You are right but there is (at least in theory) a MAJOR difference between US Supreme Court and the Cour de Cassation : the Cour de Cassation can not judge a case, it can only break a decision on form, ie if procedure was not correctly executed. Or course, in reality, they pronounce themselves on substance of decision each time they can find some minor details entitling them to hear the case.
And a last note : the European court of Human Rights is higher than the Cour de Cassation. But its scope is limited and this is true for every country in Europe.
As a Frenchman, let me give you some insight. We *already* have a socialized music system (and a TV system too). Let's say you're a taxi driver. While driving your customers, you listen to radio. *Any* radio, including a non music radio. Well, you have to pay a tax to the SACEM (a group much like the RIAA that collects such taxes and the distribute it).
Or, if you live in France, you now pay a tax as part of local taxes to finance public TV. Whatever you have a TV set or not, and whatever you watch public TV.
Or, if you buy a CD-R or a DVD-R, there's a tax on it that goes to the same SACEM.
Or, you tax euros will go to subsidize (sp?) French "culture", ie film and music editors.
This has become such a frequent way of doing things here that most people (me included) thinks that no matter what we want, we alreay have such a socialized system and we're fucked about it. So, if we should live by such a system, let us get some benefits from it and download how we want. We alreay (and for a long time) are paying via taxes for the music industry. What do we get from that ? Nothing. Better for once have something in return.
So, yes, the vast majority of citizens are for this proposal.
Ah, I see you don't know French bureaucracy.
Our so nice system would mean that for any artist to see any money, he would have to wait 3 years. Money would not be given according to popularity, no scientific data. It would be given at what most normal human would see as random, but some state employe could go at great length to explain you why it's not random and in fact a perfectly working system. And replying that your 2 years old daughter just got a check for a 1999 song would be answered by a "don't you stop spreading lies, you public service fascist right wing murderer !".
Oh, and since they will be on strike every two days for whatever reason (they want to get paid more, they want to have retirement at 29, it's nice weather let's take a walk...), you can bet that it'll need thousands of employee to handle this mess.
Never underestimate the inefficiency of our tax paid bureaucracy, it amazes you evey day.
deport illegal Muslim immigrants from the Maghreb if its going to be used to harass minorities.
Make your mind buddy, if it's used to deport illegal immigrants, it's not for harassing minorities that are legally in France. Sure racisme has increased over the years here, but I fail to hear other French agreeing to this new ID card, and I even more fail to hear them thinking it's good for harassing Arabs.
I think it's more a new way to take our money, since many people (myself included) tend to not renew any ID card or passport, since driver licence is enough and doesn't need to be renewed.
We have one of the most bloated and inefficient bureaucracy in Europe, and they tend to always look for new ways to get even bigger.
I really don't think racism has anything to do with that, just plain old stupid bureaucracy wanting to be even bigger, even stupidier, and even more efficient. Just like it always has.
And it has the added bonus of justifying recent government employes wages increase.
To quote Clemenceau : "In France we plant taxes and we grow fonctionnaires (state employes)".
Here is the snippet from Le Monde's article :
Dans l'esprit du chef de l'Etat, il s'agit de bâtir un "alter ego" au projet américain, avant d'envisager une éventuelle collaboration avec Google, pour ne pas discuter en situation de faiblesse. Le président serait-il prêt à s'entretenir avec le concurrent de Google, Microsoft, puisqu'il a tant de convergences de vues avec son président, Bill Gates, qu'il a longuement reçu à l'Elysée ? "Pourquoi pas ?", répondent les conseillers de M. Chirac.
Translation :
"In Chirac's mind, the idea is to build an "alter-ego" to the American project, before thinking about a collaboration with Google, to have a good position in negociations. Would the president be ready to talk with Microsoft, since he has many common ideas with Bill Gates, whom he has met at the Elysée ? "Why not ?" is the answer from Chirac's advisors."
In summary, Chirac wants to build a French language online library, to have a good collaborative work with google. Should that work be done with Microsoft ? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the stated goal is to work with google, whatever that goal that can be achieved with Microsoft or not.
If you need to work with Oracle, what do you do ? You call an MS sales man to leverage your negociations with Oracle. Well, France wants to work with Google, so it doesn't forbid itself from working with Microsoft, if that gives it a better negociations position.
Slashdot has become more and more a FUD machine, with more or less every headline in contradiction with linked article. Worse, since the actual content of the article is from Le Monde, and is in French, many non-French speaking readers won't be able to see the utter non-sense that the Slashdot article is. This is more and more becoming the Fox News for Nerds, and it's starting to seriously upset me.
> France is an insignificant piss ant country, not so much a nation as a rabble united by a variety of cheeses.
Wow, you look like an intelligent person capable of insightful discussion, now, grats.
> AFP is nothing compared to the Beeb.
Indeed. Let me explain it for you slowly : the BBC and AFP are not in the same business. BBC gives news to citizens, while AFP gives news to BBC (and about all newspapers in the world).
> How many shortwave programs does AFP broadcast?
Let me explain it for you slowly : AFP doesn't broadcast anything, they sell news to newspapers.
> The Beeb could get along quite well without Google News
And AFP doesn't give a fuck about google news, since, they're not a newspapers.
Every major newspapers in the world is a customer of AFP. NYT, BBC, Washington Post, The Economist, all of them buy content and pictures from AFP. AFP is as widely known and as widely respected as Reuters. Both of them are the first and most respected content provider of every newspapers in the world. Without Reuters and AFP, you would more or less see no pictures on any newspapers. If you don't believe me, buy the NYT, and look for credits on their pictures. 90% of them are from AFP and Reuters.
You and I are not custumers of AFP, NYT, BBC and all are.
