I read something very interesting a while ago. Apparently when the waltz was introduced in Europe in the late 18th or early 19th century (I forget) it was considered extremely sexual and ungodly. Now the waltz is something an upper class, "refined" couple would do. This didn't take very long either, just ten or twenty years. Even earlier than that, any dancing at all was sexual and a detriment to society.
The same thing has happened throughout American history, as you pointed out. Jazz music, almost universally agreed upon now to be America's greatest art form, was denounced both by racists and by conservatives. You would think that somewhere along the line people would gain a sense of perspective on situations like these. Apparently this thing is doomed to repeat over and over again. I hope my generation won't fall for it, although undoubtedly they will.
This does not mean that it is inferred that South America is outside of America. It's just a whole lot easier than saying the United States of America each time you refer to the country. The same goes with the term 'American'. It is much easier, and sounds better, to say American in a conversation than 'USofAn', 'United Statian' or 'United Statite'. I don't think that anybody in the Americas outside of the United States should necessarily take offense.
A similar example can be found in Africa. Two countries share the name of 'Congo', the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the U.S. we refer to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as 'Congo' and the Republic of Congo as 'The Congo'. It isn't because one is inferior, it's just really annoying to have to use the formal name every time you refer to a country.
I think that it is also worth noting that in the beginning of the country, people referred to where they were from by state. If, for example, Thomas Jefferson was in Paris and was asked what nationality he was, he would respond 'Virginian', not American. This shifted after the Civil War, as anyone who studied American History knows. The phrase changed from "The United States are" to "The United States is."
I'm pretty lucky about that kind of thing. Whoever the Army and Air Force recruiters that were trying to get me to join must've been half retarded. I scored in the 99th percentile on my ASVAB test, and so I was getting called constantly from the Navy, Army, and Air Force.
I told both the Army and Air Force guys that I was somewhat interested, but I was going on vacation for a few weeks. They both assured me they would call to set up a meeting.
They never called me when I got back, and consequently I never got to set up the meeting.
I was actually pretty disappointed in them that they would constantly harass people that obviously had no intention of joining the military, then let someone who was interested go away without even talking to me. Oh well, no skin off my back.
But as the Constitution is the basis of U.S. government, it only serves U.S. citizens. It wouldn't make sense that citizens of another country would be protected by the Constitution. U.S. law does not apply in any other country, nor does it protect anyone but U.S. citizens.
In the U.S., the driver (or walker, hunter, whatever) has to be aware of whether they are on private or public land. It is not the land-owner's responsibility to post signs across their entire property.
Now, I don't think that anybody is going to be arrested for driving up somebody's private road, but it is technically illegal. Similarly, I doubt anybody is going to get arrested for logging onto someone else's home network (even if it is secured). But when you are doing something that is blatantly illegal in public view regularly for three months, don't be surprised when you get arrested.
Please mod the parent up, this is a really well-written and informative response. The only thing I would add is that Democratic Socialism in a lot of countries has as many problems as the current economic-political system as the United States. Some countries, including to a certain extent the U.S., are being hammered by a social welfare system (or whatever you want to call it) that is too generous. Take a look at Germany a few years ago. Because the welfare system was so beneficial, some people could make almost as much money being unemployed as they could at a low-paying job. The system shouldn't protect a person that is lazy. It should encourage success for hard work and protect those who are unfortunate. The key, and the most difficult part, is to strike a balance between the two.
At heart, the systems we use are essentially just opposite sides of the median. The Socialist democracies have a more comprehensive social welfare system than the U.S., but both work equally well IMO. The difference in how conservative each country is doesn't lie in the system, but in the people who are in power. Unfortunately, the neo-cons have hijacked the Republican voter base and convinced people that they stand for the same Republican principles that people have been voting for their entire life, when really they have a whole separate ideology. And by and large, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be dragged into the "morals and values" debate, which is just ridiculous.
P.S. Everybody should check out that book. I haven't read the whole thing, but it's an interesting read even if you don't agree with him.
