CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs
Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses....
Qualified by "EU". (I didn't exclude it specifically, I took it as read that all qualifiers were out.)
Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.
Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.
Hardly! The fact they use "EU Member State" twice in the quote before "EU state" makes this particularly weak...
The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?
Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM))....
Again, there is a qualifier. EU. And it is capitalised.
Well, to help us establish what it DOES mean in this context, perhaps you could cite usage of the word "state", with reference to a country in the EU, uncapitalised and unmodified by the words "member", "sovereign" or "the", in EU documentation. Or anywhere else.
> Using the term "member state" does not mean that country is part of some United States of Europe in the same way that the State of California is part of the United States of America.
Very true! Nor have I ever suggested that it does. "Member state" is pretty innocuous I think.
But then "member state" was not the term I was objecting to. It no-where appears in the summary.
> Your euro-phobia is leading you to defend an untenable position, as you are simply wrong.
mmm - will leaving aside your sloppy mindedness in thinking you can derive a political position from anything I have in this thread - isn't this something you should take the trouble to demonstrate?
Had the summary referenced "member states" I doubt any of the people who have commented on the strange use of the word "state" in isolation, in this context, would have done so.
Interestingly enough, it is still the term "countries" that seems to be preferred. http://europa.eu/about-eu/27-member-countries/index_en.htm... although there is one reference to "member states" on the page.
If you can't defend the use of the word "state" in this context, unmodified by "member" or "sovereign", and uncapitalised, then you are effectively conceding the point.
> As another poster in this sub-thread pointed out, you're not just wrong, you're stupid wrong.
Something that you have not yourself been able to demonstrate. Citing an ad-hominem by an anonymous coward is surely a little beneath you... Or perhaps not.
>I just knew as soon as I saw the summary that there'd be someone making a fool of himself by complaining about the use of the word "state" in this context, and congratulations, you didn't disappoint.
Excellent! Always nice to feel one has brought a little joy into the world! The fact that you too were struck by the inappropriateness of the word "state" in this contact is revealing.
The term is not employed in the article linked to - only the submission. The common use of the term "states" in reference to the EU, without a modifier such as "Sovereign" or "Member" is in arguments about the precise political relationship of the 27 members to each other. To refer to them as "states" is to take a position in that political discussion.
You appear to have made the word so versatile that it has become almost meaningless. It is worth noting that the term "state" did not appear in the original article.
I think you are simply incorrect that the a "state" is ANY politically distinct entity.
Not a perfect solution I grant, and it requires you interact with Apple kit/websites - but lots of people upgrading to iPhone 4S's have perfectly functional 3GS phones, which will run iOS5, that they may be happy to give you are sell to you for a modest sum. (Not sure what they cost on ebay, here in Japan people are giving them to me "free" - I have quite a collection I am wondering how best to use...)
As far as I know, the GPS works reasonably well without a network/3g connection. You should be able to use either the "find my iPhone" facility, or, if you have another iToy, set it up on a separate account and set up the "Find Friend" function. You will need to provide power for it of course, but then hide it as best you can. Password protect the iPhone of course.
Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.
And don't forget the (unarmed) injured wife and the (unarmed) 12 year old daughter. If you don't shoot him in front of them, it just ain't the American way...
[repost - I forgot I wasn't logged in the first time....]
He isn't saying he has the RIGHT to get them illegally.
Just that he WILL get them illegally.
And for companies interested in doing business - "right" is not important - it is what your customers will tolerate, and pay for, that matters.
Remember, when you are talking about "rights" that copyright (and patent, trademark, etc...) is a right conferred because it is in the public good. It is a profoundly "conditional" right. And when that conferral ceases to be in the public good - as - arguably, it is has now - it should be withdrawn.
I am with him - I would cheerfully pay $40 - or more - for the convenience to just be able to download stuff I want to watch. A lot of the stuff I want to watch is old - and hence cheap. Like him, I don't have that much time to watch stuff.
So $40 to $50 'aint that unreasonable for what I would actually consume.
I DO want to pay - but for a decent service. But make no mistake, if it isn't provided, I will take what I want - with mild regret - but for free.
You know - someone should set up a charity. It would do decent things in Africa. (Or New Orleans. Whichever is the poorer.) People like me would pay $40/month to it - just to show that we are willing to PAY for what we bittorrent.
I reckon there are at least a couple of 1000 people like me - willing to make a point to the studios.
