Over a quarter century ago, I worked with a telecom firm that was developing a low powered satellite PBX that would provide a mini-telephone exchange for use in remote parts of Africa. One of the unintended consequences of providing this technology was an almost immediate rise in prices received for the community's goods. Previously, not knowing what the goods were worth at market in the coastal cities, these communities sold their produce/livestock at bargain prices. After, armed with current coastal market prices, they did a better job of getting near-market prices for their produce.
This story seems to me to be another page from the same book; the more information the community has about itself, and can share with others, the better the quality of life for the community. With so much horror in Africa these days, it's heartening to hear a good news story.
Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
If you only pay a little bit, are you told a different truth than if you pay a lot? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting. I seriously doubt that every part of the Iliad (let alone the Odyessy) is factual, but it's still an important part of ancient Greek culture.
Any argument along the same lines as the one you presented can be boiled down to the same sentiment: "My belief/moral/cultural system is superior to theirs."
And yet, from my understanding of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, the basic morals are all pretty much the same: don't steal, lie, or cheat your neighbour; don't kill; treat people the way you would like to be treated; take care of your family (parents and children); don't screw around. My understanding of Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions is much more limited, yet I would suspect that they also hold to those basic tenets (others with deeper knowledge, please feel free to correct me). I think for a religion to last hundreds of years, it pretty much has to meet these a "hurdle". (And feel free to compare to "Scientology", where the basic tenet seems to be "get the next sucker to open his wallet", and the most advanced secrets aren't revealed until the supplicant has spent thousands. Hi, Xenu!)
The only differences I can see between the major religions are in the details - Catholics believe in transubstantiation, most Protestants don't; Jews and Muslims don't believe Christ was the son of God but still accept the Old Testament as part of their learning; Hindus, Jews, and Muslims alike will never know the delights of a bacon-double-cheeseburger. These differences are not things I worry about; you follow your path, and I'll follow mine, as they're both very much the same.
However, the David Koresh cult/Islamist/militant Sikhs/etc. - these people worry me because they're ready to kill other people who don't follow their program. I'm not saying Christians haven't fallen into that trap in the past (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus, for that matter), but we have, after a fair amount of strife and misery, seem to have gotten past that for the most part. Right now, the Islamist strain seems to be the most virulent of the "my way, or the die way"(TM) crowd, and we're trying to get that sorted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If I willingly join a club, team, organization, etc., I'm prepared to take
orders as a requirement of joining. However, the key word in the previous
sentence is "willingly". If I just walked up to you on the street, and said
"Cut your hair", would you feel obligated to do so?
Now, you might say, "Well, you're a willing member of American society, so
you need to abide by the rules we've set, and take orders as we give them
to you.". But when those laws are blatantly unconstitutional, such as the
Patriot Act, I think I not only have a right, but a duty, to disobey orders
such as those. If the orders are contradictory to the terms of the society,
they aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Finally, you put together a straw man with your public school argument. I wasn't
saying that I should have a right to decide whether to do an assignment or not (that
is, take a reasonable order); just that when I was finished, I should be able to read
quietly at my desk instead of being forced to pay attention while the teacher attempted
to force the lesson into the dolts' heads (that is, take an unreasonable order). As for
your comment that the public school has "nurtured" people to fit in society (I would use
the word "neutered", but that's as may be), I addressed that in one of my opening paragraphs. School is designed to get you to sit at a bell,take lunch at a bell, leave at a bell, and in between, do as you are told without thinking for yourself - in otherwords, to train you for
life as a factory employee. That you seem incapable of grasping this point indicates to me
that the public schools did their job rather too well on you.
