I'm ignorant of the "legal" system in Venezuela (quotes are used since I'm skeptical of the rule of law in that country), but is the burden of proof on the accused in this case?
Actually, the understanding of historical concepts and trends evolves quite a bit. That is why open textbooks could be such a boon - it will allow teachers to exploit new research, rather than parroting an antediluvian consensus that have been since been altered considerably.
No one, for example, takes Gibbon's argument on the Fall of the Roman Empire seriously anymore; similarly, no one takes the argument that Islamic cultures economically failed (in comparison with Europe) because of anti-capitalist religious precepts seriously either. Yet both were a part of serious teaching a few decades ago (the age of some textbooks).
I remember one textbook I had as a child argued that the reason that Lowland Scots prospered in comparison with Highland Scots was due the Protestant work ethic bestowed upon them through Prebyterianism - in comparison, the Highlanders succumbed to their lethargic Catholic proclivities. Hilarious in hindsight, but slightly disturbing as real teaching.
The RIAA campaigned for laws that were in the best interest of their respective shareholders. Copyright laws were passed. The RIAA issues lawsuits based on those laws. The Department of Justice carries out the letter of the law. There is no reason to complain about entities that continue to function as they were intended.
Personally, I would be displeased with actions of the RIAA if I was a shareholder. I do not believe that I ever will be, however, as the standard business structure of this industry does not seem to be viable.
HMOs are not stupid, nor are they wasteful. They are blindingly efficient at denying healthcare to cut costs and increase profits. It is wrong blame a corporation for increasing profits, as corporations are amoral and have no responsibility other than to deliver profits to the shareholders. Thusly, it is wrong to compare transgressions of Senator Ted Stevens to the poor service of health insurance companies. Ted Stevens had a moral duty to act in the best interests of both his constituents and citizens of the United States, without regard for personal gain. If he has accepted bribes, or handed contracts out to associates, then he has utterly failed in that respect.
The point of these exercises in censorship is not to actually accomplish legislation. The effort here is to gain publicity that the Senator does not have to pay for. It is highly doubtful that the Senators actually believe that they are being productive, though they would never admit as much. The perfect political project is one that is righteous yet uncontentious, and relies on the binary moral outlook of good and evil. An attempt to provide alternative perspectives or information, such as this case where proposed legislation is almost certainly unconstitutional, is not as beneficial as simply jumping on the bandwagon. The democratic function relies on this, as the voting process is binary: the politician either receives votes or he does not.
Perhaps you remember the differences between Brutus' and Anthony's speeches to the mob gathered outside the forum? Brutus' speech spoke the people's minds, while Anthony's spoke the people's hearts. The mob chased Brutus and his co-conspirators out of the city. Politics have not changed. Politicians lose more than they gain by being rational.
And it doesn't really matter for the most part where you aim those crosshairs either; the guns are so woefully inaccurate that it takes an entire clip to down a standard humanoid.
Look closer. What you are looking for is the absence of jagged lines. Take, for example, the woman's ear in the Halo 2 screenshot.
It is not something that you would be explicitly aware of, but it would enhance the overall visual experience.
Questioning the insights of The Economist is usually unwise, unless there's a factual error. They're absolutely right, the Google share is massively overpriced, valued on uncertainity and expectation rather than a revenue stream.
It is semi-frightening that Slashdot can know so little of how the actual world works. You know, the world with people, and not the tools they use.
Today, the AG is attacking the corrupt executives like Bernie Ebbers, handing them enough years in prison to make sure that they die in prison.
If you weren't alive/aware in the 80s, it followed a totally different pattern. The AG instead went after the companies, forcing them to pay massive fines, and giving very little in jail time to the executives.
You have to realise, in a lot of these especially large companies, the shareholders didn't know that their money was being spent on parties and diamond curtains. Jail time is more of a detterent than fines, anyway.
Yes, I saw that when it came out, and it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The transparency measures the public's percieved corruption of the political theatre. It does NOT measure virtues of Financial reporting standards.
"Nope...the world doesn't owe me sh*t. However, yes, my government, if working correctly...does have the responsibility to protect its citizens interests both domestic and abroad. By definition....that's why we have a US govt...to help the US in all of its endevours, and to look out for our interests above all others. I don't know of a govt. in the world, successful, that does otherwise."