Now there isn't such a service. So let's cut it to $20
12 x 20 X 2000 is half a million dollars a year almost.
Is anyone up for this?
That could do some good somewhere.... And show the studios that there really IS a revenue stream.
Well yes, of course he is a Brit. As am I. My post does not suggest he is anything other.
As for "making his attitude clear about honours in his books" - that is simply absurd - his books are mostly fantasy and satire. You state that one should not read too much into them, and promptly do so... (What next - will you be solemnly announcing you have derived his attitude to penal policies, or to dragons?)
"Honours" of this kind are absurd - and it is sad that so many Americans are so deferential to people who have them.
You can choose to have any treatment permitted by medical ethics, if you go private. So no worse than in the US. And hardly "no choice".
Of course there are treatments not available on the NHS due to cost. (As I recollect, there is a central body called NICE that decides what drugs are available. Presumably because it has to make nice distinctions....)
And of course, this sometimes involves hard decisions. There are occasionally "edge cases".
At which point you would have to rely on private healthcare. But since these treatments are not available due to cost, the premiums to cover them would be correspondingly high.
The UK spends about half as much on healthcare per person as the US. But it covers everyone - albeit imperfectly.
Can you opt out of the system completely and channel all contributions to a private insurance scheme? No. But I don't recollect Americans being allowed to opt out of paying for what you amusingly refer to as your "defence" (which appears mostly to involve invading small countries offering you no real threat) - so why should healthcare of necessity be any different?
I'm "speaking for the cultural mindset of millions of strangers"?? Where? How? Where do I speak for any ONE person other than myself???
It is - quite clearly - implicit in this claim, from your original post.
Folks, feel free to ignore this nonsense. Until someone proves otherwise, there's nothing different going on in Japan here.
Of course, strictly speaking, your claim is also formally untrue - it is is usually a requirement that something be "going on" prior to it being proven that it is going on. (Unless you have VERY weird verificationist views, and you believe that the act of proving something "brings it into existence"...)
Anyway, as pointed out, the person making the claim for some existence - Leprechauns, unicorns, a deity, a "cultural difference", etc. - is the one that bears the burden of proof.
True, but irrelevant, since what I was taking issue with was your blithe use of the word "empirical". You demanded you be shown "empirically" without ever stating what form that evidence should take. Note - "EVIDENCE" not "PROOF" - this is the social sciences, the concept of proof barely applies and the concept of the empirical is a little threadbare.
How to prove this particular "difference"? Frankly, it's the claim-maker that should have done the initial work, in explaining what proof there is for his claim.
Surely "evidence" rather than "proof" - You do tend to confuse the two - but they are quite different. One can have a great deal of evidence for something and it not be true.
And before he can claim *why* things are different in Japan, he needs to show that they actually *are* different - something that could be addressed with numbers in several ways.
Is there some survey data showing more anger in Japan over this privacy issue? Any data showing more hubbub over photo-related privacy issues in general? Is the resistance to Google Streetview on a measurably larger scale in Japan? We're talking sociology, so "proof" will likely be fuzzy - but it'd be something to work with. The claimant in this case gives us nothing.
Ah - so that is what you mean by "empirical evidence" - a survey. Well, assuming something suitably subtle could be constructed - that would certainly be a useful thing to have and might lend credence to his claims. It might indicate a set of social attitudes within the - limited - domain of respondents.
But there are all sorts of claims I can make about the opinions of - for example - long term British residents in Japan which are probably true, but for which I do not have the evidence of a survey. It seems to me that you would simply be misconceiving the terms of the discourse - as I suspect you are doing in this case - were you to demand that I present statistical survey evidence before making such claims. The guy was writing an open letter, not a scientific paper. I suppose if one poked him, he might say that he believed that were such surveys to be undertaken, they would back him up - but that it is not his job to do them. (Do you commonly make claims about people other than yourself based only on rigorous survey data? If so, I suspect you are in the minority...)
In any case, a key point: I don't have to make a choice between a) my explaining what empirical proof is needed to believe this claim; and b) my believing the claim! I'm free to choose c) disbelieve the claim until the claimant shows his proof and can explain why that constitutes proof. That should be any critical thinker's default choice!
No no no - surely you don't believe such nonsense! The critical thinkers default choice is not to DISBELIEVE a claim that is made without evidence - but rather to treat it with skepticism - in other words, to doubt it. To disbelieve it would require grounds for disbelief. But you commit yourself to a very explicit claim - that "there is n
Good job I learned both my formal and philosophical logic in England then isn't it my sweet...