Either you misunderstood your friend, or your friend misunderstood his situation. As a Canadian, you must maintain *CANADIAN* residency to be eligible for healthcare - this normally means at least six months plus a day each year. If your friend moves to NJ, and then comes back to Canada for a few weeks or a few months, he won't be covered under the Canadian program because he fails the residency test, not because of his pay or position. Here's the synopsis of eligibility for Ontario (please note the bolded AND conditions at the end; it's likely your friend didn't meet all of these):
You are eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) if:
* You are included under one of the following categories:
o you are a Canadian citizen, permanent resident or landed immigrant, convention refugee, or are registered as an Indian under the Indian Act
o you have submitted an Application for Permanent Residence or an Application for Landing and have been confirmed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada as having satisfied the medical requirements for landing
o you are a foreign worker who holds a valid work permit or employment authorization which names a Canadian employer situated in Ontario and your prospective occupation, and is valid for at least six months
o you are a foreign clergy member who will be providing services to a religious congregation in Ontario for at least six months
o you hold a Temporary Resident Permit or Minister's Permit with case type 80 (for adoption only), 86, 87, 88 or 89
o you are the spouse, same sex partner, or dependent child (under 19 years of age) of a foreign clergy member or eligible foreign worker who is to be employed in Ontario for a period of at least three consecutive years
o you hold a work permit or employment authorization under the Live-In Caregivers in Canada Program or the Foreign Domestic Movement
o you have been issued a work permit or employment authorization under the Caribbean Commonwealth and Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program administered by the federal department of Citizenship and Immigration
* and you make your permanent and principal home in Ontario
* andyou are in Ontario for at least 153 days of the first 183 days immediately following the date you establish residency in Ontario (you cannot be absent for more than 30 days during the first 6 months of residency)
* andyou are in Ontario for at least 153 days in any 12-month period
So, your snide comment notwithstanding, it's likely your friend either wasn't making his permanent residence in Canada, or he didn't meet the 153/183 test. Canadian healthcare is for Canadian residents, not people who are just visiting for a few months.
From what I've heard, the dust particles are electrically attracted to the solar panels, so most wipers won't work.
If this is true, doesn't that imply that the dust particles are charged ions? Is so, wouldn't making it possible to change the electric polarity of the skin for a few moments clear all the dust?
I think getting an extra arm with a dust wiping cloth would be a good idea too. Maybe two arms - one that sprays Windex, and the other one to polish. Might be a little energy inefficient, but quicker.
I know, I know!! Send up an army of squeegee kids with the rovers.. of course,
then you'd have to equip the rovers with dollar bills.
Yeah, it'd be nice for us the consumer if we could get cars that would last a similar amount of time. But that would be seriously bad for the auto manufacturers, the auto making unions, and a few zillion other people as well. Don't expect to see it happen in our lifetimes...
Um, they've lasted three years. My last car lasted 13 (and I didn't do any maintenance on it either), and it was North American (Chrysler). But, to take you seriously, I assume you mean that they've lasted 12 times their expected lifetime of three months. Let's never mind that that number was probably deliberately low-balled so that NASA could pat themselves on the back. Let's say you expect the average car to last four years. Would you really want a car from 1960? Let's see now...
No airbags
No 3-point seatbelts
No steel-belt radial tires
No anti-lock brakes
No crumple zones
No emission controls
No computerized ignition/fuel injection controls (can you spell "carburator"?)
No AM/FM/CD six-speaker stereo
No intermittent wipers
...
But, on the other hand, you would get:
A corrosion-prone all-steel body
A 10-mpg cast-iron engine
4/40 air conditioning (that's 4 windows open, 40 mph)
Really uncomfortable flat bench seats
Seriously, if you take care of a modern car, you can easily get ten years out of it, or more. If I bought a new car today, I'm pretty sure that by 2017, cars would have added enough new features that I'd certainly want one.
But then, you probably typed your post on a PII with 256KB RAM running Win95, right?
I'm Canadian, but when I've been involved in a dispute (a very, very few times), one of the first things the officer does is ask for some identification. I want to note he asks the same question of the other party. That way, the cop doesn't look like a schmoe if the case goes any farther, and the person who claimed to be "Brad Pitt" turns out to be someone else entirely. Remember, in this case, Righi *called* the cops in the first place. I don't believe it's going too far for the police to establish the identity of the person who placed the complaint. (Righi later noted that he filled out paper work at the police station in his complaint against the store manager; did Righi object to showing ID or signing that complaint? I somehow doubt it.)
