Perhaps you stopped using the "back button" a few posts to early. When you joined the discussion we where already side tracked.
Here is the initial post in this thread that I was referring to. I don't know, perhaps you guys have had some unrelated discussion elsewhere that carried over, but that is all that I saw.
No idea how you want do define "arab nations". I for my part would ask the locals. As e.g. Morocco has only a very dim arabic population, I really doubt they call themselves arabic.
That's exactly my point, but you don't really need to go ask specific people - they have representative governments, and policies of those governments speak volumes on this. Once again, Morocco is a willing member of the Arab League, which is specifically defined as "organization of Arab states". So the government considers itself Arab. For another example, Lebanon is not just a member, but it's a founding member of that League. So is Egypt.
Taking the language is a weak argument. Considering that the US now speaks mainly english and spanish and was once more english and german and a bit scandinavian. With the same argument you could say the EU is still the roman empire as Portugal, Spain, Italy, parts of Switzerland and Romania still speak languages where people can understand each other... more or less.
The language argument needs to be taken in context of the specific group - it applies to some more so than others. The present definition of "Arab" is heavily based on language and culture, and relatively little on heritage. This is not unique - "French" is also largely a cultural-linguistic identification combining many different ethnicities, for example, although it still retains a considerable ethnic component.
The definition of "Russian" is even more culturally based - e.g. I'm 1/4 German, 1/4 Ukrainian, 1/4 Tatar and 1/4 Russian by ancestry - but I'm linguistically and culturally Russian, and other Russians recognize me as Russian (in ethnic sense rather than just citizenship) on those grounds. Many people who are 100% Ukrainian by ancestry consider themselves Russians and are treated as such by both Russians and Ukrainians by the same reasoning - because their mother tongue is Russian, and they self-identify as such.
Of course, it doesn't always work that way - obviously, UK and US do not form a single "English" group in a sense French do (although we still do group them in some cases as "Anglosphere" or "Anglo-Saxon heritage countries" - this is actually probably the closest to what "Arab" means today).
Ultimately, with any group, the definition is controlled by the group itself, and is recursive in that sense: a member of the group is the one who considers themselves a member, and whom other members of the group recognize as such. Specific factors on which this recognition is based varies from group to group. In case of Arabs, we can use the organizations with voluntary membership that are specifically Arab-centered by name and by stated intent as a reasonable proxy for the expression of such recognition. So if Morocco declares itself an Arab state by joining the Arab League, and Saudi Arabia accepts their declaration and their membership, we have both the intent and the recognition.
is it not surprising that the Ottomans where the latest conquerors in that regions and neither forced anyone to convert his religion nor his language? Turk and Ottoman languages basically left no traces in north Africa.
It's surprising from the perspective of European colonization, but it's not the only model, and there are other similar examples. E.g. Mongols have conquered most of Eurasia, but didn't spread their language in the process, and have eventually adopted the religions of those they conquered (later conquests by various Turkic states under nominal Mongol banner
It's a bit tricky. There's a "country of origin" provision in the treaty, but it works the other way around - i.e. it can limit an otherwise longer term if the country of origin has it set shorter:
"In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."
So in Germany, which has life+70 term, a copyright holder of a work originating in Canada is not entitled to protection of his works beyond life+50, since that's the limit in Canada (but this only pertains to Berne protections specifically - countries still can, and many do, extend protection to such works unilaterally for the sake of consistency). But if a German copyright holder were to sue someone in Canada for distribution of a German work, the term would be defined by Canadian legislation (since that's where they "claim protection" of their copyright by the state), so it would be life+50 even though Germany sets it to life+70.
It's set up that way because it could be set up that way, and people generally prefer it. Europe has been dense for centuries, and most of its cities date back at least a few centuries as well, with narrow streets and overall layout not really designed for cars. OTOH, in US, due to large swaths of land available for expansion, cities were build big to begin with, and many cities (esp. in the West) were built after cars became common, and with them in mind.
Berne convention specifies the term as 50 (not 70) years after the author's death. Countries are free to enact longer terms, and most do set it to life+70, but the convention doesn't require them to. Canada has the term set to life+50.