I didn't ask him to prove the assertion. I DID ask him what would constitute "empirical proof" either for or against an assertion of the type in question.
If he doesn't know THAT, then he probably shouldn't be asking for it...
As for you - a short course in logic, preceded possibly by a refresher on reading, is probably in order.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/romania-management-idUSL6E7NC1ZR20111212
CEE MONEY-Help wanted: emerging EU state needs good CEOs
Dec 12 (Reuters) - For two decades, Romania's inefficient state companies have undermined the country's economy through graft, mismanagement, disadvantageous business deals and budget-sapping losses. ...
---
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20111213IPR33945/html/Parliament-endorses-EU-wide-protection-for-crime-victims
Qualified by "EU". (I didn't exclude it specifically, I took it as read that all qualifiers were out.)
Parliament endorses European Protection Order for crime victims
Crime victims who are granted protection from their aggressors in one EU Member State will be able to get similar protection if they move to another, under new rules adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The European Protection Order aims to protect victims of, for instance, gender violence, harassment, abduction, stalking or attempted murder. Member States will have three years to transpose this directive into national law.
Measures to protect crime victims from aggressors already exist in all EU Member States but at present they cease to apply if the victim moves to another country. The European Protection Order (EPO) directive, already agreed with national governments, will enable anyone protected under criminal law in one EU state to apply for similar protection if they move to another.
Hardly! The fact they use "EU Member State" twice in the quote before "EU state" makes this particularly weak...
----
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_criteria_en.htm
The "Dublin" Regulation â" Which EU State is responsible for examining an asylum application?
Knowing which State is responsible for an asylum claim avoids asylum seekers being transferred from one EU State to another, with none accepting responsibility, as well as multiple or simultaneous applications by the same person in different EU States (a phenomenon known as âasylum shoppingâ(TM)). ...
Again, there is a qualifier. EU. And it is capitalised.
> It simply does not mean that in this context
Well, to help us establish what it DOES mean in this context, perhaps you could cite usage of the word "state", with reference to a country in the EU, uncapitalised and unmodified by the words "member", "sovereign" or "the", in EU documentation. Or anywhere else.
> Using the term "member state" does not mean that country is part of some United States of Europe in the same way that the State of California is part of the United States of America.
Very true! Nor have I ever suggested that it does. "Member state" is pretty innocuous I think.
But then "member state" was not the term I was objecting to. It no-where appears in the summary.
> Your euro-phobia is leading you to defend an untenable position, as you are simply wrong.
mmm - will leaving aside your sloppy mindedness in thinking you can derive a political position from anything I have in this thread - isn't this something you should take the trouble to demonstrate?
... "EU member state" was not the term employed!
So you are essentially changing the subject.
Had the summary referenced "member states" I doubt any of the people who have commented on the strange use of the word "state" in isolation, in this context, would have done so.
Interestingly enough, it is still the term "countries" that seems to be preferred. ... although there is one reference to "member states" on the page.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/27-member-countries/index_en.htm
If you can't defend the use of the word "state" in this context, unmodified by "member" or "sovereign", and uncapitalised, then you are effectively conceding the point.
> The difference between the US and the EU is the powers delegated to the States
Well - yes - as far as it goes - but obviously there are all sorts of powers held by countries in the EU that are NOT delegated to them by the EU.
oops - finger trouble...
"in this contact is revealing" should have been "in this context is revealing"
> As another poster in this sub-thread pointed out, you're not just wrong, you're stupid wrong.
Something that you have not yourself been able to demonstrate. Citing an ad-hominem by an anonymous coward is surely a little beneath you... Or perhaps not.
>I just knew as soon as I saw the summary that there'd be someone making a fool of himself by complaining about the use of the word "state" in this context, and congratulations, you didn't disappoint.
Excellent! Always nice to feel one has brought a little joy into the world! The fact that you too were struck by the inappropriateness of the word "state" in this contact is revealing.
>Declarative statements about the intent of the summary's author are necessarily outrageous fabrications when made by anyone but the original author.
Nonsense! We can state categorically, for example, that the summary did not intend to refer to green cheese.
Actually, I am a Brit - and it is the standard English English use of the term I am defending.
