According to statistics, 76% of schools ignore the laws that say their must be "a daily worship of a Christian nature". Which means about 25% of the schools have a daily worship of a Christan nature!
Do you realize how ultra extreme that is by U.S. standards? 0% of public schools in the U.S. have any daily worship of a Christian nature! Even if you included private schools, and assumed that all private schools were Christian schools (many are secular, and many are for faiths other than Christian), you wouldn't get 25% of schools providing "a daily worship of a Christian nature".
25% of the schools in America providing daily worship of a Christian nature would be considered ultra religious right-wing extremism, beyond what G. W. Bush would ever even dare to suggest at a Republican convention. Do you realize that in the U.S., that it is an extremly contentious and controversial even to mention the word "God" in the "Pledge of Allegience" (and even the Pledge of Allegience is largely an anacronism today). People in the U.S. go apeshit when some televangelist with no connection to the government whatsoever suggests that the U.S. "is a Christian nation", let alone for the government to declare a state religion - even symbolicly!
You realize, that while you are being smug about how "proudly secular" Brits are, that if the same policies were being followed in the United States, it would be seen as the most extreme form of right-wing religious facism! The United States has a long, long, long way to go until it is a truly secular society that has absolutly no bias for or against any religion. But I am proud to say that we are at least 200 years ahead of what you Brits consider "proudly secular".
That means nothing... I lived in the U.S. up until a few years ago, and I never heard a simgle person who didn't believe in evolution, even the most extreme evangelical christians. I have never met a single Christian who wanted "intelligent design" taught in schools (I did meet a pagan who wanted "Earth Mother" "Intelligent Design" taught in schools, but that is a completly different phenomena).
People will admit to a lot of things when they are filling out a survey, that they might not admit to when they are discussing these things in common, everyday conversation.
Of course you don't believe it... the whole furor over "Intelligent Design" meme served a propoganda purpose. It allowed you to say "Ha, look at those backwoods Americans! We are so much more superior than them" (Hence, your "USA manufactured nonsense" comment). The idea is "believable" when you hear about it in the United States, but "bullshit" when in the U.K., because now your bigotry is no longer confirmed.
Sure, he is making abortion illegal by taxing it to the point where it is effectivly illegal.
However, would you also be as upset if as some politicians have tried to do that we put a $10,000 tax on guns (and hence, pricing them into essentially being illegal)?
That is the problem... everyone is willing to use the aparatus of the government in order to enforce their own agenda. Are you against this because it is an abuse of government power, or because the agenda is different than your? For most people, it is the latter.
Sure, maybe, except that Google was founded and incorporated in the United States, so Google doesn't really have a choice but to obey the laws in the U.S. the same way they do for China, France, or Germany.
However, the question you avoided is if Google is evil for doing buisness in France and Germany. If Google censors in the U.S. is irrelevent.
Most likely, you feel that Google censoring in France and Germany to comply with those laws is "good", and censoring in China is "evil". The point I am trying to make is that there is a double standard: If it is evil to censor, then it should be evil to censor everywhere. If you think that censorship is "good" when France and Germany does it, but "evil" when China does it, it is most likely because you are European (or of European decent living in North America), and therefore it is your own cultural bias and bigotry that causes you to make the distinction. And if you do not feel as I described, then say how you feel so I don't have to guess.
I think there is nothing wrong with Google obeying the laws in the countries it does buisness (in fact, if you bothered reading Google's definition of "don't be evil", one of it's conditions of not being evil is not to do anything illegal). I think people's "outrage" with Google is self-rightous, arrogant, and inconsistant, and possibly racist.
True... However, Google is a U.S. company, so it is impossible for them to refuse to do buisness in the United States seeing as that is where they were founded and incorporated and publicly traded.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a double standard on censorship. China censorship = evil... European censorship = progressive. I am sure that to the Chinese, the stuff they are banning is every bit as harmful and hateful to them, as what the Europeans are banning is harmful and hateful to themselves. I see no reason for Google to be the judge, jury, and executioner is some attempt to judge a nation's culture or system of government as "good" or "evil". Either censorship is wrong, and Google should not participate... or it is OK, and Google should not be blamed for participating.