Now, if the question is of the police arbitrarily stopping an automobile, and asking the back seat passengers to show their drivers' licenses, I'd be all for resisting. I don't think people who are going about their business should be forced to show identification for any reason. But that's not the case here. He asked for the authorities' help, and then refused to co-operate. Looks like a jerk, in my book.
BTW, this is not to say I don't agree with his refusal to be searched by the store on exit; that I do agree with.
Sorry, if I'd known you were from the UK, I'd have skipped the primer on parliamentary democracy:}
One major difference between Canada and the UK is the existence of "provincial" governments in Canada. With the exception of the 4 Atlantic provinces, every single province in Canada is larger than the UK in area (Ontario is about 4 times the size). These provincial governments were established as sovereign in particular areas at the time of Confederation (1867). It's important historically to note that Confederation was conceived and debated whilst the American Civil War was raging a few miles to the south, and to suggest that that war did not inform those discussions to a considerable degree is simply naive. Accordingly, Canada is a very "loose" federation, and the provincial premieres are barons with varying degrees of power.
Because the degree of financial success varies wildly with province, Canada developed an "equalization" process, where tax dollars are transferred from so-called "have" provinces to "have not" provinces. Currently, there are only three "haves" - Ontario, Alberta, and BC, of which Alberta contributes the most per capita by far. Now, a new oil field, Hebron, has been located off the coast of Newfoundland, perenially the most "have not" of the bunch (especially after the cod stocks disappeared). In the UK, there would be no question that the revenue from this field belongs to London to distribute as it sees fit; in Canada's case, the revenue would go to Newfoundland. Now, here's the type of absurdity you will only find in Canada: although Alberta's substantial oil revenues are counted to determine its "have" status, the current Premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams, is adamant that any revenues Newfoundland receives from Hebron not only belong to Newfoundland alone, but that they should not be counted towards Newfoundland's status in the equalization formula. The current federal Tory minority hangs by a thread, and Williams' rhetoric has pushed federal Tory fortunes in that province to the bottom. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has offered all the Atlantic provinces a sweeter equalization deal but wants to add oil revenues into the equation, but Williams foams at the mouth whenever this is mentioned.
Now perhaps people understand why I wish libertarianism was a viable political option. Can you imagine, on a personal level, the gall of the indigent neighbour next door whom you have supported for the last 25 years, who, when he strikes oil in his backyard, not only refuses to share the wealth, but insists you continue to support him to the extent that you have in the past? I'd tell him to stuff it; Harper doesn't have that luxury. Welcome to the theatre of the absurd we call Canadian politics.
PS Don't get me wrong; I love my country and all its contrasts. It's beautiful and barren, lush and harsh, civilized and wild, and endlessly revealing. If only we didn't have all the politicians...
You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. I wish the politicians around here would have the balls to ban smoking.
What if I wished the politicians had the balls to ban you - permanently? Don't laugh - that happened in Argentina and Chile, and is happening now in Zimbabwe (and by some reports, in Russia). It's unfortunate that you don't see that that is the logical consequence of imposing your will on someone else; eventually, someone with a larger gun will impose their will on you.
Should there be socialized medicine? Maybe in Wisconsin, but not Nebraska. Should the federal government force Nebraska to institute socialized medicine? No, that's their choice.
In fact, I think this is the greatest strength of the American republic - it allows for experimentation in the 50 states, and then lets people decide what works, and what doesn't. For example, IIRC, Massachussets is introducing universal health care (please correct me I'm wrong). From what I know of New Hampshire, they would run screaming from that idea. So, if the MA scheme ends up being too expensive for employers, will they relocate their premises to southern NH? Will the people in southern NH accept the higher taxes in MA, and move there so they can be certain of having health insurance? I have no idea, but the experiment is interesting.
Meanwhile, where I live in Canada, we can't even discuss the idea of a mixed public/private system without the shrill bogeyman of "two tier American style health care" being chanted towards us with all the fervour of Orwell's sheep. Frankly, I think a mixed public/private system is the best solution, but I don't *KNOW*. In Canada, I'll never be given the chance to find out - I have some faith that America will eventually sort it out properly.