Note that you capitalised "States". You thus use it in a different sense to that to which I am objecting.
Which is this:
> Further, half of those in some of the southern and western states
note the lower case...
I suggest that in standard English English that is at best poorly expressed and confusing and at worst simply incorrect.
The term is not employed in the article linked to - only the submission. The common use of the term "states" in reference to the EU, without a modifier such as "Sovereign" or "Member" is in arguments about the precise political relationship of the 27 members to each other. To refer to them as "states" is to take a position in that political discussion.
... and I think that the fact your link is to the definition of "Sovereign State" rather than "State" rather suggests that you have missed the point!
"Sovereign State" was not the concept employed.
You appear to have made the word so versatile that it has become almost meaningless. It is worth noting that the term "state" did not appear in the original article.
I think you are simply incorrect that the a "state" is ANY politically distinct entity.
>Further, half of those in some of the southern and western states do not even have internet access at home.
The EU is not a federation, or any other sort of relation-ship, of states. All talk of states in this context is incorrect.
Not a perfect solution I grant, and it requires you interact with Apple kit/websites - but lots of people upgrading to iPhone 4S's have perfectly functional 3GS phones, which will run iOS5, that they may be happy to give you are sell to you for a modest sum. (Not sure what they cost on ebay, here in Japan people are giving them to me "free" - I have quite a collection I am wondering how best to use...)
As far as I know, the GPS works reasonably well without a network/3g connection. You should be able to use either the "find my iPhone" facility, or, if you have another iToy, set it up on a separate account and set up the "Find Friend" function. You will need to provide power for it of course, but then hide it as best you can. Password protect the iPhone of course.
I THINK that should work.
I suppose they are married until blue screen of death do them part...
Will Osama get a gun in this game or are they going for the more realistic shoot him in cold blood no pow operation.
And don't forget the (unarmed) injured wife and the (unarmed) 12 year old daughter. If you don't shoot him in front of them, it just ain't the American way...
... still - on the the bright side - at least we got fucked....
.. all the participants were rats.
Make what you will of how that applies to Americans...
(Although applying the results of animal studies to humans is always best done with caution.)
[repost - I forgot I wasn't logged in the first time....]
He isn't saying he has the RIGHT to get them illegally.
Just that he WILL get them illegally.
And for companies interested in doing business - "right" is not important - it is what your customers will tolerate, and pay for, that matters.
Remember, when you are talking about "rights" that copyright (and patent, trademark, etc...) is a right conferred because it is in the public good. It is a profoundly "conditional" right. And when that conferral ceases to be in the public good - as - arguably, it is has now - it should be withdrawn.
I am with him - I would cheerfully pay $40 - or more - for the convenience to just be able to download stuff I want to watch. A lot of the stuff I want to watch is old - and hence cheap. Like him, I don't have that much time to watch stuff.
So $40 to $50 'aint that unreasonable for what I would actually consume.
I DO want to pay - but for a decent service. But make no mistake, if it isn't provided, I will take what I want - with mild regret - but for free.
You know - someone should set up a charity. It would do decent things in Africa. (Or New Orleans. Whichever is the poorer.) People like me would pay $40/month to it - just to show that we are willing to PAY for what we bittorrent.
I reckon there are at least a couple of 1000 people like me - willing to make a point to the studios.
Now there isn't such a service. So let's cut it to $20
12 x 20 X 2000 is half a million dollars a year almost.
Is anyone up for this?
That could do some good somewhere.... And show the studios that there really IS a revenue stream.
> we honor and express our joy for a beloved writer
What a pompous tosser you are! This isn't a funeral and he isn't dead.
As for stuffy - no - it is the absurd system of "honours" that is stuffy.
Well yes, of course he is a Brit. As am I. My post does not suggest he is anything other.
As for "making his attitude clear about honours in his books" - that is simply absurd - his books are mostly fantasy and satire. You state that one should not read too much into them, and promptly do so... (What next - will you be solemnly announcing you have derived his attitude to penal policies, or to dragons?)
"Honours" of this kind are absurd - and it is sad that so many Americans are so deferential to people who have them.
I like Prachett.
His lute/loot joke (you know the one) has me giggling still.
Not because it is good - it is terrible - but because it makes a pearl from dross.
His alzheimers is the very bugger.
But as soon as he gets a "knighthood" from the old county, you are pawing and slathering over him like little children.