If you expect Google to decide which is "good" censorship, and which is "bad" censorship, then you have to respect that they might have different opinions than you on what type of censorship is "good" or "bad".
In Marxist belief, religion is a tool that the elite in power use in order for them to capitulate to a system of oppression. They see religion as superstition being used to erode the human's rational ability to make decisions, and hence to overcome capitalist slavery.
Now, China tolerates some established religions, obstensibly because those religions have "historic" and "cultural" values (probably, more likely, because the U.S. required some protection of religion as a condition of most-favored trade status). However, a modern religion such as pholon gong has no historic or cultural value in their view.
Now, I am not asking you to agree with their views... but can't you see, that to them, in their belief system of their country, the pholon gong cult is just as evil and destructive as Ahmed Rami. If you accept that "hate speech" should be banned, then can't you see something like Pholon Gong is hate speech in their eyes!?
There is no clear, objective measure that we can use to say China is wrong if we say censorship is acceptable. If we say "All Censorship Is Wrong", then we can say China is wrong... but then we have to include France and Germany (and many others) amoung the countries that are wrong. But if we are defining right and wrong based on purely subjective means there is nothing wrong with Google making the subjective decision that China's censorship is OK. You are biased against China's censorship, and biased FOR France and Germanies censorship, because you are probably European, or of European decent living in North America, and French and German culture is less alien to you.
China, France, and Germany all claim to be Democracies. So in theory, if people don't like the laws in any country, they can change them through the legal process.
If you want to argue that China isn't a democracy, that is fine... but I would argue that Germany and France are no longer real democracies either. But that is beside the point. The point is, Google shouldn't have to judge one country "superior" to another country. The U.N. doesn't say "China isn't a Democracy, and therefore shouldn't get a vote in the Security Council", does it? If the U.N. tried to get rid of China because it wasn't a "democracy" (which is a pretty subjective term), the world would be outraged.
If it is wrong to censor, then yes, it is wrong for Google to do buisness in China and help them censor... but then, it is also wrong for Google for to do buisnes in Germany and France.
If it is OK for Google to censor (which you seem to be claiming it is), then it is simply a subjective decision to decide if China is a legit government and it's right to exercise power in its own country is valid. The U.N. seems to think so. And, if China is not Democratic enough for Google, shouldn't it not be democratic enough for the U.N.?
Well, one of the sites banned in the French and German version of Google according to the most recent list is radioislam.net...
Now, just in case you think radioislam.net is some sort of fanatical extremist islamic sight, the first paragraph I read on the site is this: "No hate. No violence Races? Only one Human race United We Stand, Divided We Fall Freedom of Speech - Use it or lose it!"
A lot of their stuff is very anti-Bush and anti-Israel, but I see nothing that would constitute any sort of hate crime or anything like that. Certainly they are not selling Nazi memorabilia as you are suggesting.
Now, do you think censoring this site is OK? If so, why? And if it is "good" for France and German to censor sites like this, why is it bad for China to censor sites it feels are just as negative for its own society? Do you even know the sites that China bans? Maybe China is banning the exact same sites! No one has published a list yet!
There is a double standard. If you think it is OK for Google to obey censorship laws, then it should be OK. If you think it is wrong for Google to obey censorship laws, then it is wrong. But if you are asking Google to determine which is "good" censorship, and which is "bad" censorship, then isn't it reasonable that you and Google would have different opinions on what is good or bad censorship?
Google has been censoring it's results in France and Germany for some time now, in order to comply with French and German laws. Do you think that Google should also choose to stop doing buisness with France and Germany too? Is google being evil by complying with France and Germany's censorship laws?
Google now censors it's search results for things that the Chinese government doesn't want it's people to read, just as it has been doing the same thing to comply with laws in France and Germany.
No, stocks are not paper money. Stocks represent a "share" of ownership the companies assets (and a share of the company profits as dividends) - the assets could be something tangible, like machinary, or something intagible, like "marketshare" or "name recognition". People pay money for shares because they percieve they are getting something of value.
