Quothz claims we didn't invade Afghanistan. I tell him that's bogus, because the Taliban were a client state of ours since we gave them 40 million dollars. Obviously we recognized they were in control of Afghanistan, until it suited us to say that they weren't "really" the government of Afghanistan.
This is one way to look at it but I tend to disagree. I find the US national and international politics and power plays to be more complicated than that. The $43M were given to the Taliban as a part of the US "was on drugs" to destroy opium poppy production, not as tacit recognition of them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. If my memory does not betray me, the US has a long history of financing and supplying "revolutionary" groups -- Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan being some of the more famous examples. So, yes, the US recognized that the Taliban wielded power in Afghanistan at the time and decided to use it to it's advantage -- while it was convenient to do so.
So, I agree with Quothz when he said: "Actually, we did announce our support for the Taliban, but didn't recognize it as a national government". However, after all the coups, revolutions and civil wars the country went through, it is hard to say who was the "legitimate" government at that time.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that "invasion" is a proper term for the operation in Afghanistan, but technically it was a NATO invasion, not a US one.
Israel has no diplomatic relations with 36 countries, 20 of them members of the 22-member Arab League. Some of the countries, with which Israel has no diplomatic relations, accept Israeli passports and acknowledge other Israeli marks of sovereignty; however, most of these countries refuse to recognize the State of Israel at all.
From the same page:
The United Arab Emirates and Comoros partially recognizes Israel,which only have trade mutual relations with Israel.
In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Bahrain, Morocco and Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel, although trade and economic ties continue. Morocco and Tunisia usually allow Israeli citizens to enter their territories with Israeli passports as tourists.
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara partially recognizes Israel.
North Korea allowed Israeli citizens to visit its territory with Israeli passports despite not having diplomatic relations with Israel.
No diplomatic relations != no recognition.
The parent was trying to claim that Israel is generally recognized by their neighbors, including Iran, which are demonstrably not true statements.
Please substantiate your claim, as I don't see the parent ever saying that.
What he did say was:
(a) Iran explicitly recognized Israel for years before changing its mind, Well documented fact (note the past tense).
(c) Israel is generally recognized, and is a member of the United Nations, Both well documented facts (note that nothing is said about Israel's neighbours). Since you are fond of Wikipedia quotes, here's one for you: "State of Israel [...] Widely recognized member of the UN".
and (d) Iran implicitly recognizes Israel by dint of UN membership. (The UN charter requires member nations to recognize one another.) This may or may not be true (I am not an expert on international law but I take Article 2, point 1 of the charter to implicitly mean that). However, in my opinion, it is a moot and irrelevant point since Iran de facto does not recognize Israel.
Is there anything else you'd like to say to make yourself look slightly stupid and absolutely petty?
I am quite content to let the readers of this thread form their opinions regarding the respective intelligence of the participants.
(c) Israel is generally recognized, and is a member of the United Nations
Here's a pretty map that shows you the states with no diplomatic ties with Israel. It shows pretty clearly that almost 0 arab states recognize Israel or have diplomatic ties to it. Maybe you can understand pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_relations_of_Israel_Map.png
Quoting from the same page that you linked to: Description: A map of the world, showing the states which have diplomatic relations with Israel. Note that the lack of diplomatic relations does not mean non-recognition, and does not mean lack of commercial relations or other type of international relations.
Can you stop arguing for a moment to realize that FAT isn't patented? VFAT (long file names on FAT) is, but using 8.3 naming for a GPS storage is a reasonable, royalty-free, alternative.
And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED. I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.
Should have voted Green. It's good to stir the pot once in a while.
And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed. So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good. Two good politicians? This never happens.
I'm talking about the sense of proportion, that ought to prevent a reasonable person from implicitly (or even explicitly) equating:
1. Pirate Bay's human rights (or lack thereof) with those of Sakharov or Suu Kyi;
What you miss is that the fact of having biased judges on trials is a human right violation regardless of whether the accused is the Pirate Bay or Andrei Sakharov. Do not confuse the (serious) problem with a (trivial, according to you) symptom.
There's the problem of one man starting a whole new population would lead to inbreeding for a while, so that's the bigger problem. But if that happened and maybe Noah and his wife/wives didn't have any negative recessive genes, or the inbred populations didn't die off, or if you fiat it away (as theists often do), then it's totally possible for three initially identical subpopulations to diverge over many generations.
Reducing copyright to few years would not kill music or movie industry.
I will argue that eliminating copyright altogether will not kill music or performance arts (which were ubiquitous before copyright was invented, hell - before language was invented).
It may kill the aforementioned industries, unless they evolve and adapt. But then, no big loss.
Libertarians and Ayn Randists will also declare that their goal is "power to the people", and they aren't communists by any stretch of the imagination.
Their "power to the people" is just a demagogic smokescreen to hide the fact that, like any right-wing political party, they really mean " power to the more powerful people/croporations ", which has been the norm for unevolved societies throughout History.
Please name one current instance of an "evolved" society in which this is not de facto the case.
