You did indeed - my bad. So let me make the correction
There is a very big difference between citing something when it is convenient, and using it as the basis of your own laws, which is what you said in your first post.
There is a very big difference between citing something when it is convenient, and using it as the driving force behind your own laws, which is what you said in your first post.
This is a pretty big deal. A lot of countries fall back on the US in order to use as a basis for their law (australia) and some use it as an example of what not to do in most instances (EU). So definitely a total gain on a worldwide level if precedents are set.
Countries enact laws similar to the US because the think in a similar manner, or they may enact different laws because they think differently. But if you think that countries sit there and say to themselves "What does the US do?" and then decide what to do, I think you are very sadly mistaken.
Contrary to what many Americans think, the USA is NOT, in fact, the prime consideration whenever they have to make a decision.
This is the case at the federal level - provincial legislation is still a bit of a patchwork. My home province (Saskatchewan) still allows campaign contributions from corporations, trade unions, etc. - it's my understanding that many other provinces either ban (Quebec, Manitoba) or restrict (Ontario, New Brunswick) non-personal contributions.
Agreed - but the discussion is about federal jurisdiction and practice, not provincial.
Also, while the campaign financing restrictions are a Good Thing, they are fairly recent.
Restrictions on organizational contributions are new, yes - but there have always been very strict limits, since at least the early '80s, when I first became active. But that's besides the point - the discussion is about the current situation.
I think your description is somewhat idealized. There are plenty of ways to use money to influence politicians. I believe several have left public office for plum jobs in industry, for example - often with businesses connected to their job in government. For them, reelection didn't matter.
Simplified, but not idealized - I was trying to make a point in a paragraph, not give a treatise on political organization in Canada.
Of course there are going to be ways to influence - but the jaws surrounding elections, financing, and politician's behavior makes things that are routine in the USA either impossible, or much less effective.
Perfect point in case is your example with jumping to industry. Yes, there are always going to be somebody who is going to take the offer.... but with 300+ MPs in the house, are there really going to be enough who will NOT be running again for office to make that sort of thing generally effective? And that's ignoring regulations that regulate ex-politico's lobbying efforts after leaving the house.
And they couldn't possibly, I don't think. Governments here are a lot more inclined to regulate than they are in the US, and the ISPs are very, very well aware of that. If something like that went through, the ISPs are know damned well all the regulation, requirements, and red tape they'd have to deal with.... and all on their own dime.
Free markets are a good thing. But sometimes, even just *presence* of a government willing to interfere is enough to make everybody play nice.
Wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the reality of practice is that the "public" has no say in these matters. More likely is that different big-money factions haven't yet decided how to portion the money up.
Actually, NOT wishful thinking. One of the major differences between Canada and the USA is how parties & campaigns are financed. Personal donations ONLY are accepted - corporate & organizational money is strictly verboten. And in practical terms, the limits on campaign spending are so tight that pretty well any candidate with a hope in hell of winning is able to raise all the money they're allowed to spend from the voters in their riding.
A lobby group my have more "access" to the lawmakers, by virtue of the fact that they have their offices in Ottawa.... but they can't really buy, or even rent the politicos.... their only weapon is persuasion. Because the politicians know that at the end of the day, the ones who WILL fund their campaign, and/or vote for them, are the people in their riding. Period.
As a sovereign country they are free to do as they please, but we believe that they can either remain signatories to the treaty or disregard treaty obligations for their own standards, but not both.
There are many, many ways to skin a cat. Just because we skin our cats differently than you do doesn't change the fact that our cats are still skinned.
The core problem of today's malware is that it does rarely rely on system shortcomings.
You mean I've been wasting all my time patching up buffer overflows, polishing up my input parsing routines, and all this other stuff for NOTHING?. If there are no system shortcomings, there's nothing to exploit.
Most malware today uses user "stupidity" as the entry point, tricking the user into executing some sort of program which contains the trojan.
Yes, it does...... but if there are no (or few, or hard to exploit) system shortcomings, it really doesn't matter HOW stupid the user is, does it?
And when it's down to the personal security consciousness and knowledge of the user, even the best system can't keep you from being infected.
You're right, it can't. But that's no justification for making it EASY to get infected - and it sure as hell isn't justification for delivering crappy software infested with security holes, either by design OR implementation.
As with M$ vs. Linux, the only reason Linux isn't as vulnerable, is that it isn't as popular.
Hmmmm..... and all this time, I thought that little, insignificant things like architecture & design might have at least *something* to do with it. Didn't realize it was nothing more complex than a popularity contest.
Face it, Taiwan will, at some point, much like Hong Kong, be re-absorbed by China, and the USA has ZERO chance of stopping it happening.
Taiwan hasn't been part of China since WW II. Culturally, politically, socially - even linguistically - they have become two very different countries. If you think that Taiwan could be painlessly absorbed by China - even *without* US intervention - you don't know the Taiwanese.
Saying that Taiwan today is part of China is like saying the USA is still part of the British Empire.
If not, an artificial limit onto the integrity of the system would be created. Sure SELinux is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
Bingo.
Security is, in fact, quantifyable - you can tell if your data is or is not secure in either absolute or relative terms. But that still misses one basic, very important element.... taste.
