The United States is one of the lowest per GDP contributors to the international aid effort and most of that aid is severely resticted in its allocation - the bulk of it goes to US contractors/consultants/suppliers and only a fraction of it actually going to help the people who need it.
We've tried to be the single biggest contributer on the single most important item. Food. But then Europeans came along and spread unfounded fears of "Frankenfood" and now nobody over there will touch our genetically modified food out of health fears....when they are starving to death. Thanks a lot.
The CIA has tons of front companies it owns, and corporations in it's employ as well. They might as well actually...do something...while pretending not to be part of the CIA... Hey, at least this time they're doing something legal! And don't blame this on "Dubya" this sort of thing has been Agency practice for decades.
A government which represents all, sounds a lot better to me than a government which only lets certain types of people vote.
You mean a government that represents everyone, sounds better than a government made of a select few kleptocratic thugs who oppress the will of the majority? I agree with you. That's one reason I dislike the United Nations.
I don't like dictatorships, but if we believe in national sovereignty and they are the recognised government of their country, they have as much right to a say in world affairs as any other government.
The only legitimate government arises from the will of the people. Tyranny is not a form of legitimate government.
If you believe the US should be able to unilaterally control something the whole world depends on, doesn't that mean you believe that a single person should control the things everyone in a country depends on?
What are you talking about? It sure isn't the internet...since it's not under the control of the United States government. It's under the control of a privately run international organization based in the United States.
Then why do people have governments? We don't believe that life should be about who has the bigger weapons, we band together in nations for the common good. Why shouldn't countries do the same?
Yes, governments are a necessary evil...as they prevent even worse horrors from happening. But they are an evil regardless. The more power one is given, the more dangerous one is. It is best to keep them limited, caged, tamed...under the thumb of the People.
The UN is not a representational body, it's members are not elected democratically, many come from nations which themselves are dictatorships. Doesn't sound like a very good government to me. And your premise makes the assumption that more government is good, and that is not really necessarily true. The more government is in place, the more restricted the people tend to be, the more rights taken away and violated. More government is, therefore, a bad thing.
Then again we're speaking about UN, i.e. global and democratic (jokes asside), no China nor Germany would enforce its view on internet to the world.
Whether US standards are easier or not than the rest of the world is pointless, it's still one country to rule them all...
One country that doesn't censor the internet. The only reason other countries, even through the UN, want control is so they can censor the internet more effectively for their citizens. Last I heard though, free and uncensored access to information was considered one of the big Human Rights that the UN is always blathering on about...oh well. They're not the USA, so they can get away with ignoring the ones they don't like right?
I did not claim it did everything better than everything else on the planet. Nor did I say that some of this software was completely unavaliable.
4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows.
Er, How about Windows Movie Maker? Its a free download from MSFT and works well enough for the vacation-dvd crowd. Sure, its not stellar, but I wasn't aware that there was really good free OSS for video editing either. Its not iMovie but, hey, few things are.
5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere.
Sure, somewhere like download.com that has a boatload of free IRC clients. If anyone cares which, hey, most people don't. But its not like finding something and downloading it is harder than figuring out which bizarre Linux package you want (ie: both are on the surface "difficult," in reality quite easy)
.
Gee, I thought we were talking about the default install, not what you later download from the internet somewhere. I was saying that most Linux distros come with these things by default, because someone else was claiming that Linux distros don't come with other (relatively minor if you ask me) things by default that Windows does come with. Running off to Microsoft's download site, or to download.com doesn't change the fact that a default install of Windows is...lacking in decent software. Far more than Linux can be claimed to be. Or was this simply a pathetic, weak, trollish attempt to change the argument in a different direction in order to salve your ego considerning your OS? If so, you have failed, your argument-fu is weak.
7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again...
Yup. And what you get will be a lot easier for most people to use, too - whether they're newbies who need a lot of hand-holding, or pros who want something great.
You've obviously not heard of Scribus. And again, it's often included on Linux distros by default. Microsoft doesn't put out a Windows with included desktop publishing tools, as you admit.