But even assuming the value of the stock is "inflated", this has absolutly nothing to do with monetary inflation. They use the same word, "inflated", but they are completly different things. It might be bad to "inflate" the value of stock (meaning, decieving people to the real value of what you are selling), in the same way it would be bad to sell cut glass as diamonds, but this is not what you are talking about.
The "inflation" you are talking about in your first post (cost of goods and services rising, most likely faster than wages) isn't the same thing as a stock being inflated (people thinking a company is more valuable than it really is). It is like saying that a "sweet" 72 Camero is going to raise my blood sugar! We use the word "inflation" to describe different things. "Inflation" simply means "bloated".
The things that cause monetary inflation as you mention it in your post: an increase in the money supply (or lowering of interest rates, which in the U.S. is the same as increasing the money supply), or a decrease in the goods and services in the market. Overpriced stocks don't increase or decrease the money supply at all, they simply reallocate money that is already in the economy. (And, if you are a Marxist: They are reallocating money away from one set of Capitalists to another set of Capitalists, so it wouldn't really have much effect on the workers from a strictly theoretical Marxist perspective).
I think you are missing the entire point. Most executives don't opt for similiar salaries, because they don't have faith in the stock price of the company. If I am an executive of a company where the value of the stock GOES DOWN, I could be making a whole lot of nothing if I am only paid in stock.
You have to be pretty confident in the value of your company to accept stock as payment.
Yes, that Coca-Cola and McDonalds and Rock and Roll... the young people are powerless to resist, muhahahahaha! Why, I can't think of a single reason why young people in the Ukraine would want to ally themselves with the west, not with that big friendly pal of thiers Russia looking out for them, and the years of prosperity and freedom under Soviet rule... that is, until the mind altering substances like fried potato sticks, sugar cola, and Brittany Spears warped their helpless little minds!
Its time we all stand up to thi... what is that?... Brittany? Brittany, is that you holding out an ice cold Pepsi? And you are telling me that NATO, NATO IS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN YOUR LOVE!?!?!?! BRITTANY!!! I WILL DO ANYTHING!!! JUST GIVE ME THAT McBURGER AND YOUR LOVE BRITTANY!!! BRITTANY!!!!!!!!!! BRITTANY?!?!?!?!
Because the video game industry doesn't donate millions to political causes, or endorse candidates, etc. It is time that the video game industry start ponying up and purchasing candidates, like the movie industry does.
The single player sucks, but the online play is a lot of fun. I think the fact that this game is 17+ and parents boycotting the game improves the online playing experience, because it has kept all young troublemakers out of the game - this game doesn't have half the retards online that most games have.
Current stocks of seed are not terribly genetically diverse, and if they don't mutate fast enough, you may not be left with enough genetic variants to choose from.
You can always use mutation breeding: using radiation, or nasty nasty chemicals, to massivly increase mutation and speed up the breeding process. Mutation breeding came out well before the enviornmental movement, and they have been doing it so many years that the greenies don't really have a problem with it. (Ironicly enough, genetic engineering is supposed to be a safer alternative to mutation breeding).
But, as to the opionion against genetic engineering in Europe, it is largely pushed by European farmers who want to protect their markets and farm subsidies, and so try to scare up a frenzy against those evil foriegners and their "frankenfoods". "Only by buying European produce exclusivly can you protect yourself from 'frakenfoods'". My guess is that there would be no outrage from most of Europe as long as these crops wouldn't facilitate economic competition in agriculture.
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment (or even death) is a thin, old piece of paper. And people's willingness to uphold the words written on it. That, and that cache of guns and ammo buried in the woods!:)
Seriously though, what do you think the whole Second Amendment thing was about?
Except the economics of the issue is that Eurpean corporations don't want to reject software patents, and then have the U.S. own all the good software patents (the economy is global, and America is a huge market with incredable political power... so U.S. software patents have a great effect on the world even if Europe doesn't recognize them).
The movement towards software patents in Europe is not being pushed by American corporations, it is being pushed by European corporations and people who have the very same paranoid anti-American you are trying to promote. European companies think "We are going to get crushed by the Americans if they can use software patents to make money, and we can't... we need to make strong IP laws and get our share of that software patent pie".
No one could care less about the people in China. "Human Rights" is an issue people bring up when they want an excuse to complain about Microsoft... or when they want some protectionist policy to save the local sock factory.
