I see your point, but the two criteria mentioned are far to general. Most college students have travelled abroad, and anyone who takes any kind of course on politics, be it theory, IR, or even history is likely to have to read either Marx or Mao.
I remember reading somewhere that "checkmate" comes from "shah mat" or something like that which means "the shah is dead", suggesting an iranian history for chess. Like arabic numbers, though, it could just have originated in India and reached Europe through middle eastern trade routes.
You're absolutely right that the letter of the law ist he only thing that holds water in the courts, as it's the only part of the law about which controversy can be addressed with actual evidence rather than speculation, that's why I didn't call for anyone to be impeached. My point is rather that what holds institutions together is a series of unwritten norms and values which are commonly adhered to, a pact which states that we will all abide by these institutions because the fact that they are there makes citizens out of us rather than subjects. These behaviors mark the difference between healthy solid institutions and formal empty edifices. There is nothing particularly liberal about this notion, and if you don't believe me you should just look at how politicians from both parties have failed to uphold it.
I think there is an important lesson in this. The key quote in the story is "the president acted lawfully". I'm not so sure the president has been legal in all his dealings of late, but that is irrelevant, the point I am trying to make is that our democratic institutions are insufficiently protected by the laws we have in place. A lot of their success in history has been the result of politicians more or less playing by a set of unwritten norms, and the public keeping on the right side of that line.
The Bolton nomination is a very good example. We have a congressional review process, which gives the congress a say in nominations. The president can short circuit the process the way he did, but that clearly goes against the spirit of the law.
I find this to be a very worrying trend in this country. The politicians have become so spiteful of the democratic process, and the public so blasé about it all, that our democratic institutions are ceasing to function.
Irrespective of wether or not you are happy with Bush at the helm, or wether or not you felt Bolton was the man for the UN post, wether you are american or foreign, the spectacle of seeing one of the world's great democracies sink into this kind of moral bog is frankly heartbreaking. People are content to let lawyers argue technical issues and are abandoning the spirit of the institutions which govern the US.
NO! MUST RESIST URGE! AAAAAAAAAARG! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
In Soviet Russia, cereal boxes flash you!
There, I've said it!
Now, speaking seriously, I look forward to when "adult magazines" can magically display another cover, like, say, "wired" to give you some privacy.
You are probably right in the sense that they will find it necessary to have some consultant firm help them out, but using open source software probably protects them from being so dependent on one firm.
Actually the idea is not so new. Governing bodies exist as forums in a lot of fields in order to solve problems which don't yet exist, but because they are expected to exist. The arctic and outer space have such UN instances where goverments can argue about something related to... well... the arctic or outer space. Sure no one is really arguing about how to divide lunar surface, but said surface being finite, and technology becoming cheaper, it stands to reason that someone will have to reach an agreement sometime when it starts to get crowded. The rules to do so have more or less been laid out, long before the issue is resolvable. And that's a good thing, because the rules were set by consensus among neutral parts (no one really knows who will be in a position to control the moon, yet), and so are therefor generally accepted. If there are a few parties of similar power in an argument, history suggests they will choose to settle their differences following the rules in a more or less ordered manner.
This article from Wired a few years ago actually sheds a lot of light on this issue. Sony has become a bit of a schizophrenic company, with the consumer electronics arm having interests which go against those of the content arm.
A lot of people here are under the impression that this is the first launch vehicle to launch two satelites at a time, but it isn't. The key words here are "mmainstream telecommunications satellite payloads". Indeed, launching more than a single satelite per launch is more or less standard fare already. Probably what is new here, is the size and weight of each of the two satelites.
You must mean the way they pandered to them by banning headscarves...
Anyway, what does the rioting have to do with Islam, anyway? It's a social issue, not a religious one. Many of the rioters come from eastern europe and black africa, not just the magrehb. I suppose you think they all became islamists suddenly...
I regularly read newspapers from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, latin america and Denmark. IT's interesting to see them looking for different formulas to adapt to the challenges of the internet.
Several french newspapers (like Liberation and Le Monde) have tried to specialize their print and web based deliveries in such a way that the print edition offers in depth reports and analisys, while the web based portion is kept up to date with the cutting-edge-now-unfolding stuff. A few spanish papers seem to be following this trend (like El Pais).