Basically, Google News is trying to take AFP work without paying for it. AFP is not happy with that, and they have every right to be, since Google is effectivly warezing from them.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with the French lawsuit on Yahoo, which was quite stupid. This lawsuit is very valid, and Google removing their content shows that they know they would loose in a lawsuit.
Next time you launch in a flamefest, try to educate yourself, you really do look like a moron talking out of his ass.
Indeed.
I am French and I was at first hesitant about Poland in EU. I am now glad that it did, and I am glad Poland gave us a lesson of democracy.
I signed the Thankpoland letter, and, as a EU citizen, let me thank here the Poland government and the Polish people.
It's been a few years (at least 2 or 3) that we have it free of charge here in Paris too : http://www.sytadin.tm.fr/.
Realtime traffic for major highways, center of Paris, time estimation for the whole périphérique (the ring around Paris), traffic camera at critical locations, all provided by the regional gov. For once, they did a great job.
He's right on target. Al-Qaeda is not some secret and well ordered organization. It's loosy groups of people not knowing each other that tries to kill people with whatever they have. Bombs are made of gas can with nails. Planes are attacked with knives. There hasn't been one occurance of Al-Qaeda using any advanced technology in a terrorist attack.
Rather than modding parent as troll, reply and name ONE attack conducted by Al-Qaeda that uses GPS. Or name ONE terrorist act done on US soil after September 11th by Al-Qaeda. If you can't, then parent is not "troll", but "right in his facts".
And for parent's saying that Bush is trying to scare America since it's only chance to get reelected, well, that's just the truth. Or you think that Bush got reelected for his economic wisdom ? His enviroment policy ? His great diplomatic talent ?
I'm fed up with idiotic mods labelling posts as troll just because they can't put some rational replies argumented with facts.
Hopefully, I'll get to meta-moderate the sucker(s) that abuses his mod points. And I encourage other meta-mods to do the same, whatever they believe Bush is a good guy or not.
Re:this is from brazil & france, NOT USA pharm
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
HIV was discovered in the US
Actually, no, it was discovered in France. While the complete research was done between a French (Montaigner) and an American scientist (Gallo), the actual discovery of the virus (not disease, virus) was done at l'Institut Pasteur by Montaigner and his team.
L'Institut Pasteur is a french public organization, owned and funded by the french governement.
In a quick google I found this link http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/04/20/HealthWatch: _HIV_Discovery,_20_Years_Later.html, and you'll be able to find more informations.
And don't be lured, for pure science US doesn't lead the world in biomedical. The US leads the world in APPLIED biomedical. For fondamental research, many countries (such as France with Institut Pasteur) have roughly the same level and cooperate enough that none is leading.
I see the following bit of irony, which tells me more than anything that France and the US are more alike than either side would like to believe
I couln't agree more. France and USA have a lot in common :
. both are made of pride and arrogant men
. both believe that nobody should dictate their positions
. both were among the first democracy of modern world, and both achieved that by violence and war
. therefore both think that they somehow are the bastion of modern democracy. US sees itself as the most successful democracy, France sees itself as the founders of Human Rights, and thus as the brain behind modern democracy (both have a bit of truth here, but both are way over their heads)
. both think of themselves as the wise voice that everybody should listen to
. both have an important national pride
. both have debts towards each other (American revolution for US, WW1 and WW2 for France)
. both are grateful for that while having difficulty admiting it
. both are as arrogant as to only see defaults at others, and both can't see their own
. both have a mixed admiration/disdain thinking about the other (just look at the admiration of Jackie Kennedy for France, and the utter disdain of Bush for the same France)
. both want to be the role model of the world
. yet both have big corruption problems at government level
The BIG difference between the two countries is religion. France tends to be very unreligious, if not sometimes antireligious (France have a history of distrust for religion since 1700, with even violent actions towards priests). OTOH, US is very religious, and has a history of distrust, if not sometimes outright opposition to atheism.
Other than that, both counties have a lot in common, and I really wish that both could again become warmer towards each other. The world would really be a better place if France could listen the US when it says to shut the fuck up, and if the US could listen to France when it says to shut the fuck up. Maybe if instead of opposing each other they would listen to the critics made by the other, terrorism would be next to nonexistent. Remember that both countries are the major cause for islamic fundamentalism. We fucked up Maghreb, and you fucked up Middle East.
Unfortunally, we both are too arrogant at the moment for cooperating and seeing ourselves as part of the problem.
France has always disliked Americans. At least that is the impression that I get.
As a French myself, let me tell you something : you're utterly wrong. We like americans unless they try to bully us. And being pride and quite arrogant, we really have a big issue with Bush. Other than that, and at least until Bush and his cronies started to spit on France, we thought americans as some of our best friends.
But, hey, given the current mentality in US, I think that like too many of your compatriots, you prefer to think of you as nice, and surely the rest of the world drools with envy about your country, and so acts as assholes against you right ?
Oh, and outside of your fantasy world, we don't have an attitude towards Americans, we have an attitude towards assholes bullies, and religious maniacs. Trouble is, Bush is both. Fortunally, and unlike you, we don't make stupid generalizations and confuse your president with all americans.
Your post looked interesting until i felt on that: being ruled by Saddam and his religious minority
Saddam was everything you want but a religious dictator. Actually he was hated by other Arab nations because he wasn't religious. Some of his top trusted lieutenant were christians damn it. Ever heard of Tarek Aziz ? He's christian.
So, I fear you either are making all this "testimony" up or you lack the critical thinking allowing you to understand that only a thin minority of people came to talk to you. And if they came, of course they were friendly, else they wouldn't have come.