Let me chip in. In my opinion, the length of copyrighted should be bounded such that a work will revert to the public domain while it is still somewhat useful and relevant.
For literary works, I would say less than one generation after it was written, 15-20 years sound about right (cf. the Statute of Anne, which "created a 21 year term for all works already in print at the time of its enactment and a 14 year term for all works published subsequently.")
(Note: with the advancements in communication and distribution in the last 300 years, the length of copyright should have decreased instead of increasing.)
For computer programs, at most a "software generation" (to be defined). Probably 10 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Mods on crack?
> I don't play WOW, and I don't get laid regularly. Where does that leave me?
Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
This is one way to look at it but I tend to disagree. I find the US national and international politics and power plays to be more complicated than that. The $43M were given to the Taliban as a part of the US "was on drugs" to destroy opium poppy production, not as tacit recognition of them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. If my memory does not betray me, the US has a long history of financing and supplying "revolutionary" groups -- Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan being some of the more famous examples. So, yes, the US recognized that the Taliban wielded power in Afghanistan at the time and decided to use it to it's advantage -- while it was convenient to do so.
So, I agree with Quothz when he said: "Actually, we did announce our support for the Taliban, but didn't recognize it as a national government". However, after all the coups, revolutions and civil wars the country went through, it is hard to say who was the "legitimate" government at that time.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that "invasion" is a proper term for the operation in Afghanistan, but technically it was a NATO invasion, not a US one.
From the same page:
The United Arab Emirates and Comoros partially recognizes Israel,which only have trade mutual relations with Israel.
In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Bahrain, Morocco and Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel, although trade and economic ties continue. Morocco and Tunisia usually allow Israeli citizens to enter their territories with Israeli passports as tourists.
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara partially recognizes Israel.
North Korea allowed Israeli citizens to visit its territory with Israeli passports despite not having diplomatic relations with Israel.
No diplomatic relations != no recognition.
Please substantiate your claim, as I don't see the parent ever saying that.
What he did say was:
(a) Iran explicitly recognized Israel for years before changing its mind,
Well documented fact (note the past tense).
(c) Israel is generally recognized, and is a member of the United Nations,
Both well documented facts (note that nothing is said about Israel's neighbours).
Since you are fond of Wikipedia quotes, here's one for you: "State of Israel [...] Widely recognized member of the UN".
and (d) Iran implicitly recognizes Israel by dint of UN membership. (The UN charter requires member nations to recognize one another.)
This may or may not be true (I am not an expert on international law but I take Article 2, point 1 of the charter to implicitly mean that). However, in my opinion, it is a moot and irrelevant point since Iran de facto does not recognize Israel.
I am quite content to let the readers of this thread form their opinions regarding the respective intelligence of the participants.
Quoting from the same page that you linked to:
Description: A map of the world, showing the states which have diplomatic relations with Israel. Note that the lack of diplomatic relations does not mean non-recognition, and does not mean lack of commercial relations or other type of international relations.
Can you stop arguing for a moment to realize that FAT isn't patented?
VFAT (long file names on FAT) is, but using 8.3 naming for a GPS storage is a reasonable, royalty-free, alternative.
Should have voted Green. It's good to stir the pot once in a while.
We tried to fix the system. Failed miserably.
Paste the image of his face onto a picture of a convict in a cell?
What you miss is that the fact of having biased judges on trials is a human right violation regardless of whether the accused is the Pirate Bay or Andrei Sakharov. Do not confuse the (serious) problem with a (trivial, according to you) symptom.
Anybody can talk to God, it's commonly called "prayer".
Only in rare instances God talks back, it's commonly called "schizophrenia".
Read "What Can You Say About Chocolate-Covered Manhole Covers?" by Larry Niven.
Good SF.
It shows that Homo Sapiens created music for over 33K years before the advent of copyrights.
What is the incentive for a "good dictator" to remain good?
He said "count [...] on one hand".
Using the fingers is cheating.
And definitely better than the urinary counting system (using a different appendage).
In institutions based on he Redmond model, holding a chair is not sufficient. One must also throw it across the office.
That is: none.
(Unless we are using different meanings of "efficient")
I will argue that eliminating copyright altogether will not kill music or performance arts (which were ubiquitous before copyright was invented, hell - before language was invented).
It may kill the aforementioned industries, unless they evolve and adapt.
But then, no big loss.
It means 120 years.
In reality, copyright laws were introduced to ensure the profits of publishers.
What does it say about the 356,238 people that voted for him in 2006?
Please name one current instance of an "evolved" society in which this is not de facto the case.
You have strange criteria for choosing friends.
Let me chip in.
In my opinion, the length of copyrighted should be bounded such that a work will revert to the public domain while it is still somewhat useful and relevant.
For literary works, I would say less than one generation after it was written, 15-20 years sound about right (cf. the Statute of Anne, which "created a 21 year term for all works already in print at the time of its enactment and a 14 year term for all works published subsequently.")
(Note: with the advancements in communication and distribution in the last 300 years, the length of copyright should have decreased instead of increasing.)
For computer programs, at most a "software generation" (to be defined). Probably 10 years or so.
How do these two compare?
Word!