First off, I live in Canada. As you might know, our political system is slightly different here. We have "ridings" (a little over 300 across the country), which you may think of like congressional districts. We don't elect a Prime Minister directly; instead, we vote only for a Member of Parliament (MP) from our riding. The party that wins the most ridings is usually (not always) asked to form a government, and the leader of that party becomes PM.
Now, when I was much younger, there were three major parties: the Liberals (much like the Democrats), the Progressive Conservatives (GOP), and the New Democratic Party (loony left). Usually, only the Conservatives (aka Tories) or Liberals (aka Grits) won enough seats to form a gov't. The NDP would usually win between 10-20% of the total popular vote, but because of our "first past the post" voting system, they usually only won about 5% of the seats. The Grits have won most elections since the early 1900's; when the Tories win, it's usually only for a single term, and it's often a minority (i.e. the Tories have the most seats but less than the other parties put together). The Grits think of themselves as "Canada's natural governing party", and their electoral success has been pretty consistent for the last century. Noticing this, starting in the late 70's, the Tories began a steady move to the so-called "centre".
Now, let me explain the colours of the Canadian political rainbow. Because the province of Quebec is constantly threatening to separate, we have in that province separatists, "soft" nationalists (people who will vote to stay in Canada if they get bribed enough), and "hard" nationalists (people who will vote to remain in Canada no matter what). In our Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland), the collapse of the fish stocks and the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the US led to widespread unemployment. This has led in turn to a situation where many people work for six months of the year, and then draw "pogey" checks for six months. There are numerous fiefdoms in the area, all predicated on the ability to "deliver my six months". Moving west, we have Ontario, which is the largest province in terms of population. It tends to be the swing vote, and whoever wins the most of its 100+ seats generally wins the election. Next comes Manitoba and Saskatchewan - basically agrarian. Generally slightly left of centre, but they have swung to the right from time to time, especially if one of their own is running. Next comes Alberta, an oil-rich province which one might label the "Texas" of Canada. Their economy has been booming since the oil shocks of the 70's. The politics are pretty right wing on both economic and social policies, and the party usually delivers all but one or two seats to the Tories. Finally, we get to British Columbia, which is an interesting mix of San Francisco and Orange County. There are huge industries in BC: forestry, mining, high tech, and tourism, and there are also large numbers of "tree huggers" who worry about the environment, the social safety net, and getting excellent bud. It probably has the most volatile pattern of any province. Sorry for all these prelims, but it will let me answer your question in real world terms.
Oh, one last thing: here's the number of ridings up for grabs in each area:
Atlantic Canada: 32 seats
Quebec: 75
Ontario: 106
Manitoba & Saskatchewan: 28
Alberta: 28
BC: 36
As you can see, the number of seats in Quebec and Ontario make them the prime battleground. This leads to resentment in western Canada, which feels it contributes mightily to the country's economy but is shut out of real power. This will be important, as I will explain.
As I noted, the Tories, seeing the Liberals always win, started moving to the "centre". A wimp named Joe Clark actually won an election in 1979, but it was a minority, and he was soon defeated (with
And why in God's name should your teacher give you any respect? Your self-righteous attitude is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with youth culture today. As a child, it is highly unlikely you have done anything worthwhile. There is simply no reason why any responsible adult should give you (as a child) any "respect" at all.
So you were smart. Big deal. Intelligence, by itself, is not that important -- it only provides potential. While it is a common amongst the youth to feel that their innate abilities and potential somehow deserve accolades and celebration, most learn quickly upon entering adulthood that accomplishment counts for far more. What saddens me is that, years after you have left physical childhood behind, you still think like a child.
Youth culture today?! I'm 51 years old, boyo, and I have nothing to do with youth culture today.
So, because in your mind, I'd done nothing "worthwhile", I wasn't deserving of respect. So if there's a hobo on the street, it's OK for you to hit him, since he clearly isn't deserving of respect? Or to call him names? Both of which teachers did to me in public school.