Yes, taste *is* involved in security. Just as there are many different ways to sort data, and still wind up with an alphabeticalized list, there are also many different ways to secure your data, and still wind up with it being safe.
I don't do the dishes the same way my daughter does.... but at the end of it, when either of us is finished, they're clean.
So the SELinux folks don't do THEIR thing the same way the LSM folks do.... but who cares? At the end of the day, the dishes are still clean.. assuming, of course, a certain level of competence. But then again, if you *don't* assume that, then no security framework is going to save your hide.
I'm sorry, but I see this as a religious war along the lines of vi vs emacs. Give both camps their tools and let them do things according to their environment, level of risk, and taste.
So you hate the USA even more, then? They interfere quite a bit more in Canadian internal politics than France.
The Americans try to influence Canada, as any country would try to do with another when their national interests were involved.
France, on the other hand, still has a tendency to treat Canada like a colony it never lost - even though only Quebec and parts of the southern shore of Newfoundland was ever their territory.
No you don't remember that: that was in Montreal. You remember your hate of Quebec, your hate of their French ancestors, and you mingled the two.
But you don't actually base your hate on reality, you just pretend like you do.
So - my opinion isn't based on reality because I got a city wrong? That's special.
Do you remember ever yelling "speak white!" to french speakers? That used to happen a lot... Because just speaking a different language from the majority makes one THAT easy a target of hate from people like you, just like being a different colour would.
First - I'm a Newfoundlander. I get told to learn to speak english just as often as what a Quebecer from the north shore would, so that one doesn't wash.
Second - The last time I checked, Degaule wasn't from Quebec - he was from France. If you look at the context of the discussion, you'll see that the "French" we were talking about were from FRANCE, not Quebec - totally different cultures.
Third - making comments about the politics of a nation - and disliking them - does NOT mean you have a hatred for the people that live in that country.
You can pretend like the targets of your prejudiced hate deserve more hate, you can even hate an entire people for comments one of them made in the 60's, but they don't actually deserve your bile, you're just a racist with a lot of justifications and rationalizations.
No, I'm not a racist - but I *am* somebody with more than a slight working knowledge of WWII and France's behaviour during the war, and how it has tried to exercise it's power and influence in the world *since* the war. Criticising the actions of a government and it's leaders is not hatred or racisim - it's political comment.
And, seriously, "Long live free Quebec" is your reason for this hate? A desire for FREEDOM, of all things?
You hate them for their freedom, and you make that comment on this date? Good grief!
"Long live free Quebec" had nothing to do with Quebec *freedom* - it was an expression of support for what was at the time a nascent Quebec separatist movement, which has been the bugbear of Canadian politics ever since.
No, I hate Degaule's politics, and the politics of the French (the country), for being arrogant and ignorant enough to interfere in Canada's internal politics by saying something incredibly incendary politically - and that interference has continued almost ever since.
That's normal, healthy, and desirable. When you hand the data and methodology off to someone else for review, you get a clean perspective on the work that can expose deficiencies and biases that weren't readily apparent to the people who devised the testing, or expose deficiencies and biases that were subconsciously ignored by the people who actually did the research.
Absolutly..... *if* you're talking about a scientific analysis as opposed to say, a couple of talking heads interviewed because you know they're gonna say something newsworty
I have no doubt that you as a person are not. However as a non American I must ask what did you think of the treatment of the French. Who disagreed with US policy and have the American media and public ridicule them as a country of cowards and idiots. Even tho I dont like the French(Ive had to work with them:) ) I found this behavior fairly appalling.
To be perfectly blunt, when you are as obviously self-serving, hypocritical, smug and condescending as the French were (are?), that's sort of the political equivalent of finding a "Kick Me" sign and taping it to your own back. When you make yourself THAT easy a target, you shouldn't be surprised when people take pot shots.
I'm Canadian. I remember Degaule's "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech in Quebec City. I'm very familiar with their behaviour during WWII, and their behaviour since then. I remember their obstructionism in NATO during the cold war. As far as I'm concerned, the French don't get half the ridicule that they deserve.
according to the article liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts. so liberals can learn from previous experiences but instead of brainlessly repeating the same routine over and over they compare their experiences with the present reality.
Dealing with conflict != learning from experience. But this ignores the fact that what I was trying to do was show that given such a simple experiment, there are many different ways to interpret the data - or more correctly, the interpret the slant given it in TFA. But I guess you missed that point. Being a conservative, I guess it's just not possible for me to have an open mind and not jump to conclusions.
conservatives though cannot learn from previous experience - they choose to ignore the facts.
Based on the close-mindedness of your statement, I would guess that according to the criteria in the article, you would be a conservative.
Well, dude; I didn't really get the impression that the neocon hawks that started this whole mess had a lot of courage. It's not their necks after all.
Greed? Deception? Lies? Croniism? All of the above? I'd say yes. But sure as hell not courage.
I think the evidence now pretty much indicate what a bunch of lying war-criminal-weasels the current US administration actually is
If you honestly think that *any* president of the US doesn't spend a lot of time very carefully thinking about the cost of military adventures - especially the cost of lives on the soldiers - then you need a lot more help than what a Democrat in the White House can give you.
