How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?
I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you meant, "How would Chinese feel if some Chinese company doing business in the U.S. claimed that Chinese law should not be upheld in the U.S.?"
Since the PRC government is more than willing to prosecute Chinese nationals for violations of Chinese law in parts of the world where the PRC does not have jurisdiction, this is still a bad comparison to make, especially since the U.S. will do the same thing in certain instances.
The question is: if the U.S. government is willing to prosecute some violations of U.S. law overseas, why not others?
And the answer is simple: Yahoo (and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation) has a better lobbyist presence than child molesters.
Maybe they can't. Shit, I guess that means that companies benefitting from an American base of operations shouldn't do business with repressive regimes through their subsidiaries.
If you're in a rural area and actually equate the necessity of broadband access with the necessity of electricity access, then perhaps you should move to an urban/suburban/exurban area. I don't think anybody in my neck of the middle of nowhere would see any validity in your comparison.
A lot of slashdotters just can't wrap their minds around the idea that some people simply don't want broadband.
Exactly. When I first moved to New England, I had a few conversations along this line:
Me: Is that a modem I hear? Wow, that's a blast from the past. How expensive is broadband out here?
Them: I dunno, but why would I need it anyway? I just check my e-mail and buy stuff online.
Me: But what about streaming video? VOIP? Illegal music downloads?
Them: (quizzical/semi-contemptuous stare)
A few of these led to a truth that should have been obvious: people who move to, or stay in, the middle of nowhere generally don't play with the same toys as the "rest of us."
Now, if there's ever a snowmobile crisis up here, get ready for a shitstorm.
The question we have to ask ourselves as a nation, is do we want to return to a situation where production is centered on large urban areas or make the investment in infrastructure to make rural areas viable.
As much as I like option #2, it seems this question has already been decided.
Hell, the majority of the U.S. population was urbanized before WWI. We can't "return" to option #1, because we haven't been outside it in living memory (sorry, centenarians.)
I notice a lot of comments pointing out, reasonably, that since we the taxpayers have already payed for research, we should not be expected to pay for it again to the benefit of a few businessmen with a special interest.
The concept makes sense...to most of us, at any rate.
Sorry, but I think that after watching some of the hypocrisy of the past seven years, many Americans now know the difference between substantive policy and "talking things."
Of course, if the Repubs wanted to "co-opt" these issues by regulating business and trade practices, building a better education system, cutting pollution, and ensuring that the citizens of the world's richest country have access to health care, then I'd be all for them, but I somehow doubt that their shareholders...er, major donors want anything to do with it.
Ah yes. The right to be entertained being denied to Americans. Next up, the government stops you from getting fat.
Know you were joking, but that is the case. In NY and a lot of other places, the government is banning trans fats.
Huh? You can still get as fat as you like on all the starches, sugars, and saturated fat you like. Trans fats are a manufacturing convenience that is strongly and indisputedly linked to heart disease at a far greater rate than conventional "bad fats." This has been known since the early '90s, and many manufacturers have voluntarily shifted away before the series of bans, likely to prevent lawsuits.
Trans fats are like lead paint: sure, there are some neat things you can do with it, but you can do the same things at a negligibly higher cost without needlessly harming people, so it's hard to justify having it out there.
When did Mexico annex Lansing, Cadillac, Flint, Novi, Grand Rapids, Detroit, Toledo, Findlay, Columbus, Indianapolis, San Antonio and all the other places where I saw cars, trucks or auto parts being made?
They didn't. The Japanese car companies did, however. We're like their Mexico in terms of wages, so they can afford to have high-quality unionized workers.
Go look at the point-of-assembly section of the window stickers at an "American" dealer sometime, and then wander over to Honda and Toyota.
i bet you would call them 'socialist' and demean them, gratifying the king if you were to live at that era.
And I bet you could use a little more ability to detect sarcasm. I was ragging on Fox, the WSJ editorial page (same thing now, I suppose) and their eager consumers, not the French.