Perhaps we are arguing because we have different definitions of the word "respect". To me, that means when, for example, the teacher is taking the class through long division for the third time, and I completed my assignment with no errors the first time through, the teacher should show enough respect for my abilities to allow me to take out a book and read quietly at my desk. Note this does not mean that I should be able to get up and do jumping jacks, or start talking with a friend; this would be showing a lack of respect to the teacher. Perhaps you could share your definition of "respect", and then we'll see where we stand.
As for demanding celebrations and accolades: please point out anywhere where I stated I requested either of those. All I wanted to be was left alone after I had learned the lesson to read something else. At my old public school desk, I learned a method of putting a book in my lap, and looking like I was paying attention. However, on occasion, I got so engrossed in what I was reading, I didn't realize the teacher had walked up behind me. What happened next? I got boxed in the ear. Perhaps you think this is an appropriate response; I don't. And I think it shows a lack of respect for me - after all, it's not like that teacher didn't know me; I had been in his class all year.
Finally, you say "it's accomplishment, not intelligence that counts". But I had accomplished the teacher's ostensible goal: I had learned the lesson, and learned it perfectly. And my reward for accomplishment? Enforced boredom and wasted time. Do you think that's appropriate?
Everything you said made perfect sense, but the second hand smoke issue... let's say you disagree with the cancer risk, fine, but it still hurts. It physically hurts the eyes, the throat, the lungs. Smoking has been banned indoors in public around here for a bit over a year, and I've never been out so much (and the crod is huge where I go out). The smokers still smoke, outside, they are as free as they've ever been, but the non-smokers now have the freedom to go out without being forced to smoke.
I don't know where you live, but I live just north of Toronto, Ontario. I don't smoke either, and I particularly hate it when I'm eating, and someone lights up 3 feet away from me. Now, a few years back, the government told eating establishments that if they wanted to allow smoking, they had to separate rooms for smokers, or go non-smoking completely. Many restaurants complied, and installed expensive, separately ventilated, enclosed smoking rooms. But this wasn't good enough for the anti-smokers; they continued arguing, and now smoking rooms are not permitted at all. Too bad for the spots who spent all the money on the smoking room. But that still wasn't enough. Next, the anti-smokers argued against smoking on outdoor patios. And they won again. Now you can't smoke on a patio. But that wasn't enough, either. Now the anti-smokers want to make it illegal for you to smoke on any public property - in a city park, for example. Want to bet they won't win again?
And this is why I tend towards the libertarian view - if you don't want to go to a place that allows smoking, don't go. When we tried all sorts of reasonable compromises, the anti-smoking gestapo just took that step, and kept on taking more, and our craven politicians gave in on every step ("think of the children!").
C) Ahh yes when the free market-owned equivalent of the Minneapolis highway bridge collapses I expect the CEO to go to jail. Or perhaps get a bonus.
How ridiculous can you get? First off, the CEO of a bridge company would do everything in his power to keep his bridge operational. You don't get any revenue when it's down. Plus, the lawsuits would likely break the firm, so the idea he'd get a bonus is just laughable. Finally, if it could be proved that the CEO deliberately neglected maintenance, he would likely go to jail.
Now, my (presumed statist) friend, tell me exactly who is going to jail for the Minneapolis collapse? Who is even going to lose their job? It seems to me that with the government, no one
has to take responsibility, while in private firms, people do. Jeff Skilling with Enron, the family behind Adelphia, the jerk from Tyco (name escapes me): they're all in jail for fraud. But what about Delay, Ney, or others who have accepted bribes? They may lose their seats, they may have to pay fines, but I doubt any of them ever sees a minute behind bars. If accountability is your issue, it appears to me it is much stronger and more efficient in the private sector than accountability for government.
How do you think people study at Oxford? Reading books, and then discussing them one-on-one with their dons (and perhaps, even often, informally, with their fellow students).
The classrooms we all endure at public school are more designed for the meta-effects than the effect on the individual. Schools were designed to train children to sit still, to take lunch at a bell, to take breaks at a bell, and to be discharged by a bell - perfect fodder for the primitive factories of the industrial revolution. This is why society can't figure out what's wrong with schools now; they're turning out people who can't think for themselves, and that's not what a post-industrial economy needs.
