"Those pushing for fair trade do want fair trade protections for the working class from underdeveloped countries without similar environmental and employment laws as ours. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are protectionist."
Right. You want to impose our labor laws on other nations even though their economic status is radically completely different from ours.
"However, fair trade proponents are open to free trade with other developed nations. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are not protectionist."
And since other nations really cannot become developed if they are not free to trade with the rest of the world, that translates we will only trade with a small portion of the world, thus ensuring the status quo remains.
"So, should we label fair trade proponents with the blanket label of protectionist when half of the time they are not? "
Thats like saying its wrong to call George Bush a conservative because he holds traditionally liberal views on issues like immigration and education reform.
"No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are. "
Read the "protectionism" definition you posted. They do "protect" certain individuals and organizations, but they do not fall under the economic definition of "protectionism". And yes, IP laws are very common in trade debates. Look at Russia and China for examples.
"The trade is presented and labeled as "free", but that is not true to its name."
And "free software" like Linux usually caries many restrictions. And even though this is a "free country", we have many laws and require taxes. Thats because "free" in these contexts is not intended to be taken literally. "Free trade" refers to eliminating restrictions over trading with different countries, not making IP free.
"Wow. I could say that exact same statement to you."
You are free to say whatever you want, that does not mean you would be correct.
"They just want fair protections for the working class, which isn't an unreasonable request."
Thats pretty much the definition of a protectionist.
"
Free trade never has existed. And it probably never will exist. That's because corporations have built in their own fair protections for their own benefit: copyright, patent, and intellectual property laws. In all the talk and bluster regarding free trade, people like you never ever mention these protectionist laws that benefit the big corporations."
No, copyright, patents, and other IP laws are a hot topic in trade debates.
But what you are talking about isn't free trade as its argued for by its advocates. What you are talking about is complete anarchy. No one is saying there shouldn't be any laws regarding trade, claiming otherwise is a straw man.
And whats best for US citizens is to promote free trade between the US and countries like India and China. Seriously, for every line of code written in India, think about how many Cokes are drunk and how many Big Macs are eaten over there.
Hey, its not that bad. Fewer rain forests means more greenhouse gases. More greenhouse gases means a warmer climate. A warmer climate means we will be able to grow sugarcane in North America, from which we will be able to extract ethanol much easier than from corn.
Just call it a work expense (you are relieving stress you got from work, aren't you?) and deduct it come April 15th. Though I won't be around to help you when you get your audit.
But the real advantage to getting paid a larger salary instead of getting more benefits is then you get to choose where your money goes. Yeah, it may be nice to have your company pay for free massages, but what if I don't want a muscular guy named Raymond rubbing my back? Its like getting CDs from a record club, yeah it might be a good deal and you may get them for less than you would at a store, but thats only good if you really want all those CDs.
I see a number of private or non-public companies on there like SAS, REI, MITRE, and the Mayo Clinic (actually there are a lot of hospitals on there, and I don't think any are public). But no, Forbes is not going to list every Mom and Pop general store on their "100 Best Places to Work" list, as that would be a very boring list.
Yes, but if you are a salaried employee, you will almost always have to sign a non-compete agreement. Besides, as a salaried employee, you are a company resource (and from the point of view of some employers, you are also company property). Since you are not paid by the hour, you are never off the clock.
"Fine, but if you're working in a smaller, less demanding company, you might have that time free, so you can work on the projects without the company knowing about it. Far better to market an idea independently than under the auspices of a large employer. At least you have the opportunity for profits far beyond a salary that way."
Check the terms of your employment again. Most likely your employer owns rights to anything you produce while they are paying your salary, unless it absolutely has nothing to do with their line of work (and even then, you are going to want to get a lawyer to make sure everything is by the book). Generally speaking hiding another job on the side from your employer is a good way to get your ass sued.
Wired magazine these days is nothing but one long advertisement after another. Circuit city probably paid them to be included in the rankings.
The days where Wired could be seen as a credible source of information on technology is long over. I mean these are the same people who proudly declared that the Internet was no longer important enough to be granted proper noun status.