Here is an example of the totaly inconsistant views that many people have about "human rights":
1. Why did labor unions in the U.S. start worrying about human rights in China, only when China started winning jobs from the United States and kicking ass economicly? I don't remember labor unions upset about Maos Cultural Revolution back in the 60s the same way they railed on about the Tianemen Square massacre!
2. Why is it bad that U.S. companies are NOT doing buisness in Cuba? Every anti-corporate crusader who thinks U.S. corporations should stop doing buisness in China because China censors the Internet is in love with Internet censoring Cuba and thinks the trade embargo on Cuba is some big horrible plot by the corporations.
3. Why is it bad when the U.S. tries to stop advanced U.S. weapons from being sold to China? I think the Guardian newspaper called it "Imperialistic" that the U.S. didn't want advanced weapons sold to China via 3rd parties in Europe. I guess it is a human rights violation for Microsoft to help read people's emails, but not a human rights violation to blow people up?
4. Why is it so bad when the U.S. doesn't want to turn over control of the root internet name servers to an organization dominated by countries like China? Why is it reasonable when China demands the U.N. give it the ability to censor the Internet , but the epitome of evil when Microsoft inside China aids censorship strictly inside China?
5. Why are Europeans always carrying on about capital punishment in America being an affront to human rights not urging Mercedes, or LG, or Semens, or Shell Oil, or Nestle, or other European companies to stop doing buisness in the United States?
I don't care what your political beliefs are, or what country you are from, I bet I can point out a whole bunch of inconsistant and hipocritical positions on "human rights"!
Why are people's views on human rights so inconsistant? Because people don't care about human rights: People care about their own economic self interest or their own political agenda, and human rights is a rhetorical tool. If you look at people's views based on what benifits them economicly or politically, you will find their views are 100% rational and consistant.
So, come to me with human rights issues when "human rights" means something more than a political slogan or economic tool.
I am sure that this search engine will have all sorts of wonderful hidden features... for example, if someone searches for information about risky or unhealthy behavior, I am sure the search engine will at least give them a warning, if not omitting the information (after all, the government has an obligation to protect people). I am sure it will definitly ommit information about illegal activities. I am sure the system will profile people based on their search topics, so that potential terrorists, hate criminals, etc., can be tracked and dealt with by the government. And I have a hard time believing that a search engine operated by the government will give good results if we search for information critical of the government.
In the end, if not enough people use the search engine to justify spending the massive amount of money on it, the government will make other search engines illegal!
50 years from now, when someone suggests that maybe search engines shouldn't be run by the government, the standard historical revisionist arguements will be brought out: Before search engines were nationalized, search engines were so expensive that only the rich could afford to search for things on the internet! And that even those who could afford to pay to use a search engine entered a "wild west danger zone", where virtually any information could be found without being strictly licenced and controlled by the government. And everyone will tell themselves how much more democratic and progressive a government monopoly search engine is, and how terrible it was back in the day when nearly anyone could put information on the internet to be found by anyone else.
What he is trying to say is that the same people who reject pseudo-scientific concepts like "intelligent design", seem to be willing to accept equally laughable pseudo-scientific concepts like "Gia Earth Theory". People only seem to get indignant about pseudo-science when it conflicts with their political beliefs.
It seems to me that it is pretty normal to have a few "unnormally hot" days every winter. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of ice cold chill-you-to-the-bone days in Toronto either.:)
But seriously, weather will always seem to get more extreme the older you get. As time goes on, and you experience more weather, you have a larger set of data to work with. The more likely you are to have experienced random extremes. You won't particularly remember when the weather was totally normal and predictiable, but you will remember every time the weather is strange, and there will be more and more of it as you age.
The only reliable way to truly gauge how our weather has been changing is from scientific measurements... They seem to suggest that our climate is changing, and not neccisarily in a good way - But probably not in a Mad Max Warlord End of the World as We Know It way either.
Slashdot Mirror
According to statistics, 76% of schools ignore the laws that say their must be "a daily worship of a Christian nature". Which means about 25% of the schools have a daily worship of a Christan nature!