Either you're a troll, or you're way over your head by expanding a few anecdotial encounters to a global view of Iraq. If you think that most iraqis have forgotten the fact that US did back up Saddam, you're a dreamer.
I've got a bunch of friends with VNC so I can fix their computer troubles from my home. After waiting a bit to see if SP2 had some major problems, I made them upgrade to it.
It worked perfectly for nearly all of them. But for one of my friend, SP2 killed VNC. I tried to install every fucking VNC prog on this computer, but no luck. There is no ISP firewall problem either I checked that.
I don't have the slightest idea of why this PC and only this PC refused VNC.
Like parent, I would appreciate any hint on how to restore VNC capability to this SP2 machine.
In journalism, there's also a tradition of doing your job. The editors could have, at the very least, wrote a fucking email to google to know their position. What kind of real journalist wouldn't at least try to get the other side vision of fact ?
Even paparazzi would do that to avoid lawsuits.
And, on top of that, as others have mentionned the editors can't even apologize.
Their accusations were very serious, they didn't even try to check anything, and they offer no apologies ? Why are such morons even paid ?
France has already said it wouldn't send troops to Iraq - period.
Of course, France won't send troops.
Try to understand something : for France (and most other European countries), UN, with all its shortcomings and problems, is considered a great institution, with a great goal, peace.
We sure as hell didn't like the way Bush administration handled the UN. We hate his bullying of inspectors (try to read what Hans Blix has to say about Bush administration, very enlightning), we hate his attitude of saying "fuck the UN, i'll do what I want", we hate some declarations by say Rumsfield, we hate that Bush lied to the whole world to start a war, we hate the corruption the Bush administration shows (Halliburton anyone ?), we hate Bush's declarations of "You're with us or against us" (we can think and make judgements by ourselves, thank you, if you want our support, try to convince us, and don't try to bully us)...
My point ? You won't see any French troops going to Iraq, because of Bush.
If the US had allowed the inspectors to continue their job, if the US had presented real arguments about Iraq, if the US had shown respect to the whole world, then we French might have put some troops in Iraq, like we did in Gulf War I.
But Bush has been such an asshole that we (French population) won't allow any troops to risk their lives because Bush administration has fucked everything up in Iraq. No way in hell.
But you should consider that France has a history of following the US (GW1, Afghanistan etc...), and that should you have a president that cared about the whole world, that respected the UN, we French might be on your side right now in Iraq.
Put blame where blame is due, and remember : if you're alone (ok you've got Poland, which regrets its support) in Iraq, it is Bush's administration's fault.
Bush has already secured significant international support, and it's not likely we'll get much more.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have significant support. The only support you have is from:
1) UK
2) countries that were bullied to follow you, and sent a minimum of non fighting troops with you
Beside UK, no powerful nation followed you in Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China said no way in hell. Aznar tried to engage Spain on your side, but he got kicked out of office because of that (and because of his lying about the ETA of course).
You have to consider something very important : here, in France, after September 11th, every citizen felt sympathy for the US, and every citizen thought our governement should side with the US and helps you. We showed our support. We sent troops with you in Afghanistan, and nobody here even thought about not doing that. It was clear in our mind that we had a duty to help our ally, the USA.
Then Bush talked about Iraq. Then Bush started bullying the UN. Then Bush started bullying Europe. We thought wtf ? Why does America think it has a right to bully the whole world ?
We thought that an open discussion with the US in the UN would make Bush reconsider his position, and presents REAL evidence that Iraq was a threat.
But he didn't. He lied more and more. He bullied more and more.
And then, he started to hurt the UN. And that was the turning point. We felt betrayed. We felt that our support to the USA, our sadness about September 11th, was used to kill a much respected institution. We had the feeling that Bush was using our consideration and our support to promote a new form of imperialism.
And he did.
From that point, we started to hate him as much as we supported the USA after 9/11. We, and 99% of the world, thought that he was a bigger danger to world peace than Saddam or Bin Laden. Not because he's more evil, but because he acts as a bully while leading the world's most powerful nation, not some dozens of terrorist or a third world nation. And the idea that our support might have contributed to this new danger was
However,
I live in Connecticut and sure as hell dont want Utah to be able to influence how my fishing industry is conducted or how much money we need for the coast guard
Shouldn't these type of laws belong to states ? I know that for a long time federal has grown in power while states have lost it, but isn't this the real main problem ?
Let's suppose that states regain their power, while federal governement looses its, wouldn't in such a case having a direct elected president be a good thing ?
Even though the size of European countries is very small by comparison to the USA, we are already trying to get a balance between centralised (Bruxelles) power and regional power (giving more power to regions was the major political theme here in France). In the mean time, USA go more and more to a strong centralized governement, while weakening states' power.
I really do think that the USA would be better with more powerful states, and a direct elected but less powerful president. What do I miss with such a scheme, and why wouldn't it be better than USA's current one ?
I am quite puzzled about the reactions I read here.
I remember reading here that the vast majority of slashdotters think the current system for electing the president of the USA is bad. Some complains that voting third party is more or less a waste. Others complain that their home state is so democrat/republican that their vote for the other party won't count. Others complain about the winner take all present in most states.
Yet, when someone proposes a bill that tries to adress these problems, people here bitch that it is not perfect.
Althrough I am not American (or maybe because I am not), I think this is a step in the right direction.
First, about the abolishion of electoral college. I've read many comments complaining that it would lessen the power of small population states. I fail to see how it is a problem. Look at Europe. Most countries in Europe directly elect their president, without consideration about the region where one votes. Yet, you don't see in Europe the tyranny of the cities. Hell, even with this system, the agricultural people have a political clout much higher than their number would indicate. They are not oppressed by cities resident people.