It is also an inherent problem with the civil law system, since this approach opens the possibility of unequal application of laws by a corrupt judiciary. Russia is one prominent example where courts have been abusing this of late.
The intent of banning her from driving is not to punish her, but to ensure safety of others on the roads.
Arguably, this condition should be treated the same as a disability that would prevent one from using the car, and government should step in and provide her with subsidized access to alternate means of transportation.
It's more boring and worse writing than Atlas Shrugged, so liking to read it would require some serious dedication. But I think that anyone who is seriously political should read it even so. It's important to understand what makes the enemies of a free society tick.
First and foremost, people could see that they are being bullshitted. Because they knew that there's a West and they knew that things are better there.
Even that was true only when censorship grew sufficiently lax (more often than not in implementation rather than design) to allow those ideas to seep through. Most of my grandma's generation (she was born in 1939) genuinely believed that they lived in the best, freest, richest country in the world. Most of my mom's generation (1964) believed so in school, but lost those illusions in college and beyond.
It could be argued that the military, which, in the end, still consists from the very same citizens (at least ideally), wouldn't necessarily abide if used to suppress political dissent. In which case the point of those ARs is to ensure that the government must rely on military rather than police in the face of a mass armed dissent.
In the context of that time, "anti-Vietnam-war" = "stinky hippie" = "all kinds of 'wrong' ideas about race, sex etc". It's basically what the "silent majority" was all about.
The guy whom you replied to didn't even mention Saudi Arabia (nor Middle East for that matter). I don't know why you brought that up. He was speaking about Arab nations.
Now, by any reasonable definition of "Arab nation", Egypt is included, as well as Libya, Tunisia, Algiers etc. Sure, the locals are a mix of Berbers and Arabs ethnically (and Copts in Egypt), but they speak Arabic, their culture has a dominant Arabic element, and they mostly consider themselves Arabs. Therefore, insofar as they form nation-states, those are recognized by both themselves and others as Arab nation-states. Consequently, the corresponding states are all members of the Arab League, as well (and other organizations like Arab Maghreb Union, Greater Arab Free Trade Area etc - notice the conspicuous presence of "Arab" in all these names). And when they feature nationalism prominently, it's normally Arab nationalism (Nasser, Qaddafi etc). Southern Sahara states have a more diverse mix, but Arabs (by self-identification) still dominate the political and economic elites there.
I think that a country that has ISIS openly operating and controlling significant territory would have to be somewhere at the bottom of that list. Not to mention the existence of two competing governments, which only signed a treaty to cooperate because of ISIS (and which is unlikely to actually produce a single unified government).
Saudi Arabia (assuming you mean that) is not the only place that has Arabs, or even Arab majorities. Most of the Maghreb is Arab. So is Egypt, obviously.
If you believe that the First Amendment should have absolutely no restrictions and you loudly advocate for this position and push for laws that would enforce it, you are attempting to create a rigid ideological framework that refuses to consider any challenge to the idea of free speech.
Such framework may refuse to consider a challenge to free speech, but you would still be free to "think, feel and express" such a challenge. So it would seem that it is not true that all ideologies "by their very nature seek control over" those things.
The article makes a big deal about the fact that getting nVidia and AMD cards to work under Linux isn't easy, and he's right. However, he's blaming the wrong person.
Is he blaming anyone? All I see is a catalog of issues.
Lisp has another problem - there's no language that can do 80% of what it can, but that 80% also happened to be what most programmers don't actually need (or at least not need enough to be worth all the idiosyncrasies that are necessary to enable it).
Slashdot Mirror
At the very least, they could phase them out after the standard is final and all browsers have added non-prefixed versions.
Perhaps you stopped using the "back button" a few posts to early. When you joined the discussion we where already side tracked.
Here is the initial post in this thread that I was referring to. I don't know, perhaps you guys have had some unrelated discussion elsewhere that carried over, but that is all that I saw.
No idea how you want do define "arab nations". I for my part would ask the locals. As e.g. Morocco has only a very dim arabic population, I really doubt they call themselves arabic.