The United States does a pretty good job of encouraging foreign investment without hurting its domestic enterprises (not as good as it could be, but the best by default). You advocate protectionism, which the long-term effects can be disastrous. Again, please take a look at the economic performance of Europe. High unemployment and low growth are rampant. Show me an example of where protectionism has helped, and I'll give you a cookie.
"Ok, what exactly ARE the great long term benefits?"
Hey! I'm glad you asked! Here they are: Increased specialization. Better economic growth. Better standard of living. Sunshine. Lollipops.
"You are quite right, no one is entitled to anything.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you aren't entitled to your unalienable rights. It is fantastic that we can have this sort of engaging debate, don't you agree?
"That being said, however, why do people see to get indignant about people born in affluent country bitching and fighting to STAY an affluent country? You expect people living with great standards to NOT want to stay on top, and keep that level of lifestyle?"
I believe they will and they should try to do so in a way that improves their ability to compete. Not to shield them from competition.
"Exaggerate? Hardly...I've seen very talented people go unemployed for years at a time...some have to take much lower paying jobs...hell, some have to face the demeaning task of training those who are taking their jobs from them!!
The situation would be much worse if the United States began advocating a model of guaranteed employment.
We can plainly see (Slashdot article yesterday) that due to lack of incentive to enter the computer/tech industry...fewer of our students are enrolling in these degree programs. Why go into a field you can't make a decent living at in ratio to the $$ of school and difficulty of study? And...with a dropping rate of computer/tech people in/from the US...there goes our intellectual edge we've had in the past. No one will be here to create the new inventions.
If the US is losing its advantage, it is due to both the improving education standards of some developing nations and lack of improvements in the American education system. The United States has never had a problem with an 'intellectual edge', since it by far represents the best opportunity for advancement and social mobility. The foreign geniuses want to come here.
Hell...keep that trend up, and it becomes somewhat of a Nat'l security hazard. An extreme point grant it...but, not totally unrealistic.
I don't know, the American defense budget is humongous, dwarfing all others.
Again...please list a number of tangible direct benefits we can see from this. I've easily listed many of the detrimental effects...where are the easily listed benefits to the US with globalization?
A larger market. Cheaper consumer goods. More specialized labor. Better Economic Growth. There are detriments, namely the loss of jobs you mentioned. But the alternative is stagnation.
"See also Mithrandir86 's responses to other posts of the same ilk on the same subject."
I'd love to have Economic debates with you, so long as you give me the location of the editorials/sources you're getting this information from. I like The Economist.
"By off shoring of jobs in the medical, insurance and banking fields, industries that will not expand based into the developing companies, except on a macro- or highest (read stockholder) level, we're effectively gutting the middle class's support of these industries."
"If free trade is the argument, why do US (any parent country) companies routinely offer goods in these developing companies at a fraction of the cost to their US consumer counterparts in order to gain market share? How are these "loss leaders" paid for? By the US (any parent country) consumers."
Cost of labour for one. Overvalued currencies another. American consumers, by the way, are very well treated. Take a look.
"By looking at the situation with rose-colored glasses and calling it free trade, you miss the underlying effects."
I prefer Oakley, actually. But seriously, I don't call what is happening today 'free' trade. It is freer in some geographical areas, but for the most part it is one large protectionist mess. Leaders are trying to give their countries advantages that aid the incumbent megalith far more than the consumer or worker.
"The countries that are benefiting from the off-shoring don't reciprocate by exporting jobs, and overall don't usually utilize US (parent country) goods or services, instead the US (parent country) goods and services usually end up competing with government sponsored goods and services, which, by definition, must be below a competitive price point in order to be effectively subsidized."
Off-shoring, when done correctly, is more of a win-win situation. The West benefits in the long-term from the ability to create a highly specialized, educated workforce, and receive cheap consumer goods now. Emerging economies benefit from the foreign direct investment. The downside is, unfortunately, that low-paying jobs are being moved. (Aside: Government sponsored goods? In the United States? Where?)