Just to clarify, it wasn't a national drinking age of 18. Before the federal government started sticking their noses into state matters, there was not a national drinking age. The states were free to determine it themselves. A little over half the states had a drinking age that was under 21, and of these most were age 19.
There still technically isn't a mandatory national drinking age, but should a state change it to under 21 years of age, they then lose 10% of their federal highway funding. Pretty messed up if you ask me.
Guess what? Some people actually object to copyright infringment. It's more than just "taking the chance that you will get caught." While you seem to have no problem with it, very few people will resort to downloading all their music. Most people I know do it casually, but they still buy CD's. People that follow the law shouldn't be punished by taking away their fair use rights.
And what is up with you calling non-techies sheep? That is just condescending. Just because people don't have they same level of technical knowledge does not make them inferior.
Unfortunately, using less paper does not necessarily mean that we will have more trees. Trees, as we all know, are a renewable resource. We, at least in the U.S., grow trees to make paper. Virgin forest usually aren't being cut down to manufacture paper. If we consume more paper it doesn't mean that we will be cutting down more forest, it just means that more paper will be grown to support the added demand.
This doesn't mean that there are no environmental impacts that come along with manufacturing paper. There is a decent amount of pollution caused by the production of paper. But one of the side effects is not a reduction in the number of trees we have.
"Not only is Google a major threat to our constitutional right to privacy but it is also a major leech of other people's copyrighted material."
Google does not threaten our privacy because it only indexes things that are already available on the internet. Google isn't breaking into private systems and posting their content on the web, it is just making already visible content easier to find.
"WE THE DEVELOPERS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE WHICH GOOGLE LEECHED DO NOT GET TO SEE IT!!!!"
They have their right to privacy just as much as you have a right to yours. If they do not want to give up the algorithm or tools they use to index/search, then they have that right. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. And typing in all caps does not make your point any stronger.
"Google produces nothing, they organize your stuff for you without you asking for it, and they get really well paid for that."
They produce a service which people find useful. Just because they don't make a hard good does not mean they do not produce anything.
"They use open source tools but give nothing back to open source, they use your website and they give you some traffic in return, traffic which your content earned anyway."
I think that Google's contributions to the open source field are much more significant than you claim. It is pretty well documented that Google allows their employees to contribute to open source projects on company time. They also have programs such as the Summer of Code where they pay college students to contribute to open source projects.
I don't really know what your problem is with Google. They don't alter your content in any way, and they provide a valuable service to people. If you don't like Google, you don't have to use it.
Please mod the parent down. I don't know how this possibly got modded insightful. It is pure anti-Americanism with absolutely no logical or rational point. If the US government puts a space station in a LG point the inevitable outcome will be the further degradation of our personal safety? How could that possibly pass as a rational thought in anybody's mind, especially as it is a single sentence with absolutely nothing to back it up? That is just a senseless threat. Constructive criticism is one thing, this is just ridiculous.
Corporations are not entirely amoral. As Milton Friedman wrote in his essay The Social Responsibility of a Business Is to Increase Its Profits, a corporation is required to maximize profits within the legal and ethical bounds enacted on it by society. Nearly all corporations follow this rule.
By using filtering technology, these corporations are not breaking any legal or ethical rules. Ethics are essentially subjective, and in China it is not illegal or unethical to filter the internet. If people in China disagreed with this, then they would rise up and overthrow the government. You can make the case that this is exactly what is happening in China right now.
If we in the US decided that it was unethical for companies to do business in certain ways, then we would either stop using the product or pass legislature to prevent an unethical action. Examples of this happening would be the Sherman Antitrust Act or the tobacco lawsuits of a few years ago. What most people don't realize is that they are responsible for holding corporations accountable for their actions, not necessarily the corporations themselves.
Because other civilized countries recognize that not necessarily all killing is wrong, and in certain cases the execution of a criminal is in the best interest of the state. There are no moral objections to executing somebody who has violated their responsiblity as a citizen to obey the most important laws of the country. The criminals still have the right to due process, and most sit on death row for a very long time before they are actually executed. Even Timothy McVeigh, the man behind the largest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history, was not executed until six years after the Oklahoma City bombing. In the Unites States, while this punishment is legal in certain states, it is very rarely used. Except in Texas.