As I said earlier, you can debate whether or not the war is worth the cost, or if it should have been fought at all.... but if you think the decision was made lightly, you need to check the shielding on your house - I think radio waves from the secret satallites the French uncovered is leaking in.
I may be conservative, but I'm neither arrogant nor close-minded enough to believe that somebody is stupid, callous, or a coward just because they don't agree with me.
this means that liberals actually think about what they do and are more accurate because of it.
Or, it could mean that liberals are incapable of learning from previous experience.
and this means that conservatives have difficulties to gasp changes and understand new ideas (nothing new here).
Or, it could just mean that the conservatives are trying to use the experiences of the past to predict the outcome (albiet unsuccessfully, in this test).
Now come on, folks - lets get real here. I've only read a half dozen comments so far, and already people are extrapolating WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much from a simple test.... has anybody noted that the two people quoted in the article - one referring to "liberal" vs "conservative" way of thinking, and another doing "an analysis" of the study - aren't even connected to the study?
Call me conservative... but I think I'll wait till I've had a chance to get my hands on a copy of the article before I come to any conclusions.
Uh-uoh - I think I just tolerated some ambiguity.... does that mean I'm not conservative after all?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very big difference between citing something when it is convenient, and using it as the driving force behind your own laws, which is what you said in your first post.
Countries enact laws similar to the US because the think in a similar manner, or they may enact different laws because they think differently. But if you think that countries sit there and say to themselves "What does the US do?" and then decide what to do, I think you are very sadly mistaken.
Contrary to what many Americans think, the USA is NOT, in fact, the prime consideration whenever they have to make a decision.
Of course there are going to be ways to influence - but the jaws surrounding elections, financing, and politician's behavior makes things that are routine in the USA either impossible, or much less effective.
Perfect point in case is your example with jumping to industry. Yes, there are always going to be somebody who is going to take the offer
And they couldn't possibly, I don't think. Governments here are a lot more inclined to regulate than they are in the US, and the ISPs are very, very well aware of that. If something like that went through, the ISPs are know damned well all the regulation, requirements, and red tape they'd have to deal with .... and all on their own dime.
Free markets are a good thing. But sometimes, even just *presence* of a government willing to interfere is enough to make everybody play nice.
A lobby group my have more "access" to the lawmakers, by virtue of the fact that they have their offices in Ottawa
Taiwan hasn't been part of China since WW II. Culturally, politically, socially - even linguistically - they have become two very different countries. If you think that Taiwan could be painlessly absorbed by China - even *without* US intervention - you don't know the Taiwanese.
Saying that Taiwan today is part of China is like saying the USA is still part of the British Empire.
Q: How do they define safe sex in New Zealand?
A: Painting a big 'X' on the back of all the ugly sheep
Security is, in fact, quantifyable - you can tell if your data is or is not secure in either absolute or relative terms. But that still misses one basic, very important element
Yes, taste *is* involved in security. Just as there are many different ways to sort data, and still wind up with an alphabeticalized list, there are also many different ways to secure your data, and still wind up with it being safe.
I don't do the dishes the same way my daughter does
So the SELinux folks don't do THEIR thing the same way the LSM folks do
I'm sorry, but I see this as a religious war along the lines of vi vs emacs. Give both camps their tools and let them do things according to their environment, level of risk, and taste.
France, on the other hand, still has a tendency to treat Canada like a colony it never lost - even though only Quebec and parts of the southern shore of Newfoundland was ever their territory.
Second - The last time I checked, Degaule wasn't from Quebec - he was from France. If you look at the context of the discussion, you'll see that the "French" we were talking about were from FRANCE, not Quebec - totally different cultures.
Third - making comments about the politics of a nation - and disliking them - does NOT mean you have a hatred for the people that live in that country. No, I'm not a racist - but I *am* somebody with more than a slight working knowledge of WWII and France's behaviour during the war, and how it has tried to exercise it's power and influence in the world *since* the war. Criticising the actions of a government and it's leaders is not hatred or racisim - it's political comment. "Long live free Quebec" had nothing to do with Quebec *freedom* - it was an expression of support for what was at the time a nascent Quebec separatist movement, which has been the bugbear of Canadian politics ever since.
No, I hate Degaule's politics, and the politics of the French (the country), for being arrogant and ignorant enough to interfere in Canada's internal politics by saying something incredibly incendary politically - and that interference has continued almost ever since.
I'm Canadian. I remember Degaule's "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech in Quebec City. I'm very familiar with their behaviour during WWII, and their behaviour since then. I remember their obstructionism in NATO during the cold war. As far as I'm concerned, the French don't get half the ridicule that they deserve.
As I said earlier, you can debate whether or not the war is worth the cost, or if it should have been fought at all
I may be conservative, but I'm neither arrogant nor close-minded enough to believe that somebody is stupid, callous, or a coward just because they don't agree with me.
Now come on, folks - lets get real here. I've only read a half dozen comments so far, and already people are extrapolating WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much from a simple test
Call me conservative
Uh-uoh - I think I just tolerated some ambiguity