Just for further clarification USA and Britain sold relatively small amounts. Germany sold 90% of chemical\biological weapons to Iraq. Further it was France, Russia and China (the remaining 3 seats on the security council) that sold Iraq 80% of its conventional weapons to.
Put it like this, here in the US we have a single vote against the President and VP. Yes theres Electoral College but by-and-by thats just a quirk of the voting system. But basically its fairly direct, and so it is with a whole range of other offices - senate, house, state senate, governor, propositions etc
The problem with the EU Council is that theres so much indirection going on (to use C pointer notation) that my local vote for MP isnt representive of what I where I want the EU to go. Nowhere do I get to put a mark on a piece of paper that I (as a Brit) want candidate nnn to represent me in the council. In the UK I vote in a first-past-the-post (not unlike Electoral College). The collective winners vote for a Prime Minister (like the house voting for the President and why Brown is able to become PM without a voter voting for him). In turn the PM nominates the British candidates. How the heck can I vote in a single instance issues local to where I'm at and at the same time have it be meaningful to what I think of EU?
And the government control how much that import tax is. Point is, these government sanctioned computers are ONLY 40% cheaper (actually 25% if you do the math) because of the government, not because of private initiatives etc.
2/3 of the population living an average life, 1/3 living in poverty
First of 1/3 of the country is not in poverty. Half the world can't fill a glass with clean water - THATS poverty.
Look, the point of a capitalistic society is that predominantly you are responsible for your own well being within the laws that make society work. Part of that includes those that can't help themselves but not paying for those that wont help themselves. Socialism only works for a period of time until those creating the wealth leave where they get the fruits of their work rather than pay extortionate taxes.
And all I hear about is how the tax breaks here in the US are going to the rich...yes, because they're paying the most in taxes. If you lined all citizens up and asked them to step forward who are 'net' giving to the country then the rich would be out way ahead. The top 1% richest people pay over 30% of the tax bill, the top 10% bay 65%. So my friend, if you want to get rid of say the top 10% richest then please be prepared to have just 35% of your income.
Sorry, it IS ridiculous - the grandparent is spot on. Censoring web pages to meet China legal requirements is not the same as forcing directors to rape a child each year. In Germany (or perhaps its France) Yahoo had to pull nazi gear off its auctions. Do you think they should stop operating in those countries? Every country has laws to some degree over what can and can't be said. Your arguement that they should pull out of a country based on censorship means that no company should exist at any time in any country.
The GPs point wasnt if its law it must be done - his point is that the choice infront of them is to abide by the censorship law or pull out. If the law was to rape a child then I'd have a high degree of confidence they would pull out. One will judge Yahoo on the decisions they make, not airy-fairy, hypothetical future decisions that they dont have to make.
So you've never bought anything that was made inChina? Because if you have that means you, Mr. AC, have given in to the "almighty buck" yourself. You don't like Yahoo censorship - perhaps your point will be better taken if posted non-AC and you don't censor who you are.
Yes it does sound like a troll. Can you please cite any policy from ANY company ANYWHERE that says "baby-fucking is ok since it increases shareholder value"? When you take someone's point and extend it by "lets just go all the way and see" you've basically lost the arguement - you're changing the parameters of what they say instead of debating what they said. Just because Yahoo (or Google or whoever) is operating in a country it doesnt mean they are sanctioning the governments policy of, in this case, in-human rights. They either exist in that country by the laws or they don't. End of story.
Yahoo is a large internet company - not a coup organisation. The current choice for them is to provide chinese citizens with a limited (partial censorship if you like) view on the world or none at all (full censorship). There is no free speech option here and no "baby-fucking for profit" inferences will change that.
No, the golden rule of business is first and foremost they have to make money, otherwise they don't exist. "Profit" is not a bad thing, but yes it has to be done in an appropriate way - that means abiding by the law, thus the directors recommendation.
The directors are not giving the finger to human rights - you're getting confused with the Chinese government that are doing that. It will also continue to happen regardless of the decisions of Yahoo shareholders or directors.
And besides, do shareholders buy their stock with love and emotion or instead with money and a view to make some profit on it? Or do you think buying stock in a company that refuses to abide by the laws and get thrown out is the best way to counter human rights?
Separation of Church and State is not about being anti religious but being neutral, or, devolving oneself of having an opinion one way or the other. One could easily argue that anti-Christian is a pseudo religion in of itself and should not have the backing of tax payers money.
Besides, neither the words "separation" or "church" appear in the Constitution. What DOES appear is freedom of religion - that prohibts Congress from establishing a state sponsored religious ideology.
No, the "public" typically don't get to micro-vote to this degree. Whilst not up on the story this sort of decision is usually taken by a small number of officials. More often than not the art crowd has a much liberal leaning stance. I have NO problem with that at all, I just want them to be fair. We would never see gay bashing, racial slurs, male domineering, circus freak art (and quite right too) paid for by tax payer funds. But why is it ok to deeply offend religious groups?