And, of course, one of the functions of the standard public school is the same one as military boot camp - to break the individual's spirit, to make him/her conform, to expressly have him/her (oh, let me use "he" from now on, but understand it includes women as well) not think for himself, but to have him follow orders blindly - again, just what was needed on the production floor. Someone above posted that "Atlas Shrugged" was poorly written, but there is a passage at the end where Galt is being tortured by electric shocks, and James Taggart is hanging over him, frothing at the mouth, shouting "He'll take orders! He'll take orders!!" (not an exact quotation, but the gist of it). That seems an accurate description of the goal of public schools.
I'm sure like many others here, I got very good marks at public school, but was also often in trouble and sent to the principal's office for mouthing off in class, etc. Why? Because while I would accept that the teachers were more learned (or in some cases, less ignorant), I never thought for a moment that they were more intelligent. They demanded respect from me, but never offered the same in return (there were precious few exceptions, and for their counsel, I will always be greatful).
So what messages did I receive in those public school classrooms? "You're no better than anyone else", "Take your place and shut up", "Slow down and learn at the same rate as everybody else; you're not special". All the while, within myself, I was thinking "But I can go faster than everyone else", "I can see a better way to do this", and "I am special". When the very core of your being is surpressed, you naturally look for a way to allow it to flourish.
And this is the core of libertarian thought: if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone. Don't tell me what to do. Don't order me to attend your schools. Don't take my money for your causes. Let me trade freely (for example, let me buy sugar from Cuba). Let me read, or view, or say, what I want. I don't need you to tell me what to do; I'm quite capable of figuring it out for myself. Let me have sex with any adult I want, male or female (n.b. I'm quite straight, but I see no reason to surpress other adults' desires; I'm still protective of minors). Let me put into my body what I choose to put in it.
Now, the operative clause above is "if I'm not hurting you". There can be much debate between libertarians about that, as it applies to various issues. Second-hand smoke and drunk driving are two; I very much believe the dangers of the former are over-blown, while the dangers of the latter are relatively obvious. Global warming is another contentious issue, on which my own mind is not at all made up. Finally, abortion is the ultimate issue on which libs can disagree; some feel a woman controls her body, others feel that when the woman consents to sex, she implicitly consents to the creation of a life within her. (Please let's not get sidetracked on this issue - I'm just raising it to say that there are issues with which libs can (violently) disagree.) So I'm not saying being a libertarian means that you think you have the answers to everything, although it may often seem so.
Why are so many nerds libertarian? Because you can't code by rote. You can't create or develop a new application following s
Read through the many posts in this thread that discussed the YouTube Terms of Service. As I recall, by uploading anything to YouTube, you give YouTube *and any other user* a sub-license to copy, and *distribute* your uploaded material. Nothing in the word "distribute" implies that it requires a physical copy; you can distribute information by broadcasting it. Thus, what Viacom did is within the YT Terms of Service. It's not a question of copyright; it's a question of whether the original creator agreed to allow Viacom (implicitly, I'll agree) to use his material by putting it on YT; he did. The second part of the question is whether the originator violated Viacom's copyright; he clearly did, but in a such a minor way, I think Viacom is being ridiculous in suing. If I were in Viacom's PR department, I'd be pushing the lawyers to get the kid to pay them some small amount, like $1, and then let the matter drop.
You are completely missing the point. YouTube's Terms of Service *specifically* require you to grant to it, and to anyone else using the site, the right to download your material. Viacom, as we all know, barely lets you use the company name, let alone any of their material. Copyright and fair use don't apply, because he implicitly agreed to allow others to download it when he posted on YouTube.