I get the impression that danish papers don't really have a strategy, which stikes me as odd since Denmark is one of the most wired countries in the world. A lot of newspapers there seem to see their web presence as a way to publicize their paper and maybe sell a few stories, but there is no overarching strategy.
In the US you see lots of different approaches, like the Wall Street Journal which practically cut itself out of the blogging trend by keeping all of its material under lock and key except to paying subscribers, thereby insuring that their stories aren't linked to, the New York Times wants you to sell your soul to read anything, and Salon has the interesting strategy of making you watch an add to read their stuff. A kind of contract based approach.
I would really like to see a comparative study of the merits and shortcomings of different approaches. I would also like to see studies on how different reader demographics respond to different paper-web mixes.
If I understand your argument correctly, then, the fact that the league of nations failed to stop Hitler makes it perfectly reasonable for the US to ratify its membership in the UN, and then not pay its dues? So because Bank A goes bankrupt, I can, of my own free will, sign on a loan with Bank B, and then use the Bank A debacle as an argument to not pay for my loan, but still expect Bank B to offer me its services?
By the way, most of the UN is in Switzerland, not the US.
The WTO and the GATT which preceded it are responsible for the liberalization of trade and capital flows... hardly anti-capitalist.
If you don't want to pay your dues, fine, but then don't agree to do so, signing the UN charter and attend the meetings. The US has a right to leave the UN if it feels so inclined, the same way I can leave a club I don't want to belong to, but to stay and demand to be allowed to participate when you don't even pay the dues is unacceptable by any standard...
Maybe if the US actually paid its dues to the UN like all other countries it would do a better job. In the meantime, you might want to look at how the US has stopped making oil money from irak trackable, thereby making more money disappear than the oil for food program ever could have...
So just because the US says it will behave honorably the rest of the world should just take their word for it?
That hasn't worked in the past. The International Criminal Court was set up accomodating US concerns, but when the time came to vote it into existence the US threw a fit a decided it wouldn't play anymorel, renegging on previous promises.
Actually the subject is to recent in Europe to know what their opinion on it will be after it has been fought out in the proper institutions. I really hope the European Comission gets into this, as a ruling by them would set a rule and save us the hassle of having to resolve this in every single country. I don't think the telcos seriously think they can get away with this, they are just trying to buy time to roll out their own VOIP apps and are gambling that because this is a new issue they will be asked to change their practice, rather than face unfair trade practice rulings which can't be based on precedent.
Germany and France hardly qualify as repressive regimes, their press is in many respects more free than in the US. The oft touted fact that they ban racist speech obscures the fact that their press is more diverse, and has less taboos than it's US counterpart.
Add to that the fact that the UN is a driving force between getting many of the world's poorest countries online, and, through the help of the ITU, is trying to convince third world goverments of the benefits of community broadband and VOIP, it isn't really a force fighting VOIP, is it?
Also, remember that many of these countries have more than one phone company. Bouygues Telecom in France offers broadband, interactive television, and VOIP over the power grid (mentioned in Salon.com). Do you think Microsoft's trade practices should be seen as reflecting US policy at large?
The UN is comprised of many repressive regimes, but so is the list of US allies and US client states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, in the 70's most of latin america, former Zaire, etc.).
Probably not, because the behavior being challenged at the WTO would have to be official goverment policy of a state, rather than the action of a private firm. They probably have a better chance going to individual free trade watch dogs in the affected countries.
Indeed, something similar has happened in Chile recently where Voissnet, a chilean company, and an american one challenged major phone company Telefonica's practice of hindering third party VOIP apps. The case is still being processed, but the complaining companies allege unfair trade practices.
Something similar exists in some versions of Wikipedia. For instance, the german version has a "wikipedia reader digest" a kind of magazine with some selected articles distributed as an electronic magazine. Hopefully these articles meet stricter criteria than those of the encyclopedia at larg.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, but the two criteria mentioned are far to general. Most college students have travelled abroad, and anyone who takes any kind of course on politics, be it theory, IR, or even history is likely to have to read either Marx or Mao.
I remember reading somewhere that "checkmate" comes from "shah mat" or something like that which means "the shah is dead", suggesting an iranian history for chess. Like arabic numbers, though, it could just have originated in India and reached Europe through middle eastern trade routes.