Absolutely spot on. The grandparent can't have it both ways. If the "[US] public" want separation of Church and State then that should be taken for its all worth, both positive and negative.
You can't say that [tax payer funded] public schools shouldnt use "God" in the oath whilst on the other hand claim First amendment rights for tax payer funded art that denegrades a particular faith.
Well the key point is that Bush can't rule by decree which is something Chavez has just given himself (yes, yes I know the congress 'voted' to give that right to Chavez but we all know how that went about). If Bush did try to squash the license of a TV station, or the equivalent of, all hell would break lose.
Already gone mate. Got my education and was on the first plane out to the States where they appreciate what it means to be innovative and understand that opportunity is what makes a country grow. The US has got to where it has because its government know that ultimately one should interfere as little in the lives as it citizens.
Absolutely spot on with the BBC. In the 90s it used to be a high point in the British pyschy...now its just filled with political pundits and anyone with an 'anti' agenda. Whats a shame is that it has found its way into bastions of quality journalism and debate like Newsnight, Question Time and Panorama.
People here in the US are increasingly seeing the BBC as a political, state-funded lefty organisation rather than independent but opinionless minded. I wonder if its attributed to the internet and all that that brings, or if its from a disillusioned new-labour groupies that have discovered that May 1st 1997 in actual fact didn't usher in a new era.
Well its a big fat "it depends". PBS is not quite free, they do get money from the US tax payer but I would suspect not close to what the BBC gets (per person). The BBC is a huge organization and what we get on BBC America (I assume this is what you refer to) is a fraction, and argueably not the best, of what BBC offers in the UK.
One of the big problems with the "everyone pays the same license fee" concept is that by law you have to have a license to watch TV. Many people watch very little BBC whilst others watch it all the time, but they both pay the same, which seems unfair. With the internet this extuantes the variance further. I would rather see a core smaller license fee with an additional opt-in subscription for those that use different services.
The British education system has no concept of GPA - it works quite differently. By age 16 you choose 3 subjects (typically) and that narrows down what you'll be doing at Uni 2 years later. The results of those 3 subjects (A-levels) decides the course and Uni you go to.
For science degrees a good amount of mathematical skills are needed (for arty-farty subjects no one cares) but the problem is three fold - the governments desire to have lots people going to college (lowering the standard), the cost of going to college has risen, and the newish league tables for high schools. All of these compound with each and result in poor standards. A quick fix would be for Uni science courses to require an A-level in mathematics too, which I'm sure many, if not most, do.
And lets not forget that a dSLR is about its lenses. You can get a Nikon D40 for about $500 if you could get it just as a body. dSLRs give you control over how and what you see. Sure you can compare a static object 5 feet away. But try taking a shot that requires a wide-angle lens or telephoto that requires a steady hand or a tripod.
I get the analogy but I'm saying its flawed. Firstly where have MS hiked the same product price by 10000% (though I know this is a number picked out of the sky)? At the end of the day if you want to insulate yourself from a 3rd party vendor price changes don't go with a 3rd party vendor and develop it all yourself, or go with something from OpenSource. These are other options. The problem is that people are generally short term and then complain when the price is raised or when it impacts long term decision making like vendor lock in. At no point is a company\person not allowed to develop their own propietry system.
However, you're right on the point that changing platforms can be more expensive than moving physical locations.
Government should be in the business of encouraging business, and that includes getting out of the way of successful businesses and letting them do their thing
Slashdot Mirror
so if nothing Microsoft does benefits anyone why do people stick with buying Office and other Windows apps if the alternative is free ?
Just for further clarification USA and Britain sold relatively small amounts. Germany sold 90% of chemical\biological weapons to Iraq. Further it was France, Russia and China (the remaining 3 seats on the security council) that sold Iraq 80% of its conventional weapons to.
The problem with the EU Council is that theres so much indirection going on (to use C pointer notation) that my local vote for MP isnt representive of what I where I want the EU to go. Nowhere do I get to put a mark on a piece of paper that I (as a Brit) want candidate nnn to represent me in the council. In the UK I vote in a first-past-the-post (not unlike Electoral College). The collective winners vote for a Prime Minister (like the house voting for the President and why Brown is able to become PM without a voter voting for him). In turn the PM nominates the British candidates. How the heck can I vote in a single instance issues local to where I'm at and at the same time have it be meaningful to what I think of EU?
And the government control how much that import tax is. Point is, these government sanctioned computers are ONLY 40% cheaper (actually 25% if you do the math) because of the government, not because of private initiatives etc.
First of 1/3 of the country is not in poverty. Half the world can't fill a glass with clean water - THATS poverty.