Do you realize how ultra extreme that is by U.S. standards? 0% of public schools in the U.S. have any daily worship of a Christian nature! Even if you included private schools, and assumed that all private schools were Christian schools (many are secular, and many are for faiths other than Christian), you wouldn't get 25% of schools providing "a daily worship of a Christian nature".
25% of the schools in America providing daily worship of a Christian nature would be considered ultra religious right-wing extremism, beyond what G. W. Bush would ever even dare to suggest at a Republican convention. Do you realize that in the U.S., that it is an extremly contentious and controversial even to mention the word "God" in the "Pledge of Allegience" (and even the Pledge of Allegience is largely an anacronism today). People in the U.S. go apeshit when some televangelist with no connection to the government whatsoever suggests that the U.S. "is a Christian nation", let alone for the government to declare a state religion - even symbolicly!
You realize, that while you are being smug about how "proudly secular" Brits are, that if the same policies were being followed in the United States, it would be seen as the most extreme form of right-wing religious facism! The United States has a long, long, long way to go until it is a truly secular society that has absolutly no bias for or against any religion. But I am proud to say that we are at least 200 years ahead of what you Brits consider "proudly secular".
That means nothing... I lived in the U.S. up until a few years ago, and I never heard a simgle person who didn't believe in evolution, even the most extreme evangelical christians. I have never met a single Christian who wanted "intelligent design" taught in schools (I did meet a pagan who wanted "Earth Mother" "Intelligent Design" taught in schools, but that is a completly different phenomena).
People will admit to a lot of things when they are filling out a survey, that they might not admit to when they are discussing these things in common, everyday conversation.
Of course you don't believe it... the whole furor over "Intelligent Design" meme served a propoganda purpose. It allowed you to say "Ha, look at those backwoods Americans! We are so much more superior than them" (Hence, your "USA manufactured nonsense" comment). The idea is "believable" when you hear about it in the United States, but "bullshit" when in the U.K., because now your bigotry is no longer confirmed.
Sure, he is making abortion illegal by taxing it to the point where it is effectivly illegal.
However, would you also be as upset if as some politicians have tried to do that we put a $10,000 tax on guns (and hence, pricing them into essentially being illegal)?
That is the problem... everyone is willing to use the aparatus of the government in order to enforce their own agenda. Are you against this because it is an abuse of government power, or because the agenda is different than your? For most people, it is the latter.
Sure, maybe, except that Google was founded and incorporated in the United States, so Google doesn't really have a choice but to obey the laws in the U.S. the same way they do for China, France, or Germany.
However, the question you avoided is if Google is evil for doing buisness in France and Germany. If Google censors in the U.S. is irrelevent.
Most likely, you feel that Google censoring in France and Germany to comply with those laws is "good", and censoring in China is "evil". The point I am trying to make is that there is a double standard: If it is evil to censor, then it should be evil to censor everywhere. If you think that censorship is "good" when France and Germany does it, but "evil" when China does it, it is most likely because you are European (or of European decent living in North America), and therefore it is your own cultural bias and bigotry that causes you to make the distinction. And if you do not feel as I described, then say how you feel so I don't have to guess.
I think there is nothing wrong with Google obeying the laws in the countries it does buisness (in fact, if you bothered reading Google's definition of "don't be evil", one of it's conditions of not being evil is not to do anything illegal). I think people's "outrage" with Google is self-rightous, arrogant, and inconsistant, and possibly racist.
True... However, Google is a U.S. company, so it is impossible for them to refuse to do buisness in the United States seeing as that is where they were founded and incorporated and publicly traded.
... European censorship = progressive. I am sure that to the Chinese, the stuff they are banning is every bit as harmful and hateful to them, as what the Europeans are banning is harmful and hateful to themselves. I see no reason for Google to be the judge, jury, and executioner is some attempt to judge a nation's culture or system of government as "good" or "evil". Either censorship is wrong, and Google should not participate... or it is OK, and Google should not be blamed for participating.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a double standard on censorship. China censorship = evil
If you expect Google to decide which is "good" censorship, and which is "bad" censorship, then you have to respect that they might have different opinions than you on what type of censorship is "good" or "bad".