Are these the same innovation-stifling, reactionary French I keep seeing on Fox News and in the business press?
I mean, free music? That REEKS of socialism. I, for one, am enough of a proud American to do whatever the music lobbyists of this greatest country in the world demands of me.
Well, if the unions were abolished (I'm not big on abolition, but IMO government ceasing to coerce employers to negotiate would be both moral and practical), the US automakers could compete in the small to midsize auto market, and wouldn't have to rely on truck and SUV sales to bring home the bacon (like they did for most of the '80s and '90s).
Yeah...at least in some fantasy world where "U.S." cars aren't made in Mexico. Where, I understand, there aren't any maquiladora labor unions.
Yeah, but what you missed is that when you reveal your methods, the terrorists can take counter-measures designed to thwart your methods.
Except that, in this case, none of the operational details are up for discussion, merely the requirement that a warrant be obtained for surveillance that involves a U.S. party.
Having the other side suspect what your intelligence gathering methods are is one thing, but confirming them is another thing entirely.
Right, except that (as I stated) this is something that would never have been in doubt, regardless of Congress' deliberations. The only disclosed difference between this program and the government's normal wiretapping of international calls is the lack of a warrant requirement, and it's not like terrorists are privy to the secret warrant-granting of the FISA court, anyway. The folks who claim that our eavesdropping on international calls is some sort of revelation have short memories.
Of course, the most ridiculous aspect of this whole affair is the administration's position, which boils down to: we'd love to preserve Fourth Amendment safeguards, but we're just too darn busy, so we need to give the Pres and the AG unlimited discretion in this matter. There's a name for a political system that vests constitutional authority in the hands of a single person and his courtiers, and it sure ain't democracy.
Wait, so because potential terrorists know their conversations are monitored, we shouldn't bother monitoring them? that's a pretty weak argument.
That's not my argument at all, so I don't see why it's relevant.
Where, exactly, did I say that we should not be monitoring potential terrorists? There is already a mechanism for doing so (that doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution). We should be using that, and if it's taking Mike McConnell's people too long to do their jobs, then maybe it's time for competent management.
Also, I take issue with McConnell's waving of the "dead Americans" flag. My point is that the terrorists assume their conversations are monitored whether we explicitly state it or not, so accusing Congress of killing Americans by their concern with the monitoring program's constitutionality is...sadly, just more typical rhetorical shitheadedness from this adminstration.
Just because the Germans or Japanese knew the Allies were intercepting their communications doesn't mean that intercepting them lost any value.
That's my assertion as well. Mike McConnell, on the other hand, disagrees with you.
He's not saying the legal system is overburdened. He's saying it requires 200 man hours (8.33 days) to "assemble" the paper work and proof needed to go before a judge and get a warrant.
Ah, I hadn't considered the figure as man-hours. If the guy needs more staff, isn't it his job to get them? I'm sure Congress would have an easier time authorizing more hiring then trashing the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, that assumes they find it difficult to do so in the first place. Oh well.
The manual advises, however, that staff should 'decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.'
Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.
"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.
This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion or good ol' anti-government paranoia as they are about U.S. support for Israel. If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.
Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.
My point is that if, to make sense, you have to conjecture new scientific advances that completely overturn verified principles of physics, what you're doing is not science.
No one said it's science. It's science fiction.
It appears, then, that the fundamental disagreement is over use of the term "science fiction." To me, the term describes fiction that is grounded in scientific understanding, and explores the evolution of science and technology as it affects the characters. By my standard, "Star Trek" is not science fiction. It is a drama that uses throws around scientific and pseudo-scientific jargon to establish the setting for its character-driven stories, and implicitly assumes the non-validity of established, verifiable fundamental concepts of physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Heisenberg "compensators," indeed.
The classic example of this is the transporter. In science fiction (by my understanding of the term), attention would be paid to the device itself, and its implications. An attempt would be given to explain its operation in light of current scientific understanding, and perhaps some attention would be paid to the personal identity issues raised by dematerializing and rematerializing the subject.