"I agree that it is quite easy to move a "corporation" off-shore. But if a company has 15 executives and salesmen in the US and 1300 workers in another country, are they still a "US" company or should they be considered as such?
You're talking about holding corporations. Most countries with emerging economies limit the stake a foreigner can hold. In China for example, the general number is 50%. In a case as you describe, the holding company will be American while the subsidiary will be Chinese. For tax purposes, corporations general use the indecipherable mess that is US tax/support system pay as little as possible. A flat tax reform would greatly alleviate these examples of creative accounting.
"Microsoft considers itself a US company, specifically a Washington state based company, but many of it's letters of incorporation are filed in Nevada, whereby they avoid over a $140 million in local Washington state taxes a year. They are "Redmond, Washington" in name only, and the land tax breaks that Washington gave them years ago in order to bring jobs to the area are being mitigated by Microsoft's increasing off-shoring of their code work and slick legal wrangling.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft was off-shoring. Point me a link? I migh
I never joke about international trade (unless its funny, in which case, I am laughing with you).
"And you seem to think that being nationalistic is something bad?? Why would anyone NOT want their country to come out on top? This life is a constant struggle, a perpetual contest to see who can win. Life IS competition, and frankly, I'd like to be on the winning side as often as possible."
Right, but you seem to believe that the world owes you special favors because you were born in a wealthy country. Is it the responsibility of the government to guarantee your employment? To safeguard your business from foreign competitors? To subsidize your exports? Such action leads to long-term stagnation and high unemployment, as indicted by the performance of the French economy. Freer economies, like those found in the UK and US, benefit in the long-term from increased specialization (In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith relates the size of the available economy to specialization of labor), and a higher standard of living. The poor benefit proportionally.
"And while I don't advent keeping anyone down, I certainly am not altrusitic enough to want to give to others 'till it hurts'."
Altruism has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the long-term gains of opening markets to transparent international trade.
"I not only don't want others to succeed at our expense, but, I can't stand the fact that our country is actively hurting our citizens by thoughtlessly shipping our tech jobs overseas for a short term gain, but, losing sight of the long term detrimental effects....
Actually, the problem is the inverse: there are long-term benefits and short-term costs of jobs. History has proven this, time and time again.
the main one being that if we don't have tech people working here, how will we continue to innovate? Already, we see the effects in that our young people are NOT working toward computer and other tech degrees as much as in the past.
The opposite is also true: if we close our borders, how will our companies have the incentive to innovate?
to a point, you are right. Sure, there are criminal types all over the world. However, different cultures have different degrees of what they consider to be crimes. It does seem that India does not view privacy ideals, and minor theft of such as great of a crime as it is in the US by statute. Sure we have people that will do the same here in the US. However, we can catch them here and prosecute them. I doubt the same can be said of India.
You're absolutely right here. The United States is the best country in the world when it comes to transparency and combating visible corruption. Corruption and creative accounting are actually one of the largest barriers to international trade and the developing world.
And lets face it...people in a country are going to be a bit more careful with treating their own people and their information than they will that of peoples of other countries. Someone that might be on the 'brink' of doing something wrong like this might think twice if it is a fellow countryman's info, rather than a foreigner's information.
Perhaps. I would suppose it has more to do with not associating #13442 with a real person who can be harmed than anything else. I will concede that was probably foolish to leave sensitive information in an unsecured facility.
And finally....you and others keep saying "In the long run, it will be better". Better for who?
For the motivated, educated worker, the future will be of fantastic opportunity. But of course, I, The Economist, and countless others, could be lying to you. Protectionism seems to working ok for Scandinavia and France, and it worked out ok for Japan, and China, right?
"I cannot see how this benefits the US at all....shipping off jobs and creating u
Yeah, he uses the paid Yahoo service for personal Email. He's more worried of supporting the precedent in concept than actually worrying that "they" are going to read his emails.
...it will only mean the end to resource-heavy flash ads that his company makes. The only reason I use adblock is because it is difficult for me to go to certain sites without shutting down my browser.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm ignorant of the "legal" system in Venezuela (quotes are used since I'm skeptical of the rule of law in that country), but is the burden of proof on the accused in this case?