You're absolutely right that the letter of the law ist he only thing that holds water in the courts, as it's the only part of the law about which controversy can be addressed with actual evidence rather than speculation, that's why I didn't call for anyone to be impeached. My point is rather that what holds institutions together is a series of unwritten norms and values which are commonly adhered to, a pact which states that we will all abide by these institutions because the fact that they are there makes citizens out of us rather than subjects. These behaviors mark the difference between healthy solid institutions and formal empty edifices. There is nothing particularly liberal about this notion, and if you don't believe me you should just look at how politicians from both parties have failed to uphold it.
I think there is an important lesson in this. The key quote in the story is "the president acted lawfully". I'm not so sure the president has been legal in all his dealings of late, but that is irrelevant, the point I am trying to make is that our democratic institutions are insufficiently protected by the laws we have in place. A lot of their success in history has been the result of politicians more or less playing by a set of unwritten norms, and the public keeping on the right side of that line.
The Bolton nomination is a very good example. We have a congressional review process, which gives the congress a say in nominations. The president can short circuit the process the way he did, but that clearly goes against the spirit of the law.
I find this to be a very worrying trend in this country. The politicians have become so spiteful of the democratic process, and the public so blasé about it all, that our democratic institutions are ceasing to function.
Irrespective of wether or not you are happy with Bush at the helm, or wether or not you felt Bolton was the man for the UN post, wether you are american or foreign, the spectacle of seeing one of the world's great democracies sink into this kind of moral bog is frankly heartbreaking. People are content to let lawyers argue technical issues and are abandoning the spirit of the institutions which govern the US.
NO! MUST RESIST URGE! AAAAAAAAAARG! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! In Soviet Russia, cereal boxes flash you! There, I've said it! Now, speaking seriously, I look forward to when "adult magazines" can magically display another cover, like, say, "wired" to give you some privacy.
You are probably right in the sense that they will find it necessary to have some consultant firm help them out, but using open source software probably protects them from being so dependent on one firm.
Surely that relation won't last, G.I. Joe is a closeted homosexual.
Actually the idea is not so new. Governing bodies exist as forums in a lot of fields in order to solve problems which don't yet exist, but because they are expected to exist. The arctic and outer space have such UN instances where goverments can argue about something related to ... well... the arctic or outer space. Sure no one is really arguing about how to divide lunar surface, but said surface being finite, and technology becoming cheaper, it stands to reason that someone will have to reach an agreement sometime when it starts to get crowded. The rules to do so have more or less been laid out, long before the issue is resolvable. And that's a good thing, because the rules were set by consensus among neutral parts (no one really knows who will be in a position to control the moon, yet), and so are therefor generally accepted. If there are a few parties of similar power in an argument, history suggests they will choose to settle their differences following the rules in a more or less ordered manner.
This article from Wired a few years ago actually sheds a lot of light on this issue. Sony has become a bit of a schizophrenic company, with the consumer electronics arm having interests which go against those of the content arm.
I see your point, but rockets being a lot rarer than cars, I would imagine they don't account for much pollution in the grand scheme of things.
A lot of people here are under the impression that this is the first launch vehicle to launch two satelites at a time, but it isn't. The key words here are "mmainstream telecommunications satellite payloads". Indeed, launching more than a single satelite per launch is more or less standard fare already. Probably what is new here, is the size and weight of each of the two satelites.
You must mean the way they pandered to them by banning headscarves...
Anyway, what does the rioting have to do with Islam, anyway? It's a social issue, not a religious one. Many of the rioters come from eastern europe and black africa, not just the magrehb. I suppose you think they all became islamists suddenly...
I regularly read newspapers from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, latin america and Denmark. IT's interesting to see them looking for different formulas to adapt to the challenges of the internet.
Several french newspapers (like Liberation and Le Monde) have tried to specialize their print and web based deliveries in such a way that the print edition offers in depth reports and analisys, while the web based portion is kept up to date with the cutting-edge-now-unfolding stuff. A few spanish papers seem to be following this trend (like El Pais).
I get the impression that danish papers don't really have a strategy, which stikes me as odd since Denmark is one of the most wired countries in the world. A lot of newspapers there seem to see their web presence as a way to publicize their paper and maybe sell a few stories, but there is no overarching strategy.