That said, I think Viacom is acting like an ass, but that's what having lawyers does. I worked for a company where we designed a new logo, drew up a bunch of designs (this was in the dark ages before PhotoShop - we actually created technical drawings with little strips of LetraSet, peeling them off their backing, then sticking them on a page, and finally taking a picture of the finished product so we could send it to the printers; creating logos, brochures, etc. was much more expensive than it is now). We got them back, all pleased, and took the finished stuff up to senior execs to see. We were all patting ourselves on the back, and then our corporate lawyer walked in. He looked at them, and was horrified. He felt the star design was too close to that of a competitor, and said we would be sued because it looked too much - not exactly, but too much in his estimation - like the competitor's. We had to junk everything, and start again. He was probably right - some other lawyer at the competitor would have noticed, and he would have sued us. Shakespeare was right.
Elementary, Watson. Youtube use is not fair. Blog use is fair per se, but since it using unfair youtube embedded into the blog, it becomes tainted like "benefiting from the crime" or smth.
You may have an interesting point, but since I was unable to parse the phrase "but since it using unfair youtube embedded into the blog" or the innovative word "smth", I will never know.
So when VH1 aired the clip, did they do so through the YouTube Website, or did they download a copy and play that copy? If I read the terms correctly, anyone can watch the posted videos "as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service." But wouldn't downloading a copy and airing the copy on TV violate the YT Terms of Service?
Here's the important words in the Terms of Service:
to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service
How can you reproduce the video without downloading it? One of the functions of YT is you can download material, so I think that would qualify as a "permitted" use "through the functionality
of the website". It doesn't specify that you are restricted to distributing material through the YT website. Of course, IANAL, this is only my interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
This story seems to me to be another page from the same book; the more information the community has about itself, and can share with others, the better the quality of life for the community. With so much horror in Africa these days, it's heartening to hear a good news story.
(Waving robotic arms in air) "Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!"
Does the "religion" make you pay to find their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
If you only pay a little bit, are you told a different truth than if you pay a lot? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs? Christians/Jews/Muslims: No Scientology: Yes
And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting. I seriously doubt that every part of the Iliad (let alone the Odyessy) is factual, but it's still an important part of ancient Greek culture.
Yeah, look what that did for Steve Irwin...
And yet, from my understanding of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, the basic morals are all pretty much the same: don't steal, lie, or cheat your neighbour; don't kill; treat people the way you would like to be treated; take care of your family (parents and children); don't screw around. My understanding of Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions is much more limited, yet I would suspect that they also hold to those basic tenets (others with deeper knowledge, please feel free to correct me). I think for a religion to last hundreds of years, it pretty much has to meet these a "hurdle". (And feel free to compare to "Scientology", where the basic tenet seems to be "get the next sucker to open his wallet", and the most advanced secrets aren't revealed until the supplicant has spent thousands. Hi, Xenu!)
The only differences I can see between the major religions are in the details - Catholics believe in transubstantiation, most Protestants don't; Jews and Muslims don't believe Christ was the son of God but still accept the Old Testament as part of their learning; Hindus, Jews, and Muslims alike will never know the delights of a bacon-double-cheeseburger. These differences are not things I worry about; you follow your path, and I'll follow mine, as they're both very much the same.
However, the David Koresh cult/Islamist/militant Sikhs/etc. - these people worry me because they're ready to kill other people who don't follow their program. I'm not saying Christians haven't fallen into that trap in the past (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus, for that matter), but we have, after a fair amount of strife and misery, seem to have gotten past that for the most part. Right now, the Islamist strain seems to be the most virulent of the "my way, or the die way"(TM) crowd, and we're trying to get that sorted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If I willingly join a club, team, organization, etc., I'm prepared to take orders as a requirement of joining. However, the key word in the previous sentence is "willingly". If I just walked up to you on the street, and said "Cut your hair", would you feel obligated to do so?
Now, you might say, "Well, you're a willing member of American society, so you need to abide by the rules we've set, and take orders as we give them to you.". But when those laws are blatantly unconstitutional, such as the Patriot Act, I think I not only have a right, but a duty, to disobey orders such as those. If the orders are contradictory to the terms of the society, they aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Finally, you put together a straw man with your public school argument. I wasn't saying that I should have a right to decide whether to do an assignment or not (that is, take a reasonable order); just that when I was finished, I should be able to read quietly at my desk instead of being forced to pay attention while the teacher attempted to force the lesson into the dolts' heads (that is, take an unreasonable order). As for your comment that the public school has "nurtured" people to fit in society (I would use the word "neutered", but that's as may be), I addressed that in one of my opening paragraphs. School is designed to get you to sit at a bell,take lunch at a bell, leave at a bell, and in between, do as you are told without thinking for yourself - in otherwords, to train you for life as a factory employee. That you seem incapable of grasping this point indicates to me that the public schools did their job rather too well on you.