That's exactly my point, but you don't really need to go ask specific people - they have representative governments, and policies of those governments speak volumes on this. Once again, Morocco is a willing member of the Arab League, which is specifically defined as "organization of Arab states". So the government considers itself Arab. For another example, Lebanon is not just a member, but it's a founding member of that League. So is Egypt.
Taking the language is a weak argument. Considering that the US now speaks mainly english and spanish and was once more english and german and a bit scandinavian. With the same argument you could say the EU is still the roman empire as Portugal, Spain, Italy, parts of Switzerland and Romania still speak languages where people can understand each other ... more or less.
The language argument needs to be taken in context of the specific group - it applies to some more so than others. The present definition of "Arab" is heavily based on language and culture, and relatively little on heritage. This is not unique - "French" is also largely a cultural-linguistic identification combining many different ethnicities, for example, although it still retains a considerable ethnic component.
The definition of "Russian" is even more culturally based - e.g. I'm 1/4 German, 1/4 Ukrainian, 1/4 Tatar and 1/4 Russian by ancestry - but I'm linguistically and culturally Russian, and other Russians recognize me as Russian (in ethnic sense rather than just citizenship) on those grounds. Many people who are 100% Ukrainian by ancestry consider themselves Russians and are treated as such by both Russians and Ukrainians by the same reasoning - because their mother tongue is Russian, and they self-identify as such.
Of course, it doesn't always work that way - obviously, UK and US do not form a single "English" group in a sense French do (although we still do group them in some cases as "Anglosphere" or "Anglo-Saxon heritage countries" - this is actually probably the closest to what "Arab" means today).
Ultimately, with any group, the definition is controlled by the group itself, and is recursive in that sense: a member of the group is the one who considers themselves a member, and whom other members of the group recognize as such. Specific factors on which this recognition is based varies from group to group. In case of Arabs, we can use the organizations with voluntary membership that are specifically Arab-centered by name and by stated intent as a reasonable proxy for the expression of such recognition. So if Morocco declares itself an Arab state by joining the Arab League, and Saudi Arabia accepts their declaration and their membership, we have both the intent and the recognition.
is it not surprising that the Ottomans where the latest conquerors in that regions and neither forced anyone to convert his religion nor his language? Turk and Ottoman languages basically left no traces in north Africa.
It's surprising from the perspective of European colonization, but it's not the only model, and there are other similar examples. E.g. Mongols have conquered most of Eurasia, but didn't spread their language in the process, and have eventually adopted the religions of those they conquered (later conquests by various Turkic states under nominal Mongol banner
It's a bit tricky. There's a "country of origin" provision in the treaty, but it works the other way around - i.e. it can limit an otherwise longer term if the country of origin has it set shorter:
"In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."
So in Germany, which has life+70 term, a copyright holder of a work originating in Canada is not entitled to protection of his works beyond life+50, since that's the limit in Canada (but this only pertains to Berne protections specifically - countries still can, and many do, extend protection to such works unilaterally for the sake of consistency). But if a German copyright holder were to sue someone in Canada for distribution of a German work, the term would be defined by Canadian legislation (since that's where they "claim protection" of their copyright by the state), so it would be life+50 even though Germany sets it to life+70.
Suburban sprawl is much more developed in US than it is in Europe, too. And that affects commute times much more.
It's set up that way because it could be set up that way, and people generally prefer it. Europe has been dense for centuries, and most of its cities date back at least a few centuries as well, with narrow streets and overall layout not really designed for cars. OTOH, in US, due to large swaths of land available for expansion, cities were build big to begin with, and many cities (esp. in the West) were built after cars became common, and with them in mind.
Berne convention specifies the term as 50 (not 70) years after the author's death. Countries are free to enact longer terms, and most do set it to life+70, but the convention doesn't require them to. Canada has the term set to life+50.
It is also an inherent problem with the civil law system, since this approach opens the possibility of unequal application of laws by a corrupt judiciary. Russia is one prominent example where courts have been abusing this of late.
The intent of banning her from driving is not to punish her, but to ensure safety of others on the roads.