In Star Trek, the transporter was created by the producers as a money-saving device, and used as a plot device without any regard for continuity or implication. This makes for great entertainment, but doesn't count as "science fiction" in my book.
Your technobabble sounds exactly right for Trek. It's exactly the kind of thing that they'd do.
I can't remember which cast or staff member it was, but I recall an interview where one of them said "We just combine three high-tech-sounding words - "Monophase transduction field," "High-energy containment matrices," etc. until we've filled in the gaps...the fans have to try and keep track of it all."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you meant, "How would Chinese feel if some Chinese company doing business in the U.S. claimed that Chinese law should not be upheld in the U.S.?"
Since the PRC government is more than willing to prosecute Chinese nationals for violations of Chinese law in parts of the world where the PRC does not have jurisdiction, this is still a bad comparison to make, especially since the U.S. will do the same thing in certain instances.
The question is: if the U.S. government is willing to prosecute some violations of U.S. law overseas, why not others?
And the answer is simple: Yahoo (and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation) has a better lobbyist presence than child molesters.
Maybe they can't. Shit, I guess that means that companies benefitting from an American base of operations shouldn't do business with repressive regimes through their subsidiaries.
If you're in a rural area and actually equate the necessity of broadband access with the necessity of electricity access, then perhaps you should move to an urban/suburban/exurban area. I don't think anybody in my neck of the middle of nowhere would see any validity in your comparison.
Exactly. When I first moved to New England, I had a few conversations along this line:
Me: Is that a modem I hear? Wow, that's a blast from the past. How expensive is broadband out here?
Them: I dunno, but why would I need it anyway? I just check my e-mail and buy stuff online.
Me: But what about streaming video? VOIP? Illegal music downloads?
Them: (quizzical/semi-contemptuous stare)
A few of these led to a truth that should have been obvious: people who move to, or stay in, the middle of nowhere generally don't play with the same toys as the "rest of us."
Now, if there's ever a snowmobile crisis up here, get ready for a shitstorm.
As much as I like option #2, it seems this question has already been decided.
Hell, the majority of the U.S. population was urbanized before WWI. We can't "return" to option #1, because we haven't been outside it in living memory (sorry, centenarians.)
They are, actually.
Remember, redneck!=Southerner.
Although there are a bunch of rednecks down South, that's only as a corollary to the fact that there are a bunch of rednecks everywhere.
Wow, an assembly programmer who builds his own chips? Where do you find the time to /.?
I notice a lot of comments pointing out, reasonably, that since we the taxpayers have already payed for research, we should not be expected to pay for it again to the benefit of a few businessmen with a special interest.
The concept makes sense...to most of us, at any rate.
The U.S. Government, however, disagrees.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
Sorry, but I think that after watching some of the hypocrisy of the past seven years, many Americans now know the difference between substantive policy and "talking things."
Of course, if the Repubs wanted to "co-opt" these issues by regulating business and trade practices, building a better education system, cutting pollution, and ensuring that the citizens of the world's richest country have access to health care, then I'd be all for them, but I somehow doubt that their shareholders...er, major donors want anything to do with it.
Huh? You can still get as fat as you like on all the starches, sugars, and saturated fat you like. Trans fats are a manufacturing convenience that is strongly and indisputedly linked to heart disease at a far greater rate than conventional "bad fats." This has been known since the early '90s, and many manufacturers have voluntarily shifted away before the series of bans, likely to prevent lawsuits.
Trans fats are like lead paint: sure, there are some neat things you can do with it, but you can do the same things at a negligibly higher cost without needlessly harming people, so it's hard to justify having it out there.
What, exactly, does this have to do with the defense industry?
Ha! Silly Russians! In Capitalist America, copyright law violates YOU!
Who knew particle physicists were such a kinky bunch?