A citizen is a citizen, and I fail to see why some should get more power in elections than others. Isn't the definition of a democracy (or a constitutional republic) that each citizen be equal ? Equality means same power in elections, me think.
Second, about IRV. Sure IRV is technically inferior to Condorcet. But Condorcet will not be a way for elections. The vast majority of people don't understand it. Even the short explanations some slashdotters proposed are not simple. If you don't believe me, try to explain Condorcet to some 85 years old grandma, or to someone that dropped school at 14 because they didn't catch maths. These people won't trust Condorcet, they find it too convulted. The fact that it is mathematically superior doesn't get in the line for these people.
OTOH, IRV can be understood by everyone. Sure it's buggy. But so is the current system. Remember, this is a proposed bill, and representatives will discuss it. That means that it may be corrected to allow more sane methods.
Remember people, we are discussing two bills ( *two* bills, even if you hate IRV, you can approve the dropping of electoral college), and will be amended and corrected multiple times before passing to final vote. It seems silly to me to oppose them.
Why not try to be positive, and write your representatives that the idea of the bills are good, and then proposing alternate voting methods ? If you just oppose them, don't complain latter when the only choice you get is a republicrat and a demoblican. Instead, support the senator that proposed the bills, and encourage their perfection.
America's presidential election is the worst of all presidential elections in first world. Multiple (and sometimes brain-dead) voting scheme, near-impossibility for third parties to get votes, people in democratic states who can't show their support for republicans, people in republican states who can't show their support for democrats, election determined by Florida and a few other key swing states, people having votes that count twice just because they live in a small state, etc...
That should be corrected, and even if these bills are not perfect (I don't like IRV either), they sure are a step in the right direction.
What about stopping bitching that the whole world is dumb and accepting that sometimes, to get a good system, you have to be patient and support a temporary solution if it is the right direction ?
This is how the real world works, you know.
I think (hope), though, that Rove's strategy has been much more obvious to the American people this year, and they will not be fooled again.
I wish I had your optimism. I am not American, so I might be wrong, but everything I read tend to confirm that a big of chunk of Americans don't know a thing about internal politics, about the Iraq situation, or even about what legislations were passed by Bush's administration.
Looking from the outside, it looks like the USA has become a schizophrenic country, with some people knowning what happens in and out their country, while other people doesn't know jack, and are inspired by fear.
And I think that the Bush administration tries to encourage that fear, since it preclude feared people from having critical thought.
Point in case : the various "terrorist levels" have become a way to distract people. When something goes wrong, you just rise the terrorist alert, and people stop thinking about anything else. Am I the only one to find these terrorist alert levels utterly ridiculous ?
Everyday, I tend to think more of the Bush administration as a very efficient propaganda machine that disrupts the critical thinking Americans tend to have against their governement.
And that saddens and frightens me much, especially with the war happy hawks that drive US's international politics. I can just hope that more Americans will wake up and sees the bullshit Bush's administration tries to put in their toughts.
the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program
My mistake, that was a typo in my post, I meant UK, not US. I've found this and this link that provide more information on the oil for food scandal.
What I find shocking is the apparent concensus here (not from you from what I can see) that only France abused the program. There were 250 companies of 61 countries involved in this program, and it looks like the majority did abuse it at one point or another. And it looks like countries abusing it were for or against the war, without much distinction. Russia, France, UK, Italia... are supposed to have abused it.
I guess that we will have to wait for the investigations to see more clearly into these apparent abuses. For the moment, nothing is sure, and since this topic is hottly politics, we must be wary of all the accusations and declaration of innocence, since it's likely that all parties are more or less lying (and I don't trust Chalabi for giving fair informations).
So, it looks like major corruption occured (but note that the program was under supervision of US, so we will have to wait to see what happened really). What looks sure is that abusers were either for or against the war, so accusing the anti-war countries of being anti-war just for this program looks misguided.
Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.
Actually, Muslims do back the liberation of the French reporters. Only the group (a very scarse number of muslims) that did the kidnapping is to blame, not all muslims. Other radical groups have even publicaly proposed their help to free the reporters. On this particular point, there is absolutly no doubt that if you're kidnapped in Iraq, it's better to be French than American.
However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
This is very true, but, in my opinion, France did the right thing, but that's only my opinion. What is sure is that the reasons given by Bush's administration (WMD and link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda) are blatently false. Even Rumsfield acknowleged that neither existed.
So, I think that France was right and the US was wrong.
Bitter? No, just a little sad.
I should have make the precision that I wasn't specifically speaking of you when I spoke about bitterness. That is the sentiment I have about people here bashing the French.
Last, but not least, I'm tired of all the French bashing I see here, and i'm glad you and I can have a pleasant and intelligent discussion of this. That is conforting, and I hope some of the worst war supporter and "anyone not supporting the war is a coward and corrupt bastard" crowd on Slashdot will take a lesson from our discussion. Too many people (but again, not you) have listenned too much to Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stupidity.
Bush before 9/11 hadn't declared war on anyone but the terrorists still attacked us. While it might be nice to think that the only cause of terrorism is the US going to war, that is just not supported by events.
First, I didn't say that it was the only cause. There are others. Second, Bush didn't declare war before 9/11, but the US did. In fact the US is the country that fought the most war since WW2. And that has helped terrorist to recruit.
The US has an history of acting upon other nations, and if is not done properly and with great care (which has too oftern be not the case), it does help terrorists to recruit. And you can't win against terrorism if you help them recruit.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right but there is (at least in theory) a MAJOR difference between US Supreme Court and the Cour de Cassation : the Cour de Cassation can not judge a case, it can only break a decision on form, ie if procedure was not correctly executed. Or course, in reality, they pronounce themselves on substance of decision each time they can find some minor details entitling them to hear the case.