Look, modern Linux distros are really good at server-side work. I use them a lot for just that. You don't have to spread FUD around with a shovel claiming that they do everything better than anything else does - if for no other reason than it helps mask the problems and slows down the fix rate. Mmmkay?
I never, never once said Linux does everything better than everything else. You are a liar on that. I merely was addressing claims about how there were (a few, tiny) things that Linux was "missing" by pointing out that I don't exactly "miss" them all that much when I see a default install Windows machine....with next to no software on it. That if anything, it's Windows that's missing stuff. How is this FUD? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that Windows comes with more than Linux somehow? Or am I missing something?
And yes, it is great on servers, but it's not exactly lacking in greatness on the desktop side either. If it were, I wouldn't be using it. I'd be using something great. I wouldn't, however, be using the cheap (as in quality, not as in price) crap.
Yeah, but when I, as a Linux user look at a fresh Windows install/reinstall I note a lot of things missing...
1) No decent photo editing software. Sorry, gotta pay extra for that, or download it.
2) No decent office suite. MS Office is an extra, that you have to pay for.
3) No decent web browser. Anyone who says that IE is decent deserves a punch in the mouth.
4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows.
5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere.
6) CD/DVD burning software? Nope, gotta pay extra for that too.
7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again...
8) Personal finance software. Oh great, gotta go to the store again.
This kind of stuff is pretty common on your basic Linux install, without adding new software.
And plug and play is more like "plug and pray" on Windows as you find yourself having to install various drivers for this and that. Sure, vendors provide a lot of support for Windows, providing drivers with hardware and such...but more stuff just plain works out of the box on Linux than with Windows. And it's less likely that you'll suddenly see hardware dropped from being supported on Linux.
The argument of "what's missing" can be applied both ways...and I think more is missing from Windows than from Linux.
As much as I wish what you were saying was true, I just don't think people consider themselves a citizen of a particular State anymore (save Alaska and Hawaii, and maybe New Hampshire), but rather an "American."
And Illinoians (I know, I am one), and Texans (out of your mind if you deny this one), people from Louisiana, New Yorkers, um...New Jersey people, Californians (if they don't, the rest of the country feels that way for them...), and probably a lot more examples... There is a ton of State pride out there, I don't know where you live, but I don't know how you can't be seeing it.
Except that we have a strong federal government who's laws trump state law. The states ceded the right to act as individual countries to the federal government when they joined the Union.
Only on certain matters. If you read the constitution you will note that the States are sovereign. They do agree to give up certain things to the federal government yes, just as you would expect in a federative union. But in many ways they still do act as individual countries. Not in matters of foreign politics, war, or economics sure, we are united on those things, but in most other areas the States retain full sovereignty. And in many cases, a State's rights can trump an attempt at federal law. In fact, any time the Feds try to regulate an area where the power belongs to the States...they always have a big political fight on their hands.
The US has true democracy on a local level to a limited extent - we vote on laws directly, as well as many revenue issues. Some states allow citizens to overturn or create laws via popular referendum as well (CA falls to mind). We just don't do it on a national level
Nor should we. We are a federation of sovereign States here, not one big centralized republic. Basically a bunch of little countries that work together as one big country on certain matters. If we were a direct democracy....we simply wouldn't be the United States any more. Maybe in name, but not in form, not in government, not really in society. This would be a massive break in form of government for us. A major change in way of life. A major change in culture. We'd become one giant State, rather than collection of them that come together to (try to) help each other on certain things. Furthermore, really, the only realistic way to do it would involve violating the soverignty of all 50 States, and taking away their rights. That sort of thing just doesn't sit right. USA might as well be dead, than be a direct democracy.
reason: made in america by americans.
manga is the japanese word for comic, so by definition its a manga when its made by japanese people, as well as manwha if its made by koreans.
You don't have much experience with the English language do you? English is a slut of a language that tends to pick up words and grammar like Paris Hilton picks up STDs. Like garage, taco, patio, cajun, otaku, manga, anime, hamburger, etc...