No one, for example, takes Gibbon's argument on the Fall of the Roman Empire seriously anymore; similarly, no one takes the argument that Islamic cultures economically failed (in comparison with Europe) because of anti-capitalist religious precepts seriously either. Yet both were a part of serious teaching a few decades ago (the age of some textbooks).
I remember one textbook I had as a child argued that the reason that Lowland Scots prospered in comparison with Highland Scots was due the Protestant work ethic bestowed upon them through Prebyterianism - in comparison, the Highlanders succumbed to their lethargic Catholic proclivities. Hilarious in hindsight, but slightly disturbing as real teaching.
That is not how this system works.
The RIAA campaigned for laws that were in the best interest of their respective shareholders. Copyright laws were passed. The RIAA issues lawsuits based on those laws. The Department of Justice carries out the letter of the law. There is no reason to complain about entities that continue to function as they were intended.
Personally, I would be displeased with actions of the RIAA if I was a shareholder. I do not believe that I ever will be, however, as the standard business structure of this industry does not seem to be viable.
HMOs are not stupid, nor are they wasteful. They are blindingly efficient at denying healthcare to cut costs and increase profits. It is wrong blame a corporation for increasing profits, as corporations are amoral and have no responsibility other than to deliver profits to the shareholders. Thusly, it is wrong to compare transgressions of Senator Ted Stevens to the poor service of health insurance companies. Ted Stevens had a moral duty to act in the best interests of both his constituents and citizens of the United States, without regard for personal gain. If he has accepted bribes, or handed contracts out to associates, then he has utterly failed in that respect.
The point of these exercises in censorship is not to actually accomplish legislation. The effort here is to gain publicity that the Senator does not have to pay for. It is highly doubtful that the Senators actually believe that they are being productive, though they would never admit as much. The perfect political project is one that is righteous yet uncontentious, and relies on the binary moral outlook of good and evil. An attempt to provide alternative perspectives or information, such as this case where proposed legislation is almost certainly unconstitutional, is not as beneficial as simply jumping on the bandwagon. The democratic function relies on this, as the voting process is binary: the politician either receives votes or he does not. Perhaps you remember the differences between Brutus' and Anthony's speeches to the mob gathered outside the forum? Brutus' speech spoke the people's minds, while Anthony's spoke the people's hearts. The mob chased Brutus and his co-conspirators out of the city. Politics have not changed. Politicians lose more than they gain by being rational.
And it doesn't really matter for the most part where you aim those crosshairs either; the guns are so woefully inaccurate that it takes an entire clip to down a standard humanoid.
Does this mean I should hold my next S&M party out in the desert?
Look closer. What you are looking for is the absence of jagged lines. Take, for example, the woman's ear in the Halo 2 screenshot. It is not something that you would be explicitly aware of, but it would enhance the overall visual experience.
Whew. I almost ruined my pants.
The only reason people play Horde is to kill Alliance. We care very little of anything else.
There's really no need to online, as most credit cards have age requirements.
Your title is "Totally Wrong", but you don't seem to disagree with the magazine at all. In fact, you just seem to simplify it.
You're thinking 1999. The new "online trading" is now property development. That's the bubble comming to burst.
Yeah, it sucks. But we're at a loss on what to replace it with.
Questioning the insights of The Economist is usually unwise, unless there's a factual error. They're absolutely right, the Google share is massively overpriced, valued on uncertainity and expectation rather than a revenue stream.
It is semi-frightening that Slashdot can know so little of how the actual world works. You know, the world with people, and not the tools they use.
Today, the AG is attacking the corrupt executives like Bernie Ebbers, handing them enough years in prison to make sure that they die in prison.
If you weren't alive/aware in the 80s, it followed a totally different pattern. The AG instead went after the companies, forcing them to pay massive fines, and giving very little in jail time to the executives.
You have to realise, in a lot of these especially large companies, the shareholders didn't know that their money was being spent on parties and diamond curtains. Jail time is more of a detterent than fines, anyway.
You're exactly right. You're not an economist.
You are confusing "facts" with "anecdotes".
Yes, I saw that when it came out, and it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The transparency measures the public's percieved corruption of the political theatre. It does NOT measure virtues of Financial reporting standards.