And a last note : the European court of Human Rights is higher than the Cour de Cassation. But its scope is limited and this is true for every country in Europe.
As a Frenchman, let me give you some insight. We *already* have a socialized music system (and a TV system too). Let's say you're a taxi driver. While driving your customers, you listen to radio. *Any* radio, including a non music radio. Well, you have to pay a tax to the SACEM (a group much like the RIAA that collects such taxes and the distribute it).
Or, if you live in France, you now pay a tax as part of local taxes to finance public TV. Whatever you have a TV set or not, and whatever you watch public TV.
Or, if you buy a CD-R or a DVD-R, there's a tax on it that goes to the same SACEM.
Or, you tax euros will go to subsidize (sp?) French "culture", ie film and music editors.
This has become such a frequent way of doing things here that most people (me included) thinks that no matter what we want, we alreay have such a socialized system and we're fucked about it. So, if we should live by such a system, let us get some benefits from it and download how we want. We alreay (and for a long time) are paying via taxes for the music industry. What do we get from that ? Nothing. Better for once have something in return.
So, yes, the vast majority of citizens are for this proposal.
Ah, I see you don't know French bureaucracy. ...), you can bet that it'll need thousands of employee to handle this mess.
Our so nice system would mean that for any artist to see any money, he would have to wait 3 years. Money would not be given according to popularity, no scientific data. It would be given at what most normal human would see as random, but some state employe could go at great length to explain you why it's not random and in fact a perfectly working system. And replying that your 2 years old daughter just got a check for a 1999 song would be answered by a "don't you stop spreading lies, you public service fascist right wing murderer !".
Oh, and since they will be on strike every two days for whatever reason (they want to get paid more, they want to have retirement at 29, it's nice weather let's take a walk
Never underestimate the inefficiency of our tax paid bureaucracy, it amazes you evey day.
The real question, for many of the voters is not "Which party do you prefer?" but instead: "Which of the two large ones do you dislike the least?"
Actually, people doesn't need to ask such a question, the Diebold machine has already the answer.
deport illegal Muslim immigrants from the Maghreb
if its going to be used to harass minorities.
Make your mind buddy, if it's used to deport illegal immigrants, it's not for harassing minorities that are legally in France. Sure racisme has increased over the years here, but I fail to hear other French agreeing to this new ID card, and I even more fail to hear them thinking it's good for harassing Arabs.
I think it's more a new way to take our money, since many people (myself included) tend to not renew any ID card or passport, since driver licence is enough and doesn't need to be renewed.
We have one of the most bloated and inefficient bureaucracy in Europe, and they tend to always look for new ways to get even bigger.
I really don't think racism has anything to do with that, just plain old stupid bureaucracy wanting to be even bigger, even stupidier, and even more efficient. Just like it always has.
And it has the added bonus of justifying recent government employes wages increase.
To quote Clemenceau : "In France we plant taxes and we grow fonctionnaires (state employes)".
As usual, the Slashdot headline is pure FUD.
Here is the snippet from Le Monde's article : Dans l'esprit du chef de l'Etat, il s'agit de bâtir un "alter ego" au projet américain, avant d'envisager une éventuelle collaboration avec Google, pour ne pas discuter en situation de faiblesse. Le président serait-il prêt à s'entretenir avec le concurrent de Google, Microsoft, puisqu'il a tant de convergences de vues avec son président, Bill Gates, qu'il a longuement reçu à l'Elysée ? "Pourquoi pas ?", répondent les conseillers de M. Chirac.
Translation : "In Chirac's mind, the idea is to build an "alter-ego" to the American project, before thinking about a collaboration with Google, to have a good position in negociations. Would the president be ready to talk with Microsoft, since he has many common ideas with Bill Gates, whom he has met at the Elysée ? "Why not ?" is the answer from Chirac's advisors."
In summary, Chirac wants to build a French language online library, to have a good collaborative work with google. Should that work be done with Microsoft ? Maybe yes, maybe not. But the stated goal is to work with google, whatever that goal that can be achieved with Microsoft or not.
If you need to work with Oracle, what do you do ? You call an MS sales man to leverage your negociations with Oracle. Well, France wants to work with Google, so it doesn't forbid itself from working with Microsoft, if that gives it a better negociations position.
Slashdot has become more and more a FUD machine, with more or less every headline in contradiction with linked article. Worse, since the actual content of the article is from Le Monde, and is in French, many non-French speaking readers won't be able to see the utter non-sense that the Slashdot article is. This is more and more becoming the Fox News for Nerds, and it's starting to seriously upset me.
> France is an insignificant piss ant country, not so much a nation as a rabble united by a variety of cheeses.
Wow, you look like an intelligent person capable of insightful discussion, now, grats.
> AFP is nothing compared to the Beeb.
Indeed. Let me explain it for you slowly : the BBC and AFP are not in the same business. BBC gives news to citizens, while AFP gives news to BBC (and about all newspapers in the world).
> How many shortwave programs does AFP broadcast?
Let me explain it for you slowly : AFP doesn't broadcast anything, they sell news to newspapers.
> The Beeb could get along quite well without Google News
And AFP doesn't give a fuck about google news, since, they're not a newspapers. Every major newspapers in the world is a customer of AFP. NYT, BBC, Washington Post, The Economist, all of them buy content and pictures from AFP. AFP is as widely known and as widely respected as Reuters. Both of them are the first and most respected content provider of every newspapers in the world. Without Reuters and AFP, you would more or less see no pictures on any newspapers. If you don't believe me, buy the NYT, and look for credits on their pictures. 90% of them are from AFP and Reuters.
You and I are not custumers of AFP, NYT, BBC and all are.