As far as I understand it, the only way it is considered "predatory pricing" is when they later raise the price after their competition has been driven out of the market. Then they are acting as a monopoly. So in the case of IE, it wasn't predatory pricing because of the fact that IE is still free. Bundling IE with Windows for free was not in violation of any laws as far as I know. There's nothing wrong with augmenting your operating system with a free web browser, even if it did kill your beloved Netscape.
You're right, but the variable cost of each individual unit actually goes down when a larger number of units is manufactured. So if there is an overhead of $1000 dollars(for demonstration purposes) and you make 1,000 units at $1 a piece, then you have a total expense of $2000. But if you make, say 10,000 units, the price of manufacturing each unit might go down to $.90. Then your expenses would be $10,000. You spent five times as much, but you have ten times as many units on the market. So you might be spending more overall, but as long as you can sell all the units you produce, you'll be making a larger profit. That's what the article means when it talks about the savings from mass production.
Please mod parent down as off-topic. What does this have to do with the Supreme Court ruling against Grokster? All this is is a rant against the U.S. where the poster has simply copied and pasted a huge list from another website without providing the link. Besides, since when are Colorado, West Virginia, Washington DC, Detroit, and Los Angeles foreign countries?
No, it's more like someone opening your door and watching you have sex with your wife. Just because you left your door unlocked and allowed them easy access to your house does not mean that they are doing nothing wrong by opening up the door and peeking inside. While I agree it is stupid for someone to leave their computer unsecured, security holes do exist and it is does not absolve a hacker of any wrongdoing just because it was easy to get in.
We can't stop trading with them because we are both members of the World Trade Organization. The WTO is, for those who don't know, a worldwide organization for liberalizing trade. It is a forum for international discussion. Before China was admitted to the WTO, we were able to use trade restrictions as leverage in human rights negotiations, but now it isn't so easy. Since both countries (assuming you're talking about the U.S.) are members of the WTO, any dispute must be brought before the WTO to be discussed. This limits one country's ability to halt trade with another.
Slashdot Mirror
I read something very interesting a while ago. Apparently when the waltz was introduced in Europe in the late 18th or early 19th century (I forget) it was considered extremely sexual and ungodly. Now the waltz is something an upper class, "refined" couple would do. This didn't take very long either, just ten or twenty years. Even earlier than that, any dancing at all was sexual and a detriment to society.
The same thing has happened throughout American history, as you pointed out. Jazz music, almost universally agreed upon now to be America's greatest art form, was denounced both by racists and by conservatives. You would think that somewhere along the line people would gain a sense of perspective on situations like these. Apparently this thing is doomed to repeat over and over again. I hope my generation won't fall for it, although undoubtedly they will.
This does not mean that it is inferred that South America is outside of America. It's just a whole lot easier than saying the United States of America each time you refer to the country. The same goes with the term 'American'. It is much easier, and sounds better, to say American in a conversation than 'USofAn', 'United Statian' or 'United Statite'. I don't think that anybody in the Americas outside of the United States should necessarily take offense.
A similar example can be found in Africa. Two countries share the name of 'Congo', the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the U.S. we refer to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as 'Congo' and the Republic of Congo as 'The Congo'. It isn't because one is inferior, it's just really annoying to have to use the formal name every time you refer to a country.
I think that it is also worth noting that in the beginning of the country, people referred to where they were from by state. If, for example, Thomas Jefferson was in Paris and was asked what nationality he was, he would respond 'Virginian', not American. This shifted after the Civil War, as anyone who studied American History knows. The phrase changed from "The United States are" to "The United States is."
I'm pretty lucky about that kind of thing. Whoever the Army and Air Force recruiters that were trying to get me to join must've been half retarded. I scored in the 99th percentile on my ASVAB test, and so I was getting called constantly from the Navy, Army, and Air Force.
