The idea that the fall of the Roman Empire started with Constantine is completely ludicrous and obviously is more influenced by your anti-Christian beliefs than an honest view of history.
That's a little harsh given he said he was getting his info from a nineteenth century work, which would have put forward that theory due to Gibbon's influence.
Just to point out that if you read a modern study of the fall of the Empire in the west you will find a very different set of explanations. Why the Empire fell is one of the "big questions" for historians and current answers don't bare much resemblance to those of the nineteenth century.
When I was a history undergraduate, I remember one of my lecturers saying he thought it was a question that frequently said more about the writer than anything else; eg in the immediate post-war period historians concentrated on the external military pressures of the "barbarians" (it's a Roman word). Later historians turned more to ideas of internal factors such as the increased tax burden on local elites and the Empire allowing barbarian auxiliaries to settle within the empire's borders under their own leaders.
If a company is so big it dominates a field it means it's hard for me to compete, but they will not impose any cost on me.
I'm not sure if this is a misunderstanding. There is a difference between being out competed in a field by a dominant player, and the dominant player in one market using that influence to dominate other markets - which is what the EU ruling is about.
Whether a dominant player in a market is using their position to maintain that position to the detriment of the market is a much more complicated question. It certainly can happen, and actually I'd cite the farce with the OOXML ISO decision as a good example of that, but it's a far more nuanced question than abusing domination of one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.
Please provide reference as to what you mean by "practical experience over the last few centuries".
Europe in the last millennium or so. I believe you're French from a post you made, which gives you the advantage over me that you don't have to read the great Enlightenment thinkers in translation. Their writings are where you will find the argument for a modern state vs the Ancien Régime best set forth.
BTW I don't draw any line, there's simply no place for a central coercive authority
That is just silly. Look at history. Without a centralised state, authority rests on raw power and personal loyalty. This may be a good way to run a business, but it is impossible as a means of governing a nation. Quibble over particular areas; fine. I may well agree with you in some cases, but to reject the concept is to turn your back on (at least) the last three centuries of European civilisation. And no, things weren't better then.
Having the freedom to compete with Microsoft does not mean I can succesfully do so, it means no one is using physical force to restrain me from doing it.
Force is force, whether physical or no. Microsoft dominates certain markets, which gives them (if unrestrained) huge power over certain other markets. They can/do/have used this power to force their products against competitors in situations where in a truly free market (my definition) they would have been curtailed by the state; these competitors would have then either survived or not on the strength of their offering to the market.
Similarly I am free to become the world champion of marathon although I'll never be it.
This actually is an example that I might have used. If you can better the field in free competition you win the marathon. You don't expect previous winners (or the winner of the 10000m) to be permitted to exert the influence they may have gained by their victories to change the rules of the event.
Feudalism has nothing to do with this as it relies on land monopolies obtained and maintained by force.
It relied on land monopolies because land was the pre-emanate source of income. It was maintained by (I assume you mean military) force because there was nothing around to prevent feudal lords from using military force.
Look, I'm not saying that more power to the central authority is always good, but practical experience over the last few centuries makes it clear that the line is a lot further towards central authority than you want to draw it.
LOL! We're not discussing semantics here, but rather what constitutes a free market.
A free market is one where outsiders have the freedom to compete. Outsiders freedom to compete is the first thing that the established players will seek to restrict, and hence you need the state (or rather the legal system backed up by the state's capacity to enforce) to guarantee this freedom.
Your version of "free" includes the freedom to dominate others using your existing power base. There is already a word for your type of economic system; it's not "free market", this system is called Feudalism.
It's been tried before. The general consensus is that it didn't work very well.
A true free market is, well, free from the kind of government interferance you're calling for.
Er no, that isn't a free market. The natural state of human kind is monopoly, cartel, corruption and patronage. A free market is what you get once you start having a state sophisticated and honest enough to enforce it.
Yes you can stream a number of BBC programs - mainly news and current affairs stuff that I imagine the BBC own full rights to. iPlayer offers other programs.
The bad news is that it will probably only offer streaming
You mean I can watch iPlayer content without that obnoxious bit of bandwidth stealing almost-malware Kontiki crap? Can I do this on Windows as well? Where do I sign up?
Basically, once you install iPlayer it runs a filesharing service - kservice.exe - even after you've exited the program fully (by default it starts on system boot as well). A solution to this can be found here but I am really disapointed in the BBC for installing this crap on peoples machines.