Basically, Google News is trying to take AFP work without paying for it. AFP is not happy with that, and they have every right to be, since Google is effectivly warezing from them.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with the French lawsuit on Yahoo, which was quite stupid. This lawsuit is very valid, and Google removing their content shows that they know they would loose in a lawsuit.
Next time you launch in a flamefest, try to educate yourself, you really do look like a moron talking out of his ass.
So, his media player presentation crashed, and the link to this is ... a .asx.
Kinda ironic don't you think ?
Indeed.
I am French and I was at first hesitant about Poland in EU. I am now glad that it did, and I am glad Poland gave us a lesson of democracy.
I signed the Thankpoland letter, and, as a EU citizen, let me thank here the Poland government and the Polish people.
It's been a few years (at least 2 or 3) that we have it free of charge here in Paris too : http://www.sytadin.tm.fr/.
Realtime traffic for major highways, center of Paris, time estimation for the whole périphérique (the ring around Paris), traffic camera at critical locations, all provided by the regional gov. For once, they did a great job.
Who the hell modded parent as Troll ?
He's right on target. Al-Qaeda is not some secret and well ordered organization. It's loosy groups of people not knowing each other that tries to kill people with whatever they have. Bombs are made of gas can with nails. Planes are attacked with knives. There hasn't been one occurance of Al-Qaeda using any advanced technology in a terrorist attack.
Rather than modding parent as troll, reply and name ONE attack conducted by Al-Qaeda that uses GPS. Or name ONE terrorist act done on US soil after September 11th by Al-Qaeda. If you can't, then parent is not "troll", but "right in his facts".
And for parent's saying that Bush is trying to scare America since it's only chance to get reelected, well, that's just the truth. Or you think that Bush got reelected for his economic wisdom ? His enviroment policy ? His great diplomatic talent ?
I'm fed up with idiotic mods labelling posts as troll just because they can't put some rational replies argumented with facts.
Hopefully, I'll get to meta-moderate the sucker(s) that abuses his mod points. And I encourage other meta-mods to do the same, whatever they believe Bush is a good guy or not.
HIV was discovered in the US
: _HIV_Discovery,_20_Years_Later.html, and you'll be able to find more informations.
Actually, no, it was discovered in France. While the complete research was done between a French (Montaigner) and an American scientist (Gallo), the actual discovery of the virus (not disease, virus) was done at l'Institut Pasteur by Montaigner and his team.
L'Institut Pasteur is a french public organization, owned and funded by the french governement.
In a quick google I found this link http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/04/20/HealthWatch
And don't be lured, for pure science US doesn't lead the world in biomedical. The US leads the world in APPLIED biomedical. For fondamental research, many countries (such as France with Institut Pasteur) have roughly the same level and cooperate enough that none is leading.
I see the following bit of irony, which tells me more than anything that France and the US are more alike than either side would like to believe
I couln't agree more. France and USA have a lot in common :
. both are made of pride and arrogant men
. both believe that nobody should dictate their positions
. both were among the first democracy of modern world, and both achieved that by violence and war
. therefore both think that they somehow are the bastion of modern democracy. US sees itself as the most successful democracy, France sees itself as the founders of Human Rights, and thus as the brain behind modern democracy (both have a bit of truth here, but both are way over their heads)
. both think of themselves as the wise voice that everybody should listen to
. both have an important national pride
. both have debts towards each other (American revolution for US, WW1 and WW2 for France)
. both are grateful for that while having difficulty admiting it
. both are as arrogant as to only see defaults at others, and both can't see their own
. both have a mixed admiration/disdain thinking about the other (just look at the admiration of Jackie Kennedy for France, and the utter disdain of Bush for the same France)
. both want to be the role model of the world
. yet both have big corruption problems at government level
The BIG difference between the two countries is religion. France tends to be very unreligious, if not sometimes antireligious (France have a history of distrust for religion since 1700, with even violent actions towards priests). OTOH, US is very religious, and has a history of distrust, if not sometimes outright opposition to atheism.
Other than that, both counties have a lot in common, and I really wish that both could again become warmer towards each other. The world would really be a better place if France could listen the US when it says to shut the fuck up, and if the US could listen to France when it says to shut the fuck up. Maybe if instead of opposing each other they would listen to the critics made by the other, terrorism would be next to nonexistent. Remember that both countries are the major cause for islamic fundamentalism. We fucked up Maghreb, and you fucked up Middle East.
Unfortunally, we both are too arrogant at the moment for cooperating and seeing ourselves as part of the problem.
France has always disliked Americans. At least that is the impression that I get.
As a French myself, let me tell you something : you're utterly wrong. We like americans unless they try to bully us. And being pride and quite arrogant, we really have a big issue with Bush. Other than that, and at least until Bush and his cronies started to spit on France, we thought americans as some of our best friends.
But, hey, given the current mentality in US, I think that like too many of your compatriots, you prefer to think of you as nice, and surely the rest of the world drools with envy about your country, and so acts as assholes against you right ?
Oh, and outside of your fantasy world, we don't have an attitude towards Americans, we have an attitude towards assholes bullies, and religious maniacs. Trouble is, Bush is both. Fortunally, and unlike you, we don't make stupid generalizations and confuse your president with all americans.
Your post looked interesting until i felt on that :
being ruled by Saddam and his religious minority
Saddam was everything you want but a religious dictator. Actually he was hated by other Arab nations because he wasn't religious. Some of his top trusted lieutenant were christians damn it. Ever heard of Tarek Aziz ? He's christian.
So, I fear you either are making all this "testimony" up or you lack the critical thinking allowing you to understand that only a thin minority of people came to talk to you. And if they came, of course they were friendly, else they wouldn't have come.