No, I'm actually not. In fact my link (which was the closed I came to defining it myself, so I'm confused as to why you would think I was thinking of the wrong word...) was to the dictionary definition of ethical, not ethics.
Regardless, your definition of ethical is very different from the one proposed by the original poster, and would work with the phrase "Mistreating robotic animals is unethical".
Well sure, if you redefine the word 'ethical' to mean something different from what everyone else (including the dictionary, philosophers around the world, and many more people who have studied the issue longer than you have). The rest of us will stick to the standard definition, in which case it is a valid use of the word.
You mean probably many more yet to be published ones. Google (and the rest of us) will only find out about these if the person who finds them is nice enough to tell everyone. While I'm guessing most people in the world are nice enough to do that, its the few who aren't that I'm worried about...
But I guess these security violations and performance problems and accessibility issues are all small prices to pay if you want a fancy "Web 2.0" website...
Yeah, its coming out soon, its going to be called "Live Free or Die Hard". I saw a trailer for it before "The Good Shepherd", though all I can tell you from that is that there will be a lot of big explosions and car chases.
Evolution doesn't really work that way. No part of our 'design' is optimized, as every change has to be incremental. And as a result there are many parts of the human body whose 'design' is quite bad. If we wanted to start over, we could easily make it much better by redesigning many parts of our bodies. Evolution on the other hand, cannot. The reason certain aspects are often so common is because we descend from common ancestors or the particular design was better suited for simpler species or because that particular design is the best evolution can do under its constraints.
I've got an open enough mind to consider Vista as a potential "Product of the Year", but in 2006? At the tail end of the year it became available to businesses (though it won't be widely deployed by most for some time). I think in order to be "Product of the Year", it should be actually used in that year. Also, how is it "the only game in town"?
Who exactly put this list together? Can we please avoid putting every "Top 10" list some half-baked reporter comes up with on the/. front page?
No, all it proves is that I have a basic understanding of human psychology while you are naive enough to think something like "well maybe they just want to wear the panties".
Did you read what I posted? There are no personal details in there. All the information that is in there can be determined through much easier means. Hence why the person was quoted as saying she couldn't think of a reason why someone would go to all this trouble to get the information. The Slashdot story just quoted part of her statement (without the explanation) in order to illicit a response. They were just trolling.
A crime was committed. The panty thief stole personal property for the purpose of getting a sexual thrill, and in virtually every society stealing is illegal. He never said panty thieves were getting charged with the same crime as rapists or child molesters, merely that they were being grouped with them as sex offenders since their crimes are sexual in nature. So your analogy would make more sense if it was that kids caught drinking were classified as substance abusers.
And yes, we often take in consideration the person's motive when assigning punishment, hence why someone who kills in self defense is not going to get the same punishment as someone who kills out of a motive like greed.
Here is the rest of the quote for those of you who don't want to RTFA:
"Other than the photograph, which could be obtained easily by other means, they would gain no information that they did not already have - so the whole exercise would be pointless: the only information stored on the ePassport chip is the basic information you can see on the personal details page."
The spokesman said the chip was one part of the security features of the ePassport.
He said: "Being able to copy this does not mean that the passport can be forged or imitated for illegal or unauthorised use.
"British ePassports are designed in such a way as to make chip substitution virtually impossible and the security features of the passport render the forgery of the complete document impractical."
So no, they would not be able to access confidential information like credit card numbers. And I'm really curious why you think a British passport would have a social security number.
Well they are not going to admit that they support reps are all idiots. They did state that the rate was in dollars, not cents, and their support reps had "inadvertently incorrectly quoted" the.002 cent rate. Thats about as good as you are going to get...
If you were to ask two 6th grade students in the US, they would most likely also know the difference. The reason this whole thing is getting laughed at all over the net is because very few people are this dumb. But unfortunately, every country has its share of complete idiots. And many of them end up with customer service jobs.
Thats possible, but this really is a common problem. Its probably even more common now since there are very few prices we can quote that are less than a dollar. People are so used to writing amounts of cents as fractions of a dollar ($.50 instead of 50 cents) that they often accidentally combine the values and call the $.50 ".50 cents". Most of the time it is just carelessness, though when you add in stupidity you get Verizon customer service (I remember having similar problems with them back when I had a Verizon account as well).