You are either egalitarian iconoclasts or you are not (and to his credit, I suspect Pratchett is. Which makes him one up on you.)
America - the idea of "America" - far more precious than the absurd Bush tainted thing you have become - ain't what it used to be.
You have no pride.
You can choose to have any treatment permitted by medical ethics, if you go private. So no worse than in the US. And hardly "no choice".
Of course there are treatments not available on the NHS due to cost. (As I recollect, there is a central body called NICE that decides what drugs are available. Presumably because it has to make nice distinctions....)
And of course, this sometimes involves hard decisions. There are occasionally "edge cases".
At which point you would have to rely on private healthcare. But since these treatments are not available due to cost, the premiums to cover them would be correspondingly high.
The UK spends about half as much on healthcare per person as the US. But it covers everyone - albeit imperfectly.
Can you opt out of the system completely and channel all contributions to a private insurance scheme? No. But I don't recollect Americans being allowed to opt out of paying for what you amusingly refer to as your "defence" (which appears mostly to involve invading small countries offering you no real threat) - so why should healthcare of necessity be any different?
I'm "speaking for the cultural mindset of millions of strangers"?? Where? How? Where do I speak for any ONE person other than myself???
It is - quite clearly - implicit in this claim, from your original post.
Folks, feel free to ignore this nonsense. Until someone proves otherwise, there's nothing different going on in Japan here.
Of course, strictly speaking, your claim is also formally untrue - it is is usually a requirement that something be "going on" prior to it being proven that it is going on. (Unless you have VERY weird verificationist views, and you believe that the act of proving something "brings it into existence"...)
Anyway, as pointed out, the person making the claim for some existence - Leprechauns, unicorns, a deity, a "cultural difference", etc. - is the one that bears the burden of proof.
True, but irrelevant, since what I was taking issue with was your blithe use of the word "empirical". You demanded you be shown "empirically" without ever stating what form that evidence should take. Note - "EVIDENCE" not "PROOF" - this is the social sciences, the concept of proof barely applies and the concept of the empirical is a little threadbare.
How to prove this particular "difference"? Frankly, it's the claim-maker that should have done the initial work, in explaining what proof there is for his claim.
Surely "evidence" rather than "proof" - You do tend to confuse the two - but they are quite different. One can have a great deal of evidence for something and it not be true.
And before he can claim *why* things are different in Japan, he needs to show that they actually *are* different - something that could be addressed with numbers in several ways.
Is there some survey data showing more anger in Japan over this privacy issue? Any data showing more hubbub over photo-related privacy issues in general? Is the resistance to Google Streetview on a measurably larger scale in Japan? We're talking sociology, so "proof" will likely be fuzzy - but it'd be something to work with. The claimant in this case gives us nothing.
Ah - so that is what you mean by "empirical evidence" - a survey. Well, assuming something suitably subtle could be constructed - that would certainly be a useful thing to have and might lend credence to his claims. It might indicate a set of social attitudes within the - limited - domain of respondents.
But there are all sorts of claims I can make about the opinions of - for example - long term British residents in Japan which are probably true, but for which I do not have the evidence of a survey. It seems to me that you would simply be misconceiving the terms of the discourse - as I suspect you are doing in this case - were you to demand that I present statistical survey evidence before making such claims. The guy was writing an open letter, not a scientific paper. I suppose if one poked him, he might say that he believed that were such surveys to be undertaken, they would back him up - but that it is not his job to do them. (Do you commonly make claims about people other than yourself based only on rigorous survey data? If so, I suspect you are in the minority...)
In any case, a key point: I don't have to make a choice between a) my explaining what empirical proof is needed to believe this claim; and b) my believing the claim! I'm free to choose c) disbelieve the claim until the claimant shows his proof and can explain why that constitutes proof. That should be any critical thinker's default choice!
No no no - surely you don't believe such nonsense! The critical thinkers default choice is not to DISBELIEVE a claim that is made without evidence - but rather to treat it with skepticism - in other words, to doubt it. To disbelieve it would require grounds for disbelief. But you commit yourself to a very explicit claim - that "there is n
Good job I learned both my formal and philosophical logic in England then isn't it my sweet...
I didn't ask him to prove the assertion. I DID ask him what would constitute "empirical proof" either for or against an assertion of the type in question.
If he doesn't know THAT, then he probably shouldn't be asking for it...
As for you - a short course in logic, preceded possibly by a refresher on reading, is probably in order.