A pandemic is a disease epidemic so widespread that it threatens the global population. If you claim that bribery is a "pandemic" then you'd be asserting that I'll find it everywhere not just in Calcutta but also in Berlin and Adelaide, in Tokyo and Boston. Which simply isn't true.
Er no. Pandemic implies a disease spread over a large region - a country, continent or globally. Although yes, I think grandparent was shooting for endemic.
suspect it might not be long before we will start seeing laws providing jail time for filesharing.
I wonder about that - defendants in a criminal case get a lot more rights, legal support and a higher burden of proof than in civil cases. I think civil cases with punitive damages probably suit the RIAA quite well.
I agree, it is incredibly easy to do compared to, say, disabled access in a physical store. You don't even need multiple templates for most sites - just get your alt tags right and avoid using javascript navigation and you're 90% there for most sites.
The things is that this is also pretty much what you need to do for basic search engine optimisation, so building an (at least reasonably) accessible site will benefit you directly.
The problem as I see it is that the disability groups who are pushing this don't actually know anything about web accessibility - they're gearing up for a legal fight not realising that they're pushing at an open door if they could only do a bit of advocacy work.
What's the result of going the legal route? Big companies and state entities will comply of course, but these are the organisations that will provide multiple ways of contacting them anyway - all a blind person will really get is the right not to have to pick up a phone.
Small sites (ie the majority of the content, products and services which are only available online) will be under the radar on this. There's too many to sue and they don't have any money anyway.
So while the disability rights groups may have a solid case why accessibility should be legally mandated, IMO they'd get much better results much quicker if they'd try to convince/teach the average webmaster to do basic SEO work, and pick up an accessible web as a byproduct.
The judge made a ruling about whether certain claims could be substantiated enough to allow the film to be shown to children as an educational text. That seems to be pretty much in the core skills for a judge as far as I can see - he wasn't debating scientific evidence, he was pointing out that certain specific claims that did not tally with prevailing scientific thought, and some were completely unsubstantiated.
The case wasn't about climate change, it was about political indoctrination in schools. IMO it was a good ruling based on a good law.
Right, and I'm a little surprised that didn't make slashdot in it's own right.
It was actually a very good court decision I think, and I say that as someone who is generally convinced by climate change - I dislike the scare mongering type of arguments since they have so many holes in them that sceptics tend to just dismiss them (and be less likely to take a rational argument seriously).
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I think you have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you want it to be.
Let some other bunch of facists play the "superpower" game. We are a bankrupt nation. We can't afford to play "superpower", even if it were good for our souls, which it isn't.
Yes the US has at times overused and misused it's power, but so do all nations; and those that are powerful do so more. America's record really isn't bad when compared to previous superpowers. At it's heart America is a mature democracy with a very strong culture of individual freedom and good government. With America playing an active role, democracy and the rule of law become the majority opinion on the international stage. If America goes isolationist again the whole thing is very much in the balance.
Do you really think Russia and China would take over if we brought our troops home? If they try, they'll suffer from the same imperial overstretch that we face now.
China; no. Russia, I don't think has any ideas for military takeover in Europe anymore, but Russia worries me a lot. Russia could go fascist easily over the next few decades, and I don't mean slashdot fascist but proper old-school Nuremberg rally style nationalism gone mad.
To be content with the current state of the world IMO shows a real lack of imagination. At the end of the cold war there was a real chance to move things on - that clichéd phrase "New World Order" could have changed the world decisively for the better if the US had been willing to show leadership. That chance was missed, but there is still a chance to move the world forward and this *needs* the US to take an active role. There isn't any other nation that can fill those shoes.
The US has massive power. Like it or not there is an ethical decision made when you choose not to exercise it. If you have the power to prevent an evil, and you do not do so, you take on a degree of responsibility for that evil. To sit at home and ignore the world is a tempting, and often taken, path in US foreign policy. I'd ask you to avoid that route.
As for the UN, I'm indifferent as to whether we stay in or get out. I'm not sure what we get out of it other than foreigners using their diplomatic immunity to park illegally in Manhattan.
I think we should have gotten out of NATO long ago. American leadership of NATO made some sense when Europe was shattered by WW II and there were serious concerns that Stalin would extend his empire further west.
....
what Ron Paul seeks is not North Korea but Switzerland
Switzerland is a small European power, the US is the world superpower. This makes a difference.