Either you're a troll, or you're way over your head by expanding a few anecdotial encounters to a global view of Iraq. If you think that most iraqis have forgotten the fact that US did back up Saddam, you're a dreamer.
I've got a bunch of friends with VNC so I can fix their computer troubles from my home. After waiting a bit to see if SP2 had some major problems, I made them upgrade to it.
It worked perfectly for nearly all of them. But for one of my friend, SP2 killed VNC. I tried to install every fucking VNC prog on this computer, but no luck. There is no ISP firewall problem either I checked that.
I don't have the slightest idea of why this PC and only this PC refused VNC.
Like parent, I would appreciate any hint on how to restore VNC capability to this SP2 machine.
in journalism there's a tradition of
In journalism, there's also a tradition of doing your job. The editors could have, at the very least, wrote a fucking email to google to know their position. What kind of real journalist wouldn't at least try to get the other side vision of fact ?
Even paparazzi would do that to avoid lawsuits.
And, on top of that, as others have mentionned the editors can't even apologize.
Their accusations were very serious, they didn't even try to check anything, and they offer no apologies ? Why are such morons even paid ?
France has already said it wouldn't send troops to Iraq - period.
...
...), and that should you have a president that cared about the whole world, that respected the UN, we French might be on your side right now in Iraq.
:
Of course, France won't send troops.
Try to understand something : for France (and most other European countries), UN, with all its shortcomings and problems, is considered a great institution, with a great goal, peace.
We sure as hell didn't like the way Bush administration handled the UN. We hate his bullying of inspectors (try to read what Hans Blix has to say about Bush administration, very enlightning), we hate his attitude of saying "fuck the UN, i'll do what I want", we hate some declarations by say Rumsfield, we hate that Bush lied to the whole world to start a war, we hate the corruption the Bush administration shows (Halliburton anyone ?), we hate Bush's declarations of "You're with us or against us" (we can think and make judgements by ourselves, thank you, if you want our support, try to convince us, and don't try to bully us)
My point ? You won't see any French troops going to Iraq, because of Bush.
If the US had allowed the inspectors to continue their job, if the US had presented real arguments about Iraq, if the US had shown respect to the whole world, then we French might have put some troops in Iraq, like we did in Gulf War I.
But Bush has been such an asshole that we (French population) won't allow any troops to risk their lives because Bush administration has fucked everything up in Iraq. No way in hell.
But you should consider that France has a history of following the US (GW1, Afghanistan etc
Put blame where blame is due, and remember : if you're alone (ok you've got Poland, which regrets its support) in Iraq, it is Bush's administration's fault.
Bush has already secured significant international support, and it's not likely we'll get much more.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have significant support. The only support you have is from
1) UK
2) countries that were bullied to follow you, and sent a minimum of non fighting troops with you
Beside UK, no powerful nation followed you in Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China said no way in hell. Aznar tried to engage Spain on your side, but he got kicked out of office because of that (and because of his lying about the ETA of course).
You have to consider something very important : here, in France, after September 11th, every citizen felt sympathy for the US, and every citizen thought our governement should side with the US and helps you. We showed our support. We sent troops with you in Afghanistan, and nobody here even thought about not doing that. It was clear in our mind that we had a duty to help our ally, the USA.
Then Bush talked about Iraq. Then Bush started bullying the UN. Then Bush started bullying Europe. We thought wtf ? Why does America think it has a right to bully the whole world ?
We thought that an open discussion with the US in the UN would make Bush reconsider his position, and presents REAL evidence that Iraq was a threat.
But he didn't. He lied more and more. He bullied more and more.
And then, he started to hurt the UN. And that was the turning point. We felt betrayed. We felt that our support to the USA, our sadness about September 11th, was used to kill a much respected institution. We had the feeling that Bush was using our consideration and our support to promote a new form of imperialism.
And he did.
From that point, we started to hate him as much as we supported the USA after 9/11. We, and 99% of the world, thought that he was a bigger danger to world peace than Saddam or Bin Laden. Not because he's more evil, but because he acts as a bully while leading the world's most powerful nation, not some dozens of terrorist or a third world nation. And the idea that our support might have contributed to this new danger was
Should that be the scenario of a movie, nobody would believe it
Pretty scary.
Yours point are valid and understood.
However, I live in Connecticut and sure as hell dont want Utah to be able to influence how my fishing industry is conducted or how much money we need for the coast guard
Shouldn't these type of laws belong to states ? I know that for a long time federal has grown in power while states have lost it, but isn't this the real main problem ?
Let's suppose that states regain their power, while federal governement looses its, wouldn't in such a case having a direct elected president be a good thing ?
Even though the size of European countries is very small by comparison to the USA, we are already trying to get a balance between centralised (Bruxelles) power and regional power (giving more power to regions was the major political theme here in France). In the mean time, USA go more and more to a strong centralized governement, while weakening states' power.
I really do think that the USA would be better with more powerful states, and a direct elected but less powerful president. What do I miss with such a scheme, and why wouldn't it be better than USA's current one ?
I am quite puzzled about the reactions I read here.
I remember reading here that the vast majority of slashdotters think the current system for electing the president of the USA is bad. Some complains that voting third party is more or less a waste. Others complain that their home state is so democrat/republican that their vote for the other party won't count. Others complain about the winner take all present in most states.
Yet, when someone proposes a bill that tries to adress these problems, people here bitch that it is not perfect.
Althrough I am not American (or maybe because I am not), I think this is a step in the right direction.
First, about the abolishion of electoral college. I've read many comments complaining that it would lessen the power of small population states. I fail to see how it is a problem. Look at Europe. Most countries in Europe directly elect their president, without consideration about the region where one votes. Yet, you don't see in Europe the tyranny of the cities. Hell, even with this system, the agricultural people have a political clout much higher than their number would indicate. They are not oppressed by cities resident people.