I told both the Army and Air Force guys that I was somewhat interested, but I was going on vacation for a few weeks. They both assured me they would call to set up a meeting.
They never called me when I got back, and consequently I never got to set up the meeting.
I was actually pretty disappointed in them that they would constantly harass people that obviously had no intention of joining the military, then let someone who was interested go away without even talking to me. Oh well, no skin off my back.
But as the Constitution is the basis of U.S. government, it only serves U.S. citizens. It wouldn't make sense that citizens of another country would be protected by the Constitution. U.S. law does not apply in any other country, nor does it protect anyone but U.S. citizens.
In the U.S., the driver (or walker, hunter, whatever) has to be aware of whether they are on private or public land. It is not the land-owner's responsibility to post signs across their entire property.
Now, I don't think that anybody is going to be arrested for driving up somebody's private road, but it is technically illegal. Similarly, I doubt anybody is going to get arrested for logging onto someone else's home network (even if it is secured). But when you are doing something that is blatantly illegal in public view regularly for three months, don't be surprised when you get arrested.
Please mod the parent up, this is a really well-written and informative response. The only thing I would add is that Democratic Socialism in a lot of countries has as many problems as the current economic-political system as the United States. Some countries, including to a certain extent the U.S., are being hammered by a social welfare system (or whatever you want to call it) that is too generous. Take a look at Germany a few years ago. Because the welfare system was so beneficial, some people could make almost as much money being unemployed as they could at a low-paying job. The system shouldn't protect a person that is lazy. It should encourage success for hard work and protect those who are unfortunate. The key, and the most difficult part, is to strike a balance between the two.
At heart, the systems we use are essentially just opposite sides of the median. The Socialist democracies have a more comprehensive social welfare system than the U.S., but both work equally well IMO. The difference in how conservative each country is doesn't lie in the system, but in the people who are in power. Unfortunately, the neo-cons have hijacked the Republican voter base and convinced people that they stand for the same Republican principles that people have been voting for their entire life, when really they have a whole separate ideology. And by and large, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be dragged into the "morals and values" debate, which is just ridiculous.
P.S. Everybody should check out that book. I haven't read the whole thing, but it's an interesting read even if you don't agree with him.
Just to clarify, it wasn't a national drinking age of 18. Before the federal government started sticking their noses into state matters, there was not a national drinking age. The states were free to determine it themselves. A little over half the states had a drinking age that was under 21, and of these most were age 19.
There still technically isn't a mandatory national drinking age, but should a state change it to under 21 years of age, they then lose 10% of their federal highway funding. Pretty messed up if you ask me.
Guess what? Some people actually object to copyright infringment. It's more than just "taking the chance that you will get caught." While you seem to have no problem with it, very few people will resort to downloading all their music. Most people I know do it casually, but they still buy CD's. People that follow the law shouldn't be punished by taking away their fair use rights.
And what is up with you calling non-techies sheep? That is just condescending. Just because people don't have they same level of technical knowledge does not make them inferior.
Unfortunately, using less paper does not necessarily mean that we will have more trees. Trees, as we all know, are a renewable resource. We, at least in the U.S., grow trees to make paper. Virgin forest usually aren't being cut down to manufacture paper. If we consume more paper it doesn't mean that we will be cutting down more forest, it just means that more paper will be grown to support the added demand.
This doesn't mean that there are no environmental impacts that come along with manufacturing paper. There is a decent amount of pollution caused by the production of paper. But one of the side effects is not a reduction in the number of trees we have.
Google does not threaten our privacy because it only indexes things that are already available on the internet. Google isn't breaking into private systems and posting their content on the web, it is just making already visible content easier to find.
They have their right to privacy just as much as you have a right to yours. If they do not want to give up the algorithm or tools they use to index/search, then they have that right. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. And typing in all caps does not make your point any stronger.
They produce a service which people find useful. Just because they don't make a hard good does not mean they do not produce anything.