Look, I'm not arguing with you about the deficiencies in these organisations, but this "pick up our toys and go home" attitude is wrongheaded and dangerous. You are part of this world, do you really want to leave the rest of the world to the political leadership of China and Russia?
Maybe after their payments continue to be delayed by the extra processing, the users will think twice before clicking any link.
It would also annoy sellers a lot. If you can take credit cards, why would you bother taking PayPal when there's a chance you get the headache of having to hold stock for a customer while payment is approved. Paypal doesn't have enough of the market compared to credit cards in ecommerce to pull tricks like that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a little harsh given he said he was getting his info from a nineteenth century work, which would have put forward that theory due to Gibbon's influence.
Just to point out that if you read a modern study of the fall of the Empire in the west you will find a very different set of explanations. Why the Empire fell is one of the "big questions" for historians and current answers don't bare much resemblance to those of the nineteenth century.
When I was a history undergraduate, I remember one of my lecturers saying he thought it was a question that frequently said more about the writer than anything else; eg in the immediate post-war period historians concentrated on the external military pressures of the "barbarians" (it's a Roman word). Later historians turned more to ideas of internal factors such as the increased tax burden on local elites and the Empire allowing barbarian auxiliaries to settle within the empire's borders under their own leaders.
I'm not sure if this is a misunderstanding. There is a difference between being out competed in a field by a dominant player, and the dominant player in one market using that influence to dominate other markets - which is what the EU ruling is about.
Whether a dominant player in a market is using their position to maintain that position to the detriment of the market is a much more complicated question. It certainly can happen, and actually I'd cite the farce with the OOXML ISO decision as a good example of that, but it's a far more nuanced question than abusing domination of one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.
Europe in the last millennium or so. I believe you're French from a post you made, which gives you the advantage over me that you don't have to read the great Enlightenment thinkers in translation. Their writings are where you will find the argument for a modern state vs the Ancien Régime best set forth.
That is just silly. Look at history. Without a centralised state, authority rests on raw power and personal loyalty. This may be a good way to run a business, but it is impossible as a means of governing a nation. Quibble over particular areas; fine. I may well agree with you in some cases, but to reject the concept is to turn your back on (at least) the last three centuries of European civilisation. And no, things weren't better then.
Force is force, whether physical or no. Microsoft dominates certain markets, which gives them (if unrestrained) huge power over certain other markets. They can/do/have used this power to force their products against competitors in situations where in a truly free market (my definition) they would have been curtailed by the state; these competitors would have then either survived or not on the strength of their offering to the market.
This actually is an example that I might have used. If you can better the field in free competition you win the marathon. You don't expect previous winners (or the winner of the 10000m) to be permitted to exert the influence they may have gained by their victories to change the rules of the event.
It relied on land monopolies because land was the pre-emanate source of income. It was maintained by (I assume you mean military) force because there was nothing around to prevent feudal lords from using military force.
Look, I'm not saying that more power to the central authority is always good, but practical experience over the last few centuries makes it clear that the line is a lot further towards central authority than you want to draw it.
LOL! We're not discussing semantics here, but rather what constitutes a free market.
A free market is one where outsiders have the freedom to compete. Outsiders freedom to compete is the first thing that the established players will seek to restrict, and hence you need the state (or rather the legal system backed up by the state's capacity to enforce) to guarantee this freedom.
Your version of "free" includes the freedom to dominate others using your existing power base. There is already a word for your type of economic system; it's not "free market", this system is called Feudalism.
It's been tried before. The general consensus is that it didn't work very well.
Er no, that isn't a free market. The natural state of human kind is monopoly, cartel, corruption and patronage. A free market is what you get once you start having a state sophisticated and honest enough to enforce it.
Why not?
IMO the state has the responsibility to ensure that monopolies and cartels don't disrupt free markets.
Wow. Let's look at the two cases here:
One is a reasonable judgement against a dominant company illegaly using a monopoly in one market to help it in another.
The second involves a dictatorship commiting genocide.
I can hardly be bothered to invoke Godwin here it's so ridiculous.
Thanks
Yes you can stream a number of BBC programs - mainly news and current affairs stuff that I imagine the BBC own full rights to. iPlayer offers other programs.
You mean I can watch iPlayer content without that obnoxious bit of bandwidth stealing almost-malware Kontiki crap? Can I do this on Windows as well? Where do I sign up?