In the US you see lots of different approaches, like the Wall Street Journal which practically cut itself out of the blogging trend by keeping all of its material under lock and key except to paying subscribers, thereby insuring that their stories aren't linked to, the New York Times wants you to sell your soul to read anything, and Salon has the interesting strategy of making you watch an add to read their stuff. A kind of contract based approach.
I would really like to see a comparative study of the merits and shortcomings of different approaches. I would also like to see studies on how different reader demographics respond to different paper-web mixes.
and EVERYTHING ELSE is in other countries...
You still haven't explained why that somehow frees the US from paying its dues the way it freely and sovereignly AGREED to...
If I understand your argument correctly, then, the fact that the league of nations failed to stop Hitler makes it perfectly reasonable for the US to ratify its membership in the UN, and then not pay its dues? So because Bank A goes bankrupt, I can, of my own free will, sign on a loan with Bank B, and then use the Bank A debacle as an argument to not pay for my loan, but still expect Bank B to offer me its services?
By the way, most of the UN is in Switzerland, not the US.
The WTO and the GATT which preceded it are responsible for the liberalization of trade and capital flows... hardly anti-capitalist.
If you don't want to pay your dues, fine, but then don't agree to do so, signing the UN charter and attend the meetings. The US has a right to leave the UN if it feels so inclined, the same way I can leave a club I don't want to belong to, but to stay and demand to be allowed to participate when you don't even pay the dues is unacceptable by any standard...
Maybe if the US actually paid its dues to the UN like all other countries it would do a better job. In the meantime, you might want to look at how the US has stopped making oil money from irak trackable, thereby making more money disappear than the oil for food program ever could have...
So just because the US says it will behave honorably the rest of the world should just take their word for it?
That hasn't worked in the past. The International Criminal Court was set up accomodating US concerns, but when the time came to vote it into existence the US threw a fit a decided it wouldn't play anymorel, renegging on previous promises.
>>"but Europeans evidently have a different view"
Actually the subject is to recent in Europe to know what their opinion on it will be after it has been fought out in the proper institutions. I really hope the European Comission gets into this, as a ruling by them would set a rule and save us the hassle of having to resolve this in every single country. I don't think the telcos seriously think they can get away with this, they are just trying to buy time to roll out their own VOIP apps and are gambling that because this is a new issue they will be asked to change their practice, rather than face unfair trade practice rulings which can't be based on precedent.
Germany and France hardly qualify as repressive regimes, their press is in many respects more free than in the US. The oft touted fact that they ban racist speech obscures the fact that their press is more diverse, and has less taboos than it's US counterpart.
Add to that the fact that the UN is a driving force between getting many of the world's poorest countries online, and, through the help of the ITU, is trying to convince third world goverments of the benefits of community broadband and VOIP, it isn't really a force fighting VOIP, is it?
Also, remember that many of these countries have more than one phone company. Bouygues Telecom in France offers broadband, interactive television, and VOIP over the power grid (mentioned in Salon.com). Do you think Microsoft's trade practices should be seen as reflecting US policy at large?
The UN is comprised of many repressive regimes, but so is the list of US allies and US client states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, in the 70's most of latin america, former Zaire, etc.).
Nice try at FUDing...
Probably not, because the behavior being challenged at the WTO would have to be official goverment policy of a state, rather than the action of a private firm. They probably have a better chance going to individual free trade watch dogs in the affected countries.
Indeed, something similar has happened in Chile recently where Voissnet, a chilean company, and an american one challenged major phone company Telefonica's practice of hindering third party VOIP apps. The case is still being processed, but the complaining companies allege unfair trade practices.
>>I'm surprised they didn't use the phrase "everybody does it".
Everybody uses that phrase.
Something similar exists in some versions of Wikipedia. For instance, the german version has a "wikipedia reader digest" a kind of magazine with some selected articles distributed as an electronic magazine. Hopefully these articles meet stricter criteria than those of the encyclopedia at larg.
See them here.
Maybe what you think you learned is in fact wrong... :oP
I gotta tell you... I can't help but worry when someone calls for me to be put to death and gets modded "insightful" rather than "funny"! :o)