In Marxist belief, religion is a tool that the elite in power use in order for them to capitulate to a system of oppression. They see religion as superstition being used to erode the human's rational ability to make decisions, and hence to overcome capitalist slavery.
Now, China tolerates some established religions, obstensibly because those religions have "historic" and "cultural" values (probably, more likely, because the U.S. required some protection of religion as a condition of most-favored trade status). However, a modern religion such as pholon gong has no historic or cultural value in their view.
Now, I am not asking you to agree with their views... but can't you see, that to them, in their belief system of their country, the pholon gong cult is just as evil and destructive as Ahmed Rami. If you accept that "hate speech" should be banned, then can't you see something like Pholon Gong is hate speech in their eyes!?
There is no clear, objective measure that we can use to say China is wrong if we say censorship is acceptable. If we say "All Censorship Is Wrong", then we can say China is wrong... but then we have to include France and Germany (and many others) amoung the countries that are wrong. But if we are defining right and wrong based on purely subjective means there is nothing wrong with Google making the subjective decision that China's censorship is OK. You are biased against China's censorship, and biased FOR France and Germanies censorship, because you are probably European, or of European decent living in North America, and French and German culture is less alien to you.
China, France, and Germany all claim to be Democracies. So in theory, if people don't like the laws in any country, they can change them through the legal process.
If you want to argue that China isn't a democracy, that is fine... but I would argue that Germany and France are no longer real democracies either. But that is beside the point. The point is, Google shouldn't have to judge one country "superior" to another country. The U.N. doesn't say "China isn't a Democracy, and therefore shouldn't get a vote in the Security Council", does it? If the U.N. tried to get rid of China because it wasn't a "democracy" (which is a pretty subjective term), the world would be outraged.
If it is wrong to censor, then yes, it is wrong for Google to do buisness in China and help them censor... but then, it is also wrong for Google for to do buisnes in Germany and France.
If it is OK for Google to censor (which you seem to be claiming it is), then it is simply a subjective decision to decide if China is a legit government and it's right to exercise power in its own country is valid. The U.N. seems to think so. And, if China is not Democratic enough for Google, shouldn't it not be democratic enough for the U.N.?
Well, one of the sites banned in the French and German version of Google according to the most recent list is radioislam.net ...
Now, just in case you think radioislam.net is some sort of fanatical extremist islamic sight, the first paragraph I read on the site is this:
"No hate. No violence
Races? Only one Human race
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Freedom of Speech - Use it or lose it!"
A lot of their stuff is very anti-Bush and anti-Israel, but I see nothing that would constitute any sort of hate crime or anything like that. Certainly they are not selling Nazi memorabilia as you are suggesting.
Now, do you think censoring this site is OK? If so, why? And if it is "good" for France and German to censor sites like this, why is it bad for China to censor sites it feels are just as negative for its own society? Do you even know the sites that China bans? Maybe China is banning the exact same sites! No one has published a list yet!
There is a double standard. If you think it is OK for Google to obey censorship laws, then it should be OK. If you think it is wrong for Google to obey censorship laws, then it is wrong. But if you are asking Google to determine which is "good" censorship, and which is "bad" censorship, then isn't it reasonable that you and Google would have different opinions on what is good or bad censorship?
Google has been censoring it's results in France and Germany for some time now, in order to comply with French and German laws. Do you think that Google should also choose to stop doing buisness with France and Germany too? Is google being evil by complying with France and Germany's censorship laws?
Google now censors it's search results for things that the Chinese government doesn't want it's people to read, just as it has been doing the same thing to comply with laws in France and Germany.
0 .html6 38n sorship.php
Here is some more information:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-01-15-n5
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050117-090
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-ce
So the question is, why are people so offended when Google censors for China, but think the same behavior is fine for Europe?
No, stocks are not paper money. Stocks represent a "share" of ownership the companies assets (and a share of the company profits as dividends) - the assets could be something tangible, like machinary, or something intagible, like "marketshare" or "name recognition". People pay money for shares because they percieve they are getting something of value.