A citizen is a citizen, and I fail to see why some should get more power in elections than others. Isn't the definition of a democracy (or a constitutional republic) that each citizen be equal ? Equality means same power in elections, me think.
Second, about IRV. Sure IRV is technically inferior to Condorcet. But Condorcet will not be a way for elections. The vast majority of people don't understand it. Even the short explanations some slashdotters proposed are not simple. If you don't believe me, try to explain Condorcet to some 85 years old grandma, or to someone that dropped school at 14 because they didn't catch maths. These people won't trust Condorcet, they find it too convulted. The fact that it is mathematically superior doesn't get in the line for these people.
OTOH, IRV can be understood by everyone. Sure it's buggy. But so is the current system. Remember, this is a proposed bill, and representatives will discuss it. That means that it may be corrected to allow more sane methods.
Remember people, we are discussing two bills ( *two* bills, even if you hate IRV, you can approve the dropping of electoral college), and will be amended and corrected multiple times before passing to final vote. It seems silly to me to oppose them.
Why not try to be positive, and write your representatives that the idea of the bills are good, and then proposing alternate voting methods ? If you just oppose them, don't complain latter when the only choice you get is a republicrat and a demoblican. Instead, support the senator that proposed the bills, and encourage their perfection.
America's presidential election is the worst of all presidential elections in first world. Multiple (and sometimes brain-dead) voting scheme, near-impossibility for third parties to get votes, people in democratic states who can't show their support for republicans, people in republican states who can't show their support for democrats, election determined by Florida and a few other key swing states, people having votes that count twice just because they live in a small state, etc...
That should be corrected, and even if these bills are not perfect (I don't like IRV either), they sure are a step in the right direction.
What about stopping bitching that the whole world is dumb and accepting that sometimes, to get a good system, you have to be patient and support a temporary solution if it is the right direction ? This is how the real world works, you know.
I think (hope), though, that Rove's strategy has been much more obvious to the American people this year, and they will not be fooled again.
I wish I had your optimism. I am not American, so I might be wrong, but everything I read tend to confirm that a big of chunk of Americans don't know a thing about internal politics, about the Iraq situation, or even about what legislations were passed by Bush's administration.
Looking from the outside, it looks like the USA has become a schizophrenic country, with some people knowning what happens in and out their country, while other people doesn't know jack, and are inspired by fear.
And I think that the Bush administration tries to encourage that fear, since it preclude feared people from having critical thought.
Point in case : the various "terrorist levels" have become a way to distract people. When something goes wrong, you just rise the terrorist alert, and people stop thinking about anything else. Am I the only one to find these terrorist alert levels utterly ridiculous ?
Everyday, I tend to think more of the Bush administration as a very efficient propaganda machine that disrupts the critical thinking Americans tend to have against their governement.
And that saddens and frightens me much, especially with the war happy hawks that drive US's international politics. I can just hope that more Americans will wake up and sees the bullshit Bush's administration tries to put in their toughts.
A campaign built mostly on lies and deception will not get you elected.
Wasn't lies and deception the reasons Bush got over McCain ?
the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program
... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.
My mistake, that was a typo in my post, I meant UK, not US. I've found this and this link that provide more information on the oil for food scandal.
What I find shocking is the apparent concensus here (not from you from what I can see) that only France abused the program. There were 250 companies of 61 countries involved in this program, and it looks like the majority did abuse it at one point or another. And it looks like countries abusing it were for or against the war, without much distinction. Russia, France, UK, Italia... are supposed to have abused it.
I guess that we will have to wait for the investigations to see more clearly into these apparent abuses. For the moment, nothing is sure, and since this topic is hottly politics, we must be wary of all the accusations and declaration of innocence, since it's likely that all parties are more or less lying (and I don't trust Chalabi for giving fair informations).
So, it looks like major corruption occured (but note that the program was under supervision of US, so we will have to wait to see what happened really). What looks sure is that abusers were either for or against the war, so accusing the anti-war countries of being anti-war just for this program looks misguided.
Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping
Actually, Muslims do back the liberation of the French reporters. Only the group (a very scarse number of muslims) that did the kidnapping is to blame, not all muslims. Other radical groups have even publicaly proposed their help to free the reporters. On this particular point, there is absolutly no doubt that if you're kidnapped in Iraq, it's better to be French than American.
However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
This is very true, but, in my opinion, France did the right thing, but that's only my opinion. What is sure is that the reasons given by Bush's administration (WMD and link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda) are blatently false. Even Rumsfield acknowleged that neither existed.
So, I think that France was right and the US was wrong.
Bitter? No, just a little sad.
I should have make the precision that I wasn't specifically speaking of you when I spoke about bitterness. That is the sentiment I have about people here bashing the French.
Last, but not least, I'm tired of all the French bashing I see here, and i'm glad you and I can have a pleasant and intelligent discussion of this. That is conforting, and I hope some of the worst war supporter and "anyone not supporting the war is a coward and corrupt bastard" crowd on Slashdot will take a lesson from our discussion. Too many people (but again, not you) have listenned too much to Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stupidity.
Bush before 9/11 hadn't declared war on anyone but the terrorists still attacked us. While it might be nice to think that the only cause of terrorism is the US going to war, that is just not supported by events.
First, I didn't say that it was the only cause. There are others. Second, Bush didn't declare war before 9/11, but the US did. In fact the US is the country that fought the most war since WW2. And that has helped terrorist to recruit.
The US has an history of acting upon other nations, and if is not done properly and with great care (which has too oftern be not the case), it does help terrorists to recruit. And you can't win against terrorism if you help them recruit.