The President is not a leader, he is only president. The country is mostly run by the various legislatures, who ultimately answer to the President. For this reason, the state legislatures, whose members are elected democratically, are given the authority to choose him - all fifty currently hold referenda, but there is no federal law mandating that they do so. The federal Congress is filled democratically. The federal Senate is now filled democratically, and was once filled by the Congress. However, the ultimate decision, besides a few minor things like minimum age, comes down to no other factor than the will of and promises to the people. De jure, there is no aristocracy, lottery, nor contest of merit; everything feeds back to a public election. That makes it democratic, albeit not a direct democracy.
Well, that's what this "moralistic bullshit" is: it's a minority party attaching things to a "must pass" bill. It's just not an organized party. They know that the bill couldn't pass on its own, so they attach it to a bill that's certain to. How is that different from any other minority agendum attached to such a bill?
Actually, it's a democratic republic. A republic is just a government that acknowledges the humanity of its subjects - The Republic was philosophocratic. There were no elections there. In the US, and most other modern "republics," the leaders are elected by no one in particular, so it is a democratic republic.
The point is that we don't keep it for ourselves in some act of misguided patriotism. Even in Africa, the rich are free to buy it. It's not fair, but it's not jingoistic.
Okay, "share" might be too strong a word. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, however, that it would be sold internationally. No corporation is evil enough to give up income just to screw the masses. My point is that it wouldn't be given exclusively to Americans.
Because for most of the nuclear age, the US and Russia have been the most powerful figures in the world, at each other's throats, part of enormous alliances in opposition, in possession of enough land that a full nuclear war between them alone would effectively destroy the world, and in possession of enough weapons to fight such a war?
Let's say that by some series of events, it actually happened. Somewhere in the world, a nuclear weapon hit a hostile nuclear power. What would happen?
Here is the traditional answer: "There would be a retaliatory strike. Allies of both parties would get in on the act. The two sides would lob nukes at one another until everyone involved were destroyed, with serious, possibly apocalyptic damage to the world at large."
That made perfect sense in the Cold War, when the two largest powers were the US and Russia and nearly every other nuclear power took one side or the other. Nearly the entire world would be bombed outright, and the sheer area of the US and Russia alone would create a shitload of radiation. Nowadays, however, it seems more likely that at least one side of the war will be a small nation or alliance of small nations. It's unlikely that more than a few countries will be drawn in. How much radiation would there actually be at the end?
Also, how willing would other nations be to go into this? There's not a clear-cut capitalist/communist distinction anymore. It doesn't seem unlikely that only two nations would fight the war, especially if one of them were the US. To enter into a nuclear war would be certain death for every man, woman, and child in your country. Treaties be damned, I can't imagine many countries jumping at the chance.
Finally, what guarantee is there that it would become a nuclear war at all? The last thing a sane leader would want after a nuclear strike would be for the situation to escalate. Obviously, they couldn't just sit there, but I'd imagine that the retaliation would be primarily conventional, or one or two surgical blasts.
I just want to say that a nuclear war doesn't need to turn into Dr. Strangelove. It is quite possible for it to end with a whimper.
Seriously, though, it is somewhat important to emphasize the disease's effect on the US to get US grants. If we found a cure for AIDS, there's no doubt in my mind that we'd share it. However, if AIDS (or one of the diseases in question, or any other) were rare in the US, but more widespread overseas, it would be fairly difficult to get grants, and most scientists would spend their time on other, more lucrative things. Selfish, maybe, but I don't think there's a country in the world that doesn't put some degree of priority on domestic issues. And for all we talk about scientists only being interested in grants, they can't do their job without them.
A better allegory would be: if no one in Japan (where the disease is rare) cared to look into a cure for AIDS, would we be happy to remain infected until a more afflicted country found the cure on its own?
Well, that's what "hurt" means. Don't underestimate the importance of money. How would you like to get a percentage knocked off your salary? You could say that they're already making more than anyone needs, but if you have internet access, so do you.
This is a concept of common law, however, and an intentional loophole in the treaty; individual nations don't have to allow for "fair use." Apparently, Belgium doesn't.