But even assuming the value of the stock is "inflated", this has absolutly nothing to do with monetary inflation. They use the same word, "inflated", but they are completly different things. It might be bad to "inflate" the value of stock (meaning, decieving people to the real value of what you are selling), in the same way it would be bad to sell cut glass as diamonds, but this is not what you are talking about.
The "inflation" you are talking about in your first post (cost of goods and services rising, most likely faster than wages) isn't the same thing as a stock being inflated (people thinking a company is more valuable than it really is). It is like saying that a "sweet" 72 Camero is going to raise my blood sugar! We use the word "inflation" to describe different things. "Inflation" simply means "bloated".
The things that cause monetary inflation as you mention it in your post: an increase in the money supply (or lowering of interest rates, which in the U.S. is the same as increasing the money supply), or a decrease in the goods and services in the market. Overpriced stocks don't increase or decrease the money supply at all, they simply reallocate money that is already in the economy. (And, if you are a Marxist: They are reallocating money away from one set of Capitalists to another set of Capitalists, so it wouldn't really have much effect on the workers from a strictly theoretical Marxist perspective).
I think you are missing the entire point. Most executives don't opt for similiar salaries, because they don't have faith in the stock price of the company. If I am an executive of a company where the value of the stock GOES DOWN, I could be making a whole lot of nothing if I am only paid in stock.
You have to be pretty confident in the value of your company to accept stock as payment.
I don't think we have any worry about Google's "hyperinflationary practices", as Google is not printing paper money.
No one is gonna stop us from taking pictures of our computer screens with little East German cameras! Old school style!
Yes, that Coca-Cola and McDonalds and Rock and Roll... the young people are powerless to resist, muhahahahaha! Why, I can't think of a single reason why young people in the Ukraine would want to ally themselves with the west, not with that big friendly pal of thiers Russia looking out for them, and the years of prosperity and freedom under Soviet rule... that is, until the mind altering substances like fried potato sticks, sugar cola, and Brittany Spears warped their helpless little minds!
Its time we all stand up to thi... what is that?... Brittany? Brittany, is that you holding out an ice cold Pepsi? And you are telling me that NATO, NATO IS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN YOUR LOVE!?!?!?! BRITTANY!!! I WILL DO ANYTHING!!! JUST GIVE ME THAT McBURGER AND YOUR LOVE BRITTANY!!! BRITTANY!!!!!!!!!! BRITTANY?!?!?!?!
Because the video game industry doesn't donate millions to political causes, or endorse candidates, etc. It is time that the video game industry start ponying up and purchasing candidates, like the movie industry does.
The single player sucks, but the online play is a lot of fun. I think the fact that this game is 17+ and parents boycotting the game improves the online playing experience, because it has kept all young troublemakers out of the game - this game doesn't have half the retards online that most games have.
Current stocks of seed are not terribly genetically diverse, and if they don't mutate fast enough, you may not be left with enough genetic variants to choose from.
You can always use mutation breeding: using radiation, or nasty nasty chemicals, to massivly increase mutation and speed up the breeding process. Mutation breeding came out well before the enviornmental movement, and they have been doing it so many years that the greenies don't really have a problem with it. (Ironicly enough, genetic engineering is supposed to be a safer alternative to mutation breeding).
But, as to the opionion against genetic engineering in Europe, it is largely pushed by European farmers who want to protect their markets and farm subsidies, and so try to scare up a frenzy against those evil foriegners and their "frankenfoods". "Only by buying European produce exclusivly can you protect yourself from 'frakenfoods'". My guess is that there would be no outrage from most of Europe as long as these crops wouldn't facilitate economic competition in agriculture.
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment (or even death) is a thin, old piece of paper. And people's willingness to uphold the words written on it. :)
That, and that cache of guns and ammo buried in the woods!
Seriously though, what do you think the whole Second Amendment thing was about?
Except the economics of the issue is that Eurpean corporations don't want to reject software patents, and then have the U.S. own all the good software patents (the economy is global, and America is a huge market with incredable political power... so U.S. software patents have a great effect on the world even if Europe doesn't recognize them).
The movement towards software patents in Europe is not being pushed by American corporations, it is being pushed by European corporations and people who have the very same paranoid anti-American you are trying to promote. European companies think "We are going to get crushed by the Americans if they can use software patents to make money, and we can't... we need to make strong IP laws and get our share of that software patent pie".