Look, the point of a capitalistic society is that predominantly you are responsible for your own well being within the laws that make society work. Part of that includes those that can't help themselves but not paying for those that wont help themselves. Socialism only works for a period of time until those creating the wealth leave where they get the fruits of their work rather than pay extortionate taxes.
And all I hear about is how the tax breaks here in the US are going to the rich...yes, because they're paying the most in taxes. If you lined all citizens up and asked them to step forward who are 'net' giving to the country then the rich would be out way ahead. The top 1% richest people pay over 30% of the tax bill, the top 10% bay 65%. So my friend, if you want to get rid of say the top 10% richest then please be prepared to have just 35% of your income.
Therefore, capitalism will ultimately fail
And be replaced by what?
oh really...wow...so when the US does something right we have to be all "international"? Bet when something goes wrong we go back to being "US".
The GPs point wasnt if its law it must be done - his point is that the choice infront of them is to abide by the censorship law or pull out. If the law was to rape a child then I'd have a high degree of confidence they would pull out. One will judge Yahoo on the decisions they make, not airy-fairy, hypothetical future decisions that they dont have to make.
So you've never bought anything that was made inChina? Because if you have that means you, Mr. AC, have given in to the "almighty buck" yourself. You don't like Yahoo censorship - perhaps your point will be better taken if posted non-AC and you don't censor who you are.
Yahoo is a large internet company - not a coup organisation. The current choice for them is to provide chinese citizens with a limited (partial censorship if you like) view on the world or none at all (full censorship). There is no free speech option here and no "baby-fucking for profit" inferences will change that.
The directors are not giving the finger to human rights - you're getting confused with the Chinese government that are doing that. It will also continue to happen regardless of the decisions of Yahoo shareholders or directors.
And besides, do shareholders buy their stock with love and emotion or instead with money and a view to make some profit on it? Or do you think buying stock in a company that refuses to abide by the laws and get thrown out is the best way to counter human rights?
He didn't say $800 million, he said 800 million. You may want to consider that McCartney is a Brit and we're talking sterling.
Besides, neither the words "separation" or "church" appear in the Constitution. What DOES appear is freedom of religion - that prohibts Congress from establishing a state sponsored religious ideology.
No, the "public" typically don't get to micro-vote to this degree. Whilst not up on the story this sort of decision is usually taken by a small number of officials. More often than not the art crowd has a much liberal leaning stance. I have NO problem with that at all, I just want them to be fair. We would never see gay bashing, racial slurs, male domineering, circus freak art (and quite right too) paid for by tax payer funds. But why is it ok to deeply offend religious groups?
You can't say that [tax payer funded] public schools shouldnt use "God" in the oath whilst on the other hand claim First amendment rights for tax payer funded art that denegrades a particular faith.
But if he feels like it was the correct thing he'd be a hypocrit to disallow others to do the same.
Well the key point is that Bush can't rule by decree which is something Chavez has just given himself (yes, yes I know the congress 'voted' to give that right to Chavez but we all know how that went about). If Bush did try to squash the license of a TV station, or the equivalent of, all hell would break lose.
You do realize Chavez was involved in coup attempts against the government before that? Kind of invalidates your arguement.
Already gone mate. Got my education and was on the first plane out to the States where they appreciate what it means to be innovative and understand that opportunity is what makes a country grow. The US has got to where it has because its government know that ultimately one should interfere as little in the lives as it citizens.
People here in the US are increasingly seeing the BBC as a political, state-funded lefty organisation rather than independent but opinionless minded. I wonder if its attributed to the internet and all that that brings, or if its from a disillusioned new-labour groupies that have discovered that May 1st 1997 in actual fact didn't usher in a new era.
Thats the attitude the GP was referring to - do you think that the lower the
One of the big problems with the "everyone pays the same license fee" concept is that by law you have to have a license to watch TV. Many people watch very little BBC whilst others watch it all the time, but they both pay the same, which seems unfair. With the internet this extuantes the variance further. I would rather see a core smaller license fee with an additional opt-in subscription for those that use different services.
For science degrees a good amount of mathematical skills are needed (for arty-farty subjects no one cares) but the problem is three fold - the governments desire to have lots people going to college (lowering the standard), the cost of going to college has risen, and the newish league tables for high schools. All of these compound with each and result in poor standards. A quick fix would be for Uni science courses to require an A-level in mathematics too, which I'm sure many, if not most, do.
And lets not forget that a dSLR is about its lenses. You can get a Nikon D40 for about $500 if you could get it just as a body. dSLRs give you control over how and what you see. Sure you can compare a static object 5 feet away. But try taking a shot that requires a wide-angle lens or telephoto that requires a steady hand or a tripod.
However, you're right on the point that changing platforms can be more expensive than moving physical locations.
Bingo!