I loaded the page, and it was in French. Then I changed it to Dutch, and the introductory text changed to Dutch, but the ruling was still in French. Then I changed it to English, and the ruling was still in French! They never translated it.
Tell me, are Belgian courts in the habits of issuing rulings that only half the country can read?
I use FC...I think 3. (Should know that.) I always did use GNOME, but I just switched to KDE; I checked it a few hours ago and it didn't help.
The Japanese Wikipedia is the biggest culprit, although I tested it at 2chan. While surfing, I rarely have more open than two Abiword windows (occasionally three), the browser (never more than one full window), and the CD player. You're right, though: I haven't done anything for the kernel (or even Mozilla) in two years now, so I probably should upgrade.
Yeah, on my computer (Fedora), the display environment randomly crashes and reboots so that I have to log back in, then the wallpaper doesn't load until I refresh the desktop. It's a crapshoot whether the toolbar loads, and either way it runs wicked slowly. It happens randomly, but it's almost certain when I go to a page with a large number of CJK characters. It's insane.
Yeah. Every time I tell that problem to techs, they just stare...
The hardest part of that would probably be the "search for part" routines. It would be pretty easy to tell it where to put any given part, but getting the part would be hard unless they were laid out very carefully, which would be almost as much of a task as building it.
I currently have my wiring straight up from my computer, forward enough that I have trouble putting the moniter up and down, around a tight corner by putting a hook right next to it, onto the wall above the door by a serious corner-cut, back likewise, around another corner, a more reasonable outward corner, then guided down until the coil resting on my dresser, in a loop around back to the jack, all on hooks that slip off at least twice a day.
Slashdot Mirror
The President is not a leader, he is only president. The country is mostly run by the various legislatures, who ultimately answer to the President. For this reason, the state legislatures, whose members are elected democratically, are given the authority to choose him - all fifty currently hold referenda, but there is no federal law mandating that they do so. The federal Congress is filled democratically. The federal Senate is now filled democratically, and was once filled by the Congress. However, the ultimate decision, besides a few minor things like minimum age, comes down to no other factor than the will of and promises to the people. De jure, there is no aristocracy, lottery, nor contest of merit; everything feeds back to a public election. That makes it democratic, albeit not a direct democracy.
Well, that's what this "moralistic bullshit" is: it's a minority party attaching things to a "must pass" bill. It's just not an organized party. They know that the bill couldn't pass on its own, so they attach it to a bill that's certain to. How is that different from any other minority agendum attached to such a bill?
Actually, it's a democratic republic. A republic is just a government that acknowledges the humanity of its subjects - The Republic was philosophocratic. There were no elections there. In the US, and most other modern "republics," the leaders are elected by no one in particular, so it is a democratic republic.
The point is that we don't keep it for ourselves in some act of misguided patriotism. Even in Africa, the rich are free to buy it. It's not fair, but it's not jingoistic.
Okay, "share" might be too strong a word. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, however, that it would be sold internationally. No corporation is evil enough to give up income just to screw the masses. My point is that it wouldn't be given exclusively to Americans.
Because for most of the nuclear age, the US and Russia have been the most powerful figures in the world, at each other's throats, part of enormous alliances in opposition, in possession of enough land that a full nuclear war between them alone would effectively destroy the world, and in possession of enough weapons to fight such a war?
Let's say that by some series of events, it actually happened. Somewhere in the world, a nuclear weapon hit a hostile nuclear power. What would happen?
Here is the traditional answer: "There would be a retaliatory strike. Allies of both parties would get in on the act. The two sides would lob nukes at one another until everyone involved were destroyed, with serious, possibly apocalyptic damage to the world at large."
That made perfect sense in the Cold War, when the two largest powers were the US and Russia and nearly every other nuclear power took one side or the other. Nearly the entire world would be bombed outright, and the sheer area of the US and Russia alone would create a shitload of radiation. Nowadays, however, it seems more likely that at least one side of the war will be a small nation or alliance of small nations. It's unlikely that more than a few countries will be drawn in. How much radiation would there actually be at the end?