The United States does a pretty good job of encouraging foreign investment without hurting its domestic enterprises (not as good as it could be, but the best by default). You advocate protectionism, which the long-term effects can be disastrous. Again, please take a look at the economic performance of Europe. High unemployment and low growth are rampant. Show me an example of where protectionism has helped, and I'll give you a cookie.
"Ok, what exactly ARE the great long term benefits?"
Hey! I'm glad you asked! Here they are: Increased specialization. Better economic growth. Better standard of living. Sunshine. Lollipops.
"You are quite right, no one is entitled to anything.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you aren't entitled to your unalienable rights. It is fantastic that we can have this sort of engaging debate, don't you agree?
"That being said, however, why do people see to get indignant about people born in affluent country bitching and fighting to STAY an affluent country? You expect people living with great standards to NOT want to stay on top, and keep that level of lifestyle?"
I believe they will and they should try to do so in a way that improves their ability to compete. Not to shield them from competition.
"Exaggerate? Hardly...I've seen very talented people go unemployed for years at a time...some have to take much lower paying jobs...hell, some have to face the demeaning task of training those who are taking their jobs from them!!
The situation would be much worse if the United States began advocating a model of guaranteed employment.
We can plainly see (Slashdot article yesterday) that due to lack of incentive to enter the computer/tech industry...fewer of our students are enrolling in these degree programs. Why go into a field you can't make a decent living at in ratio to the $$ of school and difficulty of study? And...with a dropping rate of computer/tech people in/from the US...there goes our intellectual edge we've had in the past. No one will be here to create the new inventions.
If the US is losing its advantage, it is due to both the improving education standards of some developing nations and lack of improvements in the American education system. The United States has never had a problem with an 'intellectual edge', since it by far represents the best opportunity for advancement and social mobility. The foreign geniuses want to come here.
Hell...keep that trend up, and it becomes somewhat of a Nat'l security hazard. An extreme point grant it...but, not totally unrealistic.
I don't know, the American defense budget is humongous, dwarfing all others.
Again...please list a number of tangible direct benefits we can see from this. I've easily listed many of the detrimental effects...where are the easily listed benefits to the US with globalization?
A larger market. Cheaper consumer goods. More specialized labor. Better Economic Growth. There are detriments, namely the loss of jobs you mentioned. But the alternative is stagnation.
I'd love to have Economic debates with you, so long as you give me the location of the editorials/sources you're getting this information from. I like The Economist.
"By off shoring of jobs in the medical, insurance and banking fields, industries that will not expand based into the developing companies, except on a macro- or highest (read stockholder) level, we're effectively gutting the middle class's support of these industries."
I wasn't aware that the medical industry was off shoring. I just read Scripps is opening a new facility in Palm Beach. Biotech is a huge industry in the United States. Also Bank of America just got into the Chinese banking business.
"If free trade is the argument, why do US (any parent country) companies routinely offer goods in these developing companies at a fraction of the cost to their US consumer counterparts in order to gain market share? How are these "loss leaders" paid for? By the US (any parent country) consumers."
Cost of labour for one. Overvalued currencies another. American consumers, by the way, are very well treated. Take a look.
"By looking at the situation with rose-colored glasses and calling it free trade, you miss the underlying effects."
I prefer Oakley, actually. But seriously, I don't call what is happening today 'free' trade. It is freer in some geographical areas, but for the most part it is one large protectionist mess. Leaders are trying to give their countries advantages that aid the incumbent megalith far more than the consumer or worker.
"The countries that are benefiting from the off-shoring don't reciprocate by exporting jobs, and overall don't usually utilize US (parent country) goods or services, instead the US (parent country) goods and services usually end up competing with government sponsored goods and services, which, by definition, must be below a competitive price point in order to be effectively subsidized."
Off-shoring, when done correctly, is more of a win-win situation. The West benefits in the long-term from the ability to create a highly specialized, educated workforce, and receive cheap consumer goods now. Emerging economies benefit from the foreign direct investment. The downside is, unfortunately, that low-paying jobs are being moved. (Aside: Government sponsored goods? In the United States? Where?)