I think that Google's contributions to the open source field are much more significant than you claim. It is pretty well documented that Google allows their employees to contribute to open source projects on company time. They also have programs such as the Summer of Code where they pay college students to contribute to open source projects.
I don't really know what your problem is with Google. They don't alter your content in any way, and they provide a valuable service to people. If you don't like Google, you don't have to use it.
Please mod the parent down. I don't know how this possibly got modded insightful. It is pure anti-Americanism with absolutely no logical or rational point. If the US government puts a space station in a LG point the inevitable outcome will be the further degradation of our personal safety? How could that possibly pass as a rational thought in anybody's mind, especially as it is a single sentence with absolutely nothing to back it up? That is just a senseless threat. Constructive criticism is one thing, this is just ridiculous.
Corporations are not entirely amoral. As Milton Friedman wrote in his essay The Social Responsibility of a Business Is to Increase Its Profits, a corporation is required to maximize profits within the legal and ethical bounds enacted on it by society. Nearly all corporations follow this rule.
By using filtering technology, these corporations are not breaking any legal or ethical rules. Ethics are essentially subjective, and in China it is not illegal or unethical to filter the internet. If people in China disagreed with this, then they would rise up and overthrow the government. You can make the case that this is exactly what is happening in China right now.
If we in the US decided that it was unethical for companies to do business in certain ways, then we would either stop using the product or pass legislature to prevent an unethical action. Examples of this happening would be the Sherman Antitrust Act or the tobacco lawsuits of a few years ago. What most people don't realize is that they are responsible for holding corporations accountable for their actions, not necessarily the corporations themselves.
Because other civilized countries recognize that not necessarily all killing is wrong, and in certain cases the execution of a criminal is in the best interest of the state. There are no moral objections to executing somebody who has violated their responsiblity as a citizen to obey the most important laws of the country. The criminals still have the right to due process, and most sit on death row for a very long time before they are actually executed. Even Timothy McVeigh, the man behind the largest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history, was not executed until six years after the Oklahoma City bombing. In the Unites States, while this punishment is legal in certain states, it is very rarely used. Except in Texas.
As far as I understand it, the only way it is considered "predatory pricing" is when they later raise the price after their competition has been driven out of the market. Then they are acting as a monopoly. So in the case of IE, it wasn't predatory pricing because of the fact that IE is still free. Bundling IE with Windows for free was not in violation of any laws as far as I know. There's nothing wrong with augmenting your operating system with a free web browser, even if it did kill your beloved Netscape.
You're right, but the variable cost of each individual unit actually goes down when a larger number of units is manufactured. So if there is an overhead of $1000 dollars(for demonstration purposes) and you make 1,000 units at $1 a piece, then you have a total expense of $2000. But if you make, say 10,000 units, the price of manufacturing each unit might go down to $.90. Then your expenses would be $10,000. You spent five times as much, but you have ten times as many units on the market. So you might be spending more overall, but as long as you can sell all the units you produce, you'll be making a larger profit. That's what the article means when it talks about the savings from mass production.
Please mod parent down as off-topic. What does this have to do with the Supreme Court ruling against Grokster? All this is is a rant against the U.S. where the poster has simply copied and pasted a huge list from another website without providing the link. Besides, since when are Colorado, West Virginia, Washington DC, Detroit, and Los Angeles foreign countries?
No, it's more like someone opening your door and watching you have sex with your wife. Just because you left your door unlocked and allowed them easy access to your house does not mean that they are doing nothing wrong by opening up the door and peeking inside. While I agree it is stupid for someone to leave their computer unsecured, security holes do exist and it is does not absolve a hacker of any wrongdoing just because it was easy to get in.
We can't stop trading with them because we are both members of the World Trade Organization. The WTO is, for those who don't know, a worldwide organization for liberalizing trade. It is a forum for international discussion. Before China was admitted to the WTO, we were able to use trade restrictions as leverage in human rights negotiations, but now it isn't so easy. Since both countries (assuming you're talking about the U.S.) are members of the WTO, any dispute must be brought before the WTO to be discussed. This limits one country's ability to halt trade with another.