Also, how willing would other nations be to go into this? There's not a clear-cut capitalist/communist distinction anymore. It doesn't seem unlikely that only two nations would fight the war, especially if one of them were the US. To enter into a nuclear war would be certain death for every man, woman, and child in your country. Treaties be damned, I can't imagine many countries jumping at the chance.
Finally, what guarantee is there that it would become a nuclear war at all? The last thing a sane leader would want after a nuclear strike would be for the situation to escalate. Obviously, they couldn't just sit there, but I'd imagine that the retaliation would be primarily conventional, or one or two surgical blasts.
I just want to say that a nuclear war doesn't need to turn into Dr. Strangelove. It is quite possible for it to end with a whimper.
Okay, first off, that was a joke.
Seriously, though, it is somewhat important to emphasize the disease's effect on the US to get US grants. If we found a cure for AIDS, there's no doubt in my mind that we'd share it. However, if AIDS (or one of the diseases in question, or any other) were rare in the US, but more widespread overseas, it would be fairly difficult to get grants, and most scientists would spend their time on other, more lucrative things. Selfish, maybe, but I don't think there's a country in the world that doesn't put some degree of priority on domestic issues. And for all we talk about scientists only being interested in grants, they can't do their job without them.
A better allegory would be: if no one in Japan (where the disease is rare) cared to look into a cure for AIDS, would we be happy to remain infected until a more afflicted country found the cure on its own?
But the other people don't get them American grant money!
Well, that's what "hurt" means. Don't underestimate the importance of money. How would you like to get a percentage knocked off your salary? You could say that they're already making more than anyone needs, but if you have internet access, so do you.
This is a pumped-up military-grade version of Word executive summaries?
This is a concept of common law, however, and an intentional loophole in the treaty; individual nations don't have to allow for "fair use." Apparently, Belgium doesn't.
I loaded the page, and it was in French. Then I changed it to Dutch, and the introductory text changed to Dutch, but the ruling was still in French. Then I changed it to English, and the ruling was still in French! They never translated it.
Tell me, are Belgian courts in the habits of issuing rulings that only half the country can read?
Or since the ruling, has the default language of the Belgian Google changed from Dutch to French?
Whoops...FC2.
I use FC...I think 3. (Should know that.) I always did use GNOME, but I just switched to KDE; I checked it a few hours ago and it didn't help.
The Japanese Wikipedia is the biggest culprit, although I tested it at 2chan. While surfing, I rarely have more open than two Abiword windows (occasionally three), the browser (never more than one full window), and the CD player. You're right, though: I haven't done anything for the kernel (or even Mozilla) in two years now, so I probably should upgrade.
Thanks for the advice.
Yeah, on my computer (Fedora), the display environment randomly crashes and reboots so that I have to log back in, then the wallpaper doesn't load until I refresh the desktop. It's a crapshoot whether the toolbar loads, and either way it runs wicked slowly. It happens randomly, but it's almost certain when I go to a page with a large number of CJK characters. It's insane.
Yeah. Every time I tell that problem to techs, they just stare...
Next it will power PC's from Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib, and let's not forget Japan. ...sorry.
The hardest part of that would probably be the "search for part" routines. It would be pretty easy to tell it where to put any given part, but getting the part would be hard unless they were laid out very carefully, which would be almost as much of a task as building it.
I can never get these things to function longer than a week.
It's not the wires that fall off; it's the hooks. Bundling them would just make it worse.
...not sure how zip ties would help.
I currently have my wiring straight up from my computer, forward enough that I have trouble putting the moniter up and down, around a tight corner by putting a hook right next to it, onto the wall above the door by a serious corner-cut, back likewise, around another corner, a more reasonable outward corner, then guided down until the coil resting on my dresser, in a loop around back to the jack, all on hooks that slip off at least twice a day.
It's better than tripping over it.
Actually, I meant that as a joke; I have no f'ing clue how it wound up with an "informative" modifier.
No, piracy is the misappropriation of a sea vessel with or without intent to return. Copying without profit is intellectual property infringement.