Slashdot Mirror
"Those pushing for fair trade do want fair trade protections for the working class from underdeveloped countries without similar environmental and employment laws as ours. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are protectionist."
Right. You want to impose our labor laws on other nations even though their economic status is radically completely different from ours.
"However, fair trade proponents are open to free trade with other developed nations. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are not protectionist."
And since other nations really cannot become developed if they are not free to trade with the rest of the world, that translates we will only trade with a small portion of the world, thus ensuring the status quo remains.
"So, should we label fair trade proponents with the blanket label of protectionist when half of the time they are not? "
Thats like saying its wrong to call George Bush a conservative because he holds traditionally liberal views on issues like immigration and education reform.
"No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are. "
Read the "protectionism" definition you posted. They do "protect" certain individuals and organizations, but they do not fall under the economic definition of "protectionism". And yes, IP laws are very common in trade debates. Look at Russia and China for examples.
"The trade is presented and labeled as "free", but that is not true to its name."
And "free software" like Linux usually caries many restrictions. And even though this is a "free country", we have many laws and require taxes. Thats because "free" in these contexts is not intended to be taken literally. "Free trade" refers to eliminating restrictions over trading with different countries, not making IP free.
"Wow. I could say that exact same statement to you."
You are free to say whatever you want, that does not mean you would be correct.
"They just want fair protections for the working class, which isn't an unreasonable request."
Thats pretty much the definition of a protectionist.
" Free trade never has existed. And it probably never will exist. That's because corporations have built in their own fair protections for their own benefit: copyright, patent, and intellectual property laws. In all the talk and bluster regarding free trade, people like you never ever mention these protectionist laws that benefit the big corporations."
No, copyright, patents, and other IP laws are a hot topic in trade debates.
But what you are talking about isn't free trade as its argued for by its advocates. What you are talking about is complete anarchy. No one is saying there shouldn't be any laws regarding trade, claiming otherwise is a straw man.
And whats best for US citizens is to promote free trade between the US and countries like India and China. Seriously, for every line of code written in India, think about how many Cokes are drunk and how many Big Macs are eaten over there.
Hey, its not that bad. Fewer rain forests means more greenhouse gases. More greenhouse gases means a warmer climate. A warmer climate means we will be able to grow sugarcane in North America, from which we will be able to extract ethanol much easier than from corn.
Of course that should have been "Fortune is not going to list...", not Forbes.
Just call it a work expense (you are relieving stress you got from work, aren't you?) and deduct it come April 15th. Though I won't be around to help you when you get your audit.
But the real advantage to getting paid a larger salary instead of getting more benefits is then you get to choose where your money goes. Yeah, it may be nice to have your company pay for free massages, but what if I don't want a muscular guy named Raymond rubbing my back? Its like getting CDs from a record club, yeah it might be a good deal and you may get them for less than you would at a store, but thats only good if you really want all those CDs.
I see a number of private or non-public companies on there like SAS, REI, MITRE, and the Mayo Clinic (actually there are a lot of hospitals on there, and I don't think any are public). But no, Forbes is not going to list every Mom and Pop general store on their "100 Best Places to Work" list, as that would be a very boring list.
Yes, but if you are a salaried employee, you will almost always have to sign a non-compete agreement. Besides, as a salaried employee, you are a company resource (and from the point of view of some employers, you are also company property). Since you are not paid by the hour, you are never off the clock.
"Fine, but if you're working in a smaller, less demanding company, you might have that time free, so you can work on the projects without the company knowing about it. Far better to market an idea independently than under the auspices of a large employer. At least you have the opportunity for profits far beyond a salary that way."
Check the terms of your employment again. Most likely your employer owns rights to anything you produce while they are paying your salary, unless it absolutely has nothing to do with their line of work (and even then, you are going to want to get a lawyer to make sure everything is by the book). Generally speaking hiding another job on the side from your employer is a good way to get your ass sued.
Wired magazine these days is nothing but one long advertisement after another. Circuit city probably paid them to be included in the rankings.