No one could care less about the people in China. "Human Rights" is an issue people bring up when they want an excuse to complain about Microsoft... or when they want some protectionist policy to save the local sock factory.
Here is an example of the totaly inconsistant views that many people have about "human rights":
1. Why did labor unions in the U.S. start worrying about human rights in China, only when China started winning jobs from the United States and kicking ass economicly? I don't remember labor unions upset about Maos Cultural Revolution back in the 60s the same way they railed on about the Tianemen Square massacre!
2. Why is it bad that U.S. companies are NOT doing buisness in Cuba? Every anti-corporate crusader who thinks U.S. corporations should stop doing buisness in China because China censors the Internet is in love with Internet censoring Cuba and thinks the trade embargo on Cuba is some big horrible plot by the corporations.
3. Why is it bad when the U.S. tries to stop advanced U.S. weapons from being sold to China? I think the Guardian newspaper called it "Imperialistic" that the U.S. didn't want advanced weapons sold to China via 3rd parties in Europe. I guess it is a human rights violation for Microsoft to help read people's emails, but not a human rights violation to blow people up?
4. Why is it so bad when the U.S. doesn't want to turn over control of the root internet name servers to an organization dominated by countries like China? Why is it reasonable when China demands the U.N. give it the ability to censor the Internet , but the epitome of evil when Microsoft inside China aids censorship strictly inside China?
5. Why are Europeans always carrying on about capital punishment in America being an affront to human rights not urging Mercedes, or LG, or Semens, or Shell Oil, or Nestle, or other European companies to stop doing buisness in the United States?
I don't care what your political beliefs are, or what country you are from, I bet I can point out a whole bunch of inconsistant and hipocritical positions on "human rights"!
Why are people's views on human rights so inconsistant? Because people don't care about human rights: People care about their own economic self interest or their own political agenda, and human rights is a rhetorical tool. If you look at people's views based on what benifits them economicly or politically, you will find their views are 100% rational and consistant.
So, come to me with human rights issues when "human rights" means something more than a political slogan or economic tool.
I am sure that this search engine will have all sorts of wonderful hidden features... for example, if someone searches for information about risky or unhealthy behavior, I am sure the search engine will at least give them a warning, if not omitting the information (after all, the government has an obligation to protect people). I am sure it will definitly ommit information about illegal activities. I am sure the system will profile people based on their search topics, so that potential terrorists, hate criminals, etc., can be tracked and dealt with by the government. And I have a hard time believing that a search engine operated by the government will give good results if we search for information critical of the government.
In the end, if not enough people use the search engine to justify spending the massive amount of money on it, the government will make other search engines illegal!
50 years from now, when someone suggests that maybe search engines shouldn't be run by the government, the standard historical revisionist arguements will be brought out: Before search engines were nationalized, search engines were so expensive that only the rich could afford to search for things on the internet! And that even those who could afford to pay to use a search engine entered a "wild west danger zone", where virtually any information could be found without being strictly licenced and controlled by the government. And everyone will tell themselves how much more democratic and progressive a government monopoly search engine is, and how terrible it was back in the day when nearly anyone could put information on the internet to be found by anyone else.
What he is trying to say is that the same people who reject pseudo-scientific concepts like "intelligent design", seem to be willing to accept equally laughable pseudo-scientific concepts like "Gia Earth Theory". People only seem to get indignant about pseudo-science when it conflicts with their political beliefs.
It seems to me that it is pretty normal to have a few "unnormally hot" days every winter. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of ice cold chill-you-to-the-bone days in Toronto either. :)
But seriously, weather will always seem to get more extreme the older you get. As time goes on, and you experience more weather, you have a larger set of data to work with. The more likely you are to have experienced random extremes. You won't particularly remember when the weather was totally normal and predictiable, but you will remember every time the weather is strange, and there will be more and more of it as you age.
The only reliable way to truly gauge how our weather has been changing is from scientific measurements... They seem to suggest that our climate is changing, and not neccisarily in a good way - But probably not in a Mad Max Warlord End of the World as We Know It way either.