders whose wealth was wiped out? Oh, I suppose in your world they got what they deserved for not researching it properly. As if you can conduct proper research to figure out a good position on a stock when the books/accounting are rigged.
If you're holding onto stock due to some idea of company loyalty you shouldn't be playing the markets anyway.
So it's a bad thing to hold onto some stock because you are loyal to the company or the ideas/business that they are in? I make it a point to make sure that a significant sum of my portfolio is composed of local businesses. They might not give me that 15% growth rate but that's a trade off I'm willing to make.
Besides, what the hell does dividends have to do with company loyalty? The GP and I were lamenting the fact that nowadays it's all based on pump and dump, short-term and shortsighted thinking. What happened to investing for the dividends and sane rates of growth? What happened to planning for the next few decades instead of the next few weeks? What happened to returning your profits to the investors instead of your insiders?
The whole fucking game nowadays is rigged against the common man. It doesn't matter if that man is an employee or a shareholder. The only ones who still seem to win are CEOs, board members and politicians. If the business community keeps heading in this direction they are going to prove Marx right.