Basically, once you install iPlayer it runs a filesharing service - kservice.exe - even after you've exited the program fully (by default it starts on system boot as well). A solution to this can be found here but I am really disapointed in the BBC for installing this crap on peoples machines.
Er no. Pandemic implies a disease spread over a large region - a country, continent or globally. Although yes, I think grandparent was shooting for endemic.
I wonder about that - defendants in a criminal case get a lot more rights, legal support and a higher burden of proof than in civil cases. I think civil cases with punitive damages probably suit the RIAA quite well.
I agree, it is incredibly easy to do compared to, say, disabled access in a physical store. You don't even need multiple templates for most sites - just get your alt tags right and avoid using javascript navigation and you're 90% there for most sites.
The things is that this is also pretty much what you need to do for basic search engine optimisation, so building an (at least reasonably) accessible site will benefit you directly.
The problem as I see it is that the disability groups who are pushing this don't actually know anything about web accessibility - they're gearing up for a legal fight not realising that they're pushing at an open door if they could only do a bit of advocacy work.
What's the result of going the legal route? Big companies and state entities will comply of course, but these are the organisations that will provide multiple ways of contacting them anyway - all a blind person will really get is the right not to have to pick up a phone. Small sites (ie the majority of the content, products and services which are only available online) will be under the radar on this. There's too many to sue and they don't have any money anyway.
So while the disability rights groups may have a solid case why accessibility should be legally mandated, IMO they'd get much better results much quicker if they'd try to convince/teach the average webmaster to do basic SEO work, and pick up an accessible web as a byproduct.
The judge made a ruling about whether certain claims could be substantiated enough to allow the film to be shown to children as an educational text. That seems to be pretty much in the core skills for a judge as far as I can see - he wasn't debating scientific evidence, he was pointing out that certain specific claims that did not tally with prevailing scientific thought, and some were completely unsubstantiated.
The case wasn't about climate change, it was about political indoctrination in schools. IMO it was a good ruling based on a good law.
Right, and I'm a little surprised that didn't make slashdot in it's own right.
It was actually a very good court decision I think, and I say that as someone who is generally convinced by climate change - I dislike the scare mongering type of arguments since they have so many holes in them that sceptics tend to just dismiss them (and be less likely to take a rational argument seriously).
However, even if the main mine workings are deep enough to avoid damage, it does seem likely that the entrances and ventilation could be destroyed.
I think both are syntacticly correct in this case.
Well, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't root for your guy come 2008.
There's a story about babies and bathwater that I think is appropriate here.
Yes the US has at times overused and misused it's power, but so do all nations; and those that are powerful do so more. America's record really isn't bad when compared to previous superpowers. At it's heart America is a mature democracy with a very strong culture of individual freedom and good government. With America playing an active role, democracy and the rule of law become the majority opinion on the international stage. If America goes isolationist again the whole thing is very much in the balance. China; no. Russia, I don't think has any ideas for military takeover in Europe anymore, but Russia worries me a lot. Russia could go fascist easily over the next few decades, and I don't mean slashdot fascist but proper old-school Nuremberg rally style nationalism gone mad.
To be content with the current state of the world IMO shows a real lack of imagination. At the end of the cold war there was a real chance to move things on - that clichéd phrase "New World Order" could have changed the world decisively for the better if the US had been willing to show leadership. That chance was missed, but there is still a chance to move the world forward and this *needs* the US to take an active role. There isn't any other nation that can fill those shoes.
The US has massive power. Like it or not there is an ethical decision made when you choose not to exercise it. If you have the power to prevent an evil, and you do not do so, you take on a degree of responsibility for that evil. To sit at home and ignore the world is a tempting, and often taken, path in US foreign policy. I'd ask you to avoid that route.
Is that possible? I thought you had to find someone to loan you real stock before you could sell it short.
Switzerland is a small European power, the US is the world superpower. This makes a difference.
Look, I'm not arguing with you about the deficiencies in these organisations, but this "pick up our toys and go home" attitude is wrongheaded and dangerous. You are part of this world, do you really want to leave the rest of the world to the political leadership of China and Russia?
It would also annoy sellers a lot. If you can take credit cards, why would you bother taking PayPal when there's a chance you get the headache of having to hold stock for a customer while payment is approved. Paypal doesn't have enough of the market compared to credit cards in ecommerce to pull tricks like that.