As a U.S. citizen, I can support the Commies till the cows come home
Exactly, and actually...there are several communist parties to choose from in the United States. Not to mention those idiots in the American Nazi Party as well. Plenty of such totalitarians to choose from, not like anyone is prevented from being one here. Unlike some countries....supposedly enlightened, modern nations, where such parties are outright outlawed and political speech concerning them is outright banned. Sure, they may be offensive. I sure as hell may think they belong in the trashcan of history...and I may believe anyone who follows those party ideals is evil, or at least horribly misguided. But I will sure as hell defend their right to think, say, and print what they believe...no matter how silly or offensive their ideals are. That's the American way.
Wanting to know about people who enter our own country is not the same as keeping an eye on people who live here, and censoring what they can or cannot say or be.
Simple. Look at "speech and press (what we should really be discussing anyway) rights" around the world and compare them to the United States. In many countries around the world, including modern nations in the EU, books are banned, political party affiliation is outlawed and certain political speech in public is banned. In France certain forms of religious expression in public have been banned. In Germany various books about Nazis or even just WWII are outlawed. In many countries speech and written works viewed as "offensive" in some way or another are banned. In the US? The government has no right to ban books, ban any form of political speech or party affiliation, I can say or write truely offensive things without it being illegal. I have Freedom of speech and Press. Turn control of the internet to the EU and UN? What happens to my basic civil rights when I go online? Do they get raped by you jack-booted, authoritarian, sons of bitches? As it stands...at least with them in US control...unless your nation builds it's own private internet (like China) you get to enjoy much the same online freedom we do.
If the U.N. represents the "world opinion" I say fuck the rest of the world. You heard me. These are people that constantly push for the United States to accept a treaty that would have it to disarm it's civilian population (and the bearing of arms is a protected right, so they are pushing for us to violate our people's civil rights), has pushed to have roughly 50% of this nations land seized from it's owners and turned into untouchable wilderness areas, and constantly badmouths us for enforcing things it tells us to enforce. And now, they want to take our Internet (which is already under the administration of a private, international organization)...by force.
Seems world opinion is...socialism, oppression, and theft. Gee what a wonderful world we live in. But it's all for our own good right? Fucking nanny States....not even our Nanny State!
Yes, it certainly makes sense that people would buy a Linux machine just to wipe out an OS with more software, more capabilities, more avaliable choices, and likely more "out of the box" hardware compatability (in other words, without installing drivers)...in order to install an insecure, unstable OS that comes with so much...less than the Linux they just got rid of. Why, it must happen constantly!
The kind of people who want Linux under a more restrictive license are the kind that either want to control it, or co-opt it behind their own proprietary system (similar to what can be done with BSD). In other words, this is just more of people bitching that they aren't allowed to just steal Linux.
The GPL, and the Freedom it's granted, has helped Linux far more than it's hindered. Linux would never have grown anything remotely like it has without it. And it's users certainly appreciate that freedom...I know I appreciate that freedom.
Take this FUD, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Didn't the South Koreans just announce a little while back that they were going to start building robot soldiers? And now they are building robot teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
The CIA has tons of front companies it owns, and corporations in it's employ as well. They might as well actually...do something...while pretending not to be part of the CIA... Hey, at least this time they're doing something legal! And don't blame this on "Dubya" this sort of thing has been Agency practice for decades.
How many seconds into the conference did it take for them to get royally pwned?
The UN is not a representational body, it's members are not elected democratically, many come from nations which themselves are dictatorships. Doesn't sound like a very good government to me. And your premise makes the assumption that more government is good, and that is not really necessarily true. The more government is in place, the more restricted the people tend to be, the more rights taken away and violated. More government is, therefore, a bad thing.
I never, never once said Linux does everything better than everything else. You are a liar on that. I merely was addressing claims about how there were (a few, tiny) things that Linux was "missing" by pointing out that I don't exactly "miss" them all that much when I see a default install Windows machine....with next to no software on it. That if anything, it's Windows that's missing stuff. How is this FUD? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that Windows comes with more than Linux somehow? Or am I missing something?