"I agree that it is quite easy to move a "corporation" off-shore. But if a company has 15 executives and salesmen in the US and 1300 workers in another country, are they still a "US" company or should they be considered as such?
You're talking about holding corporations. Most countries with emerging economies limit the stake a foreigner can hold. In China for example, the general number is 50%. In a case as you describe, the holding company will be American while the subsidiary will be Chinese. For tax purposes, corporations general use the indecipherable mess that is US tax/support system pay as little as possible. A flat tax reform would greatly alleviate these examples of creative accounting.
"Microsoft considers itself a US company, specifically a Washington state based company, but many of it's letters of incorporation are filed in Nevada, whereby they avoid over a $140 million in local Washington state taxes a year. They are "Redmond, Washington" in name only, and the land tax breaks that Washington gave them years ago in order to bring jobs to the area are being mitigated by Microsoft's increasing off-shoring of their code work and slick legal wrangling.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft was off-shoring. Point me a link? I migh
I never joke about international trade (unless its funny, in which case, I am laughing with you).
"And you seem to think that being nationalistic is something bad?? Why would anyone NOT want their country to come out on top? This life is a constant struggle, a perpetual contest to see who can win. Life IS competition, and frankly, I'd like to be on the winning side as often as possible."
Right, but you seem to believe that the world owes you special favors because you were born in a wealthy country. Is it the responsibility of the government to guarantee your employment? To safeguard your business from foreign competitors? To subsidize your exports? Such action leads to long-term stagnation and high unemployment, as indicted by the performance of the French economy. Freer economies, like those found in the UK and US, benefit in the long-term from increased specialization (In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith relates the size of the available economy to specialization of labor), and a higher standard of living. The poor benefit proportionally.
"And while I don't advent keeping anyone down, I certainly am not altrusitic enough to want to give to others 'till it hurts'."
Altruism has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the long-term gains of opening markets to transparent international trade.
"I not only don't want others to succeed at our expense, but, I can't stand the fact that our country is actively hurting our citizens by thoughtlessly shipping our tech jobs overseas for a short term gain, but, losing sight of the long term detrimental effects....
Actually, the problem is the inverse: there are long-term benefits and short-term costs of jobs. History has proven this, time and time again.
the main one being that if we don't have tech people working here, how will we continue to innovate? Already, we see the effects in that our young people are NOT working toward computer and other tech degrees as much as in the past.
The opposite is also true: if we close our borders, how will our companies have the incentive to innovate?
to a point, you are right. Sure, there are criminal types all over the world. However, different cultures have different degrees of what they consider to be crimes. It does seem that India does not view privacy ideals, and minor theft of such as great of a crime as it is in the US by statute. Sure we have people that will do the same here in the US. However, we can catch them here and prosecute them. I doubt the same can be said of India.
You're absolutely right here. The United States is the best country in the world when it comes to transparency and combating visible corruption. Corruption and creative accounting are actually one of the largest barriers to international trade and the developing world.
And lets face it...people in a country are going to be a bit more careful with treating their own people and their information than they will that of peoples of other countries. Someone that might be on the 'brink' of doing something wrong like this might think twice if it is a fellow countryman's info, rather than a foreigner's information.
Perhaps. I would suppose it has more to do with not associating #13442 with a real person who can be harmed than anything else. I will concede that was probably foolish to leave sensitive information in an unsecured facility.
And finally....you and others keep saying "In the long run, it will be better". Better for who?
For the motivated, educated worker, the future will be of fantastic opportunity. But of course, I, The Economist, and countless others, could be lying to you. Protectionism seems to working ok for Scandinavia and France, and it worked out ok for Japan, and China, right?
"I cannot see how this benefits the US at all....shipping off jobs and creating u
Yeah, he uses the paid Yahoo service for personal Email. He's more worried of supporting the precedent in concept than actually worrying that "they" are going to read his emails.
...it will only mean the end to resource-heavy flash ads that his company makes. The only reason I use adblock is because it is difficult for me to go to certain sites without shutting down my browser.
My father believes GMail represents a dangerous precendent that sets the stage for unregulated legal intrusions into an inbox.