They didn't. The Japanese car companies did, however. We're like their Mexico in terms of wages, so they can afford to have high-quality unionized workers.
Go look at the point-of-assembly section of the window stickers at an "American" dealer sometime, and then wander over to Honda and Toyota.
And I bet you could use a little more ability to detect sarcasm. I was ragging on Fox, the WSJ editorial page (same thing now, I suppose) and their eager consumers, not the French.
Are these the same innovation-stifling, reactionary French I keep seeing on Fox News and in the business press?
I mean, free music? That REEKS of socialism. I, for one, am enough of a proud American to do whatever the music lobbyists of this greatest country in the world demands of me.
Yeah...at least in some fantasy world where "U.S." cars aren't made in Mexico. Where, I understand, there aren't any maquiladora labor unions.
Except that, in this case, none of the operational details are up for discussion, merely the requirement that a warrant be obtained for surveillance that involves a U.S. party.
Right, except that (as I stated) this is something that would never have been in doubt, regardless of Congress' deliberations. The only disclosed difference between this program and the government's normal wiretapping of international calls is the lack of a warrant requirement, and it's not like terrorists are privy to the secret warrant-granting of the FISA court, anyway. The folks who claim that our eavesdropping on international calls is some sort of revelation have short memories.
Of course, the most ridiculous aspect of this whole affair is the administration's position, which boils down to: we'd love to preserve Fourth Amendment safeguards, but we're just too darn busy, so we need to give the Pres and the AG unlimited discretion in this matter. There's a name for a political system that vests constitutional authority in the hands of a single person and his courtiers, and it sure ain't democracy.
That's not my argument at all, so I don't see why it's relevant.
Where, exactly, did I say that we should not be monitoring potential terrorists? There is already a mechanism for doing so (that doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution). We should be using that, and if it's taking Mike McConnell's people too long to do their jobs, then maybe it's time for competent management.
Also, I take issue with McConnell's waving of the "dead Americans" flag. My point is that the terrorists assume their conversations are monitored whether we explicitly state it or not, so accusing Congress of killing Americans by their concern with the monitoring program's constitutionality is...sadly, just more typical rhetorical shitheadedness from this adminstration.
That's my assertion as well. Mike McConnell, on the other hand, disagrees with you.
Ah, I hadn't considered the figure as man-hours. If the guy needs more staff, isn't it his job to get them? I'm sure Congress would have an easier time authorizing more hiring then trashing the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, that assumes they find it difficult to do so in the first place. Oh well.
Yes.
Easy decision.
This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion or good ol' anti-government paranoia as they are about U.S. support for Israel. If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.
Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.
Right, 'cause that's exactly what happens.
Oh, wait, you're just plain fucking wrong.
Thanks for playing, though. Now you can go back to pretending that the ideas of pop novelists and oil-company funded thinktanks somehow represent reality.
It appears, then, that the fundamental disagreement is over use of the term "science fiction." To me, the term describes fiction that is grounded in scientific understanding, and explores the evolution of science and technology as it affects the characters. By my standard, "Star Trek" is not science fiction. It is a drama that uses throws around scientific and pseudo-scientific jargon to establish the setting for its character-driven stories, and implicitly assumes the non-validity of established, verifiable fundamental concepts of physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Heisenberg "compensators," indeed.
The classic example of this is the transporter. In science fiction (by my understanding of the term), attention would be paid to the device itself, and its implications. An attempt would be given to explain its operation in light of current scientific understanding, and perhaps some attention would be paid to the personal identity issues raised by dematerializing and rematerializing the subject.
In Star Trek, the transporter was created by the producers as a money-saving device, and used as a plot device without any regard for continuity or implication. This makes for great entertainment, but doesn't count as "science fiction" in my book.
I can't remember which cast or staff member it was, but I recall an interview where one of them said "We just combine three high-tech-sounding words - "Monophase transduction field," "High-energy containment matrices," etc. until we've filled in the gaps...the fans have to try and keep track of it all."