And yes, it is great on servers, but it's not exactly lacking in greatness on the desktop side either. If it were, I wouldn't be using it. I'd be using something great. I wouldn't, however, be using the cheap (as in quality, not as in price) crap.
Can't they be maliciously stupid?
Yeah, but when I, as a Linux user look at a fresh Windows install/reinstall I note a lot of things missing...
1) No decent photo editing software. Sorry, gotta pay extra for that, or download it. 2) No decent office suite. MS Office is an extra, that you have to pay for. 3) No decent web browser. Anyone who says that IE is decent deserves a punch in the mouth. 4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows. 5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere. 6) CD/DVD burning software? Nope, gotta pay extra for that too. 7) Desktop publishing software. Yeah...gonna have to go to the store again... 8) Personal finance software. Oh great, gotta go to the store again.
This kind of stuff is pretty common on your basic Linux install, without adding new software.
And plug and play is more like "plug and pray" on Windows as you find yourself having to install various drivers for this and that. Sure, vendors provide a lot of support for Windows, providing drivers with hardware and such...but more stuff just plain works out of the box on Linux than with Windows. And it's less likely that you'll suddenly see hardware dropped from being supported on Linux.
The argument of "what's missing" can be applied both ways...and I think more is missing from Windows than from Linux.
Don't forget the fucking clip shows.
This PETA? http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Wanting to know about people who enter our own country is not the same as keeping an eye on people who live here, and censoring what they can or cannot say or be.
Simple. Look at "speech and press (what we should really be discussing anyway) rights" around the world and compare them to the United States. In many countries around the world, including modern nations in the EU, books are banned, political party affiliation is outlawed and certain political speech in public is banned. In France certain forms of religious expression in public have been banned. In Germany various books about Nazis or even just WWII are outlawed. In many countries speech and written works viewed as "offensive" in some way or another are banned. In the US? The government has no right to ban books, ban any form of political speech or party affiliation, I can say or write truely offensive things without it being illegal. I have Freedom of speech and Press. Turn control of the internet to the EU and UN? What happens to my basic civil rights when I go online? Do they get raped by you jack-booted, authoritarian, sons of bitches? As it stands...at least with them in US control...unless your nation builds it's own private internet (like China) you get to enjoy much the same online freedom we do.
If the U.N. represents the "world opinion" I say fuck the rest of the world. You heard me. These are people that constantly push for the United States to accept a treaty that would have it to disarm it's civilian population (and the bearing of arms is a protected right, so they are pushing for us to violate our people's civil rights), has pushed to have roughly 50% of this nations land seized from it's owners and turned into untouchable wilderness areas, and constantly badmouths us for enforcing things it tells us to enforce. And now, they want to take our Internet (which is already under the administration of a private, international organization)...by force.
Seems world opinion is...socialism, oppression, and theft. Gee what a wonderful world we live in. But it's all for our own good right? Fucking nanny States....not even our Nanny State!
Fuck them. Fuck them up their stupid asses.
It's like the "Swiss Army Knife" nature of Konqueror, or Firefox....only annoying and full of adware.
What an innovation!
Yes, it certainly makes sense that people would buy a Linux machine just to wipe out an OS with more software, more capabilities, more avaliable choices, and likely more "out of the box" hardware compatability (in other words, without installing drivers)...in order to install an insecure, unstable OS that comes with so much...less than the Linux they just got rid of. Why, it must happen constantly!
The kind of people who want Linux under a more restrictive license are the kind that either want to control it, or co-opt it behind their own proprietary system (similar to what can be done with BSD). In other words, this is just more of people bitching that they aren't allowed to just steal Linux.
The GPL, and the Freedom it's granted, has helped Linux far more than it's hindered. Linux would never have grown anything remotely like it has without it. And it's users certainly appreciate that freedom...I know I appreciate that freedom.
Take this FUD, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Didn't the South Koreans just announce a little while back that they were going to start building robot soldiers? And now they are building robot teachers.