Arguably, this condition should be treated the same as a disability that would prevent one from using the car, and government should step in and provide her with subsidized access to alternate means of transportation.
Why do we even have strict liability offenses at all?
What's the purpose of punishing someone for a crime that they didn't know is one, and/or had no intent of committing?
Unless the treaty specifically harmonized copyright term lengths between Canada and Germany for works dating to that period, it's irrelevant.
Like I suggested, it would be on the same grounds as Mein Kamph.
And it would be just as bad of an idea.
Outlawing books is always the wrong answer. Always.
It's more boring and worse writing than Atlas Shrugged, so liking to read it would require some serious dedication. But I think that anyone who is seriously political should read it even so. It's important to understand what makes the enemies of a free society tick.
First and foremost, people could see that they are being bullshitted. Because they knew that there's a West and they knew that things are better there.
Even that was true only when censorship grew sufficiently lax (more often than not in implementation rather than design) to allow those ideas to seep through. Most of my grandma's generation (she was born in 1939) genuinely believed that they lived in the best, freest, richest country in the world. Most of my mom's generation (1964) believed so in school, but lost those illusions in college and beyond.
It could be argued that the military, which, in the end, still consists from the very same citizens (at least ideally), wouldn't necessarily abide if used to suppress political dissent. In which case the point of those ARs is to ensure that the government must rely on military rather than police in the face of a mass armed dissent.
In the context of that time, "anti-Vietnam-war" = "stinky hippie" = "all kinds of 'wrong' ideas about race, sex etc". It's basically what the "silent majority" was all about.
The guy whom you replied to didn't even mention Saudi Arabia (nor Middle East for that matter). I don't know why you brought that up. He was speaking about Arab nations.
Now, by any reasonable definition of "Arab nation", Egypt is included, as well as Libya, Tunisia, Algiers etc. Sure, the locals are a mix of Berbers and Arabs ethnically (and Copts in Egypt), but they speak Arabic, their culture has a dominant Arabic element, and they mostly consider themselves Arabs. Therefore, insofar as they form nation-states, those are recognized by both themselves and others as Arab nation-states. Consequently, the corresponding states are all members of the Arab League, as well (and other organizations like Arab Maghreb Union, Greater Arab Free Trade Area etc - notice the conspicuous presence of "Arab" in all these names). And when they feature nationalism prominently, it's normally Arab nationalism (Nasser, Qaddafi etc).
Southern Sahara states have a more diverse mix, but Arabs (by self-identification) still dominate the political and economic elites there.
I think that a country that has ISIS openly operating and controlling significant territory would have to be somewhere at the bottom of that list. Not to mention the existence of two competing governments, which only signed a treaty to cooperate because of ISIS (and which is unlikely to actually produce a single unified government).
Saudi Arabia (assuming you mean that) is not the only place that has Arabs, or even Arab majorities. Most of the Maghreb is Arab. So is Egypt, obviously.
Libya is more stable than Niger, seriously?
If you believe that the First Amendment should have absolutely no restrictions and you loudly advocate for this position and push for laws that would enforce it, you are attempting to create a rigid ideological framework that refuses to consider any challenge to the idea of free speech.
Such framework may refuse to consider a challenge to free speech, but you would still be free to "think, feel and express" such a challenge. So it would seem that it is not true that all ideologies "by their very nature seek control over" those things.
The article makes a big deal about the fact that getting nVidia and AMD cards to work under Linux isn't easy, and he's right. However, he's blaming the wrong person.
Is he blaming anyone? All I see is a catalog of issues.
It's spelled out explicitly on the website itself:
"I want to make one thing crystal clear - Windows, in some regards, is even worse than Linux and it's definitely not ready for the desktop either."
It's Tatars, not Tartars.
Lisp has another problem - there's no language that can do 80% of what it can, but that 80% also happened to be what most programmers don't actually need (or at least not need enough to be worth all the idiosyncrasies that are necessary to enable it).
The thing about C++ is that in all that time, no-one has come up with an acceptable replacement, so people stuck to what they had.
Not so with Perl.