The days where Wired could be seen as a credible source of information on technology is long over. I mean these are the same people who proudly declared that the Internet was no longer important enough to be granted proper noun status.
No, I'm actually not. In fact my link (which was the closed I came to defining it myself, so I'm confused as to why you would think I was thinking of the wrong word...) was to the dictionary definition of ethical, not ethics.
Regardless, your definition of ethical is very different from the one proposed by the original poster, and would work with the phrase "Mistreating robotic animals is unethical".
Well sure, if you redefine the word 'ethical' to mean something different from what everyone else (including the dictionary, philosophers around the world, and many more people who have studied the issue longer than you have). The rest of us will stick to the standard definition, in which case it is a valid use of the word.
You mean probably many more yet to be published ones. Google (and the rest of us) will only find out about these if the person who finds them is nice enough to tell everyone. While I'm guessing most people in the world are nice enough to do that, its the few who aren't that I'm worried about...
But I guess these security violations and performance problems and accessibility issues are all small prices to pay if you want a fancy "Web 2.0" website...
Yeah, its coming out soon, its going to be called "Live Free or Die Hard". I saw a trailer for it before "The Good Shepherd", though all I can tell you from that is that there will be a lot of big explosions and car chases.
Evolution doesn't really work that way. No part of our 'design' is optimized, as every change has to be incremental. And as a result there are many parts of the human body whose 'design' is quite bad. If we wanted to start over, we could easily make it much better by redesigning many parts of our bodies. Evolution on the other hand, cannot. The reason certain aspects are often so common is because we descend from common ancestors or the particular design was better suited for simpler species or because that particular design is the best evolution can do under its constraints.
I've got an open enough mind to consider Vista as a potential "Product of the Year", but in 2006? At the tail end of the year it became available to businesses (though it won't be widely deployed by most for some time). I think in order to be "Product of the Year", it should be actually used in that year. Also, how is it "the only game in town"?
Who exactly put this list together? Can we please avoid putting every "Top 10" list some half-baked reporter comes up with on the /. front page?
No, all it proves is that I have a basic understanding of human psychology while you are naive enough to think something like "well maybe they just want to wear the panties".
Did you read what I posted? There are no personal details in there. All the information that is in there can be determined through much easier means. Hence why the person was quoted as saying she couldn't think of a reason why someone would go to all this trouble to get the information. The Slashdot story just quoted part of her statement (without the explanation) in order to illicit a response. They were just trolling.
A crime was committed. The panty thief stole personal property for the purpose of getting a sexual thrill, and in virtually every society stealing is illegal. He never said panty thieves were getting charged with the same crime as rapists or child molesters, merely that they were being grouped with them as sex offenders since their crimes are sexual in nature. So your analogy would make more sense if it was that kids caught drinking were classified as substance abusers.
And yes, we often take in consideration the person's motive when assigning punishment, hence why someone who kills in self defense is not going to get the same punishment as someone who kills out of a motive like greed.
So no, they would not be able to access confidential information like credit card numbers. And I'm really curious why you think a British passport would have a social security number.
Well they are not going to admit that they support reps are all idiots. They did state that the rate was in dollars, not cents, and their support reps had "inadvertently incorrectly quoted" the .002 cent rate. Thats about as good as you are going to get...
If you were to ask two 6th grade students in the US, they would most likely also know the difference. The reason this whole thing is getting laughed at all over the net is because very few people are this dumb. But unfortunately, every country has its share of complete idiots. And many of them end up with customer service jobs.
"Cry me a river, how often do you actually need to restart?"
If you are running Windows, you have your weekly reboots for whatever security updates have come out...
Yeah, except for the whole part where the boiler blew, reducing the whole hotel into rubble (the book was better than the movie).
Granted if your house is really haunted by an evil power, that may be a good thing...
Thats possible, but this really is a common problem. Its probably even more common now since there are very few prices we can quote that are less than a dollar. People are so used to writing amounts of cents as fractions of a dollar ($.50 instead of 50 cents) that they often accidentally combine the values and call the $.50 ".50 cents". Most of the time it is just carelessness, though when you add in stupidity you get Verizon customer service (I remember having similar problems with them back when I had a Verizon account as well).