You are eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) if :
* You are included under one of the following categories :
o you are a Canadian citizen, permanent resident or landed immigrant, convention refugee, or are registered as an Indian under the Indian Act
o you have submitted an Application for Permanent Residence or an Application for Landing and have been confirmed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada as having satisfied the medical requirements for landing
o you are a foreign worker who holds a valid work permit or employment authorization which names a Canadian employer situated in Ontario and your prospective occupation, and is valid for at least six months
o you are a foreign clergy member who will be providing services to a religious congregation in Ontario for at least six months
o you hold a Temporary Resident Permit or Minister's Permit with case type 80 (for adoption only), 86, 87, 88 or 89
o you are the spouse, same sex partner, or dependent child (under 19 years of age) of a foreign clergy member or eligible foreign worker who is to be employed in Ontario for a period of at least three consecutive years
o you hold a work permit or employment authorization under the Live-In Caregivers in Canada Program or the Foreign Domestic Movement
o you have been issued a work permit or employment authorization under the Caribbean Commonwealth and Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program administered by the federal department of Citizenship and Immigration
* and you make your permanent and principal home in Ontario
* andyou are in Ontario for at least 153 days of the first 183 days immediately following the date you establish residency in Ontario (you cannot be absent for more than 30 days during the first 6 months of residency)
* andyou are in Ontario for at least 153 days in any 12-month period
So, your snide comment notwithstanding, it's likely your friend either wasn't making his permanent residence in Canada, or he didn't meet the 153/183 test. Canadian healthcare is for Canadian residents, not people who are just visiting for a few months.
If this is true, doesn't that imply that the dust particles are charged ions? Is so, wouldn't making it possible to change the electric polarity of the skin for a few moments clear all the dust?
I know, I know!! Send up an army of squeegee kids with the rovers.. of course, then you'd have to equip the rovers with dollar bills.
Um, they've lasted three years. My last car lasted 13 (and I didn't do any maintenance on it either), and it was North American (Chrysler). But, to take you seriously, I assume you mean that they've lasted 12 times their expected lifetime of three months. Let's never mind that that number was probably deliberately low-balled so that NASA could pat themselves on the back. Let's say you expect the average car to last four years. Would you really want a car from 1960? Let's see now...
No airbags
No 3-point seatbelts
No steel-belt radial tires
No anti-lock brakes
No crumple zones
No emission controls
No computerized ignition/fuel injection controls (can you spell "carburator"?)
No AM/FM/CD six-speaker stereo
No intermittent wipers
A corrosion-prone all-steel body
A 10-mpg cast-iron engine
4/40 air conditioning (that's 4 windows open, 40 mph)
Really uncomfortable flat bench seats
Seriously, if you take care of a modern car, you can easily get ten years out of it, or more. If I bought a new car today, I'm pretty sure that by 2017, cars would have added enough new features that I'd certainly want one.
But then, you probably typed your post on a PII with 256KB RAM running Win95, right?
Now, if the question is of the police arbitrarily stopping an automobile, and asking the back seat passengers to show their drivers' licenses, I'd be all for resisting. I don't think people who are going about their business should be forced to show identification for any reason. But that's not the case here. He asked for the authorities' help, and then refused to co-operate. Looks like a jerk, in my book.
BTW, this is not to say I don't agree with his refusal to be searched by the store on exit; that I do agree with.
Papers? Papers? Papiere, bitte?
One major difference between Canada and the UK is the existence of "provincial" governments in Canada. With the exception of the 4 Atlantic provinces, every single province in Canada is larger than the UK in area (Ontario is about 4 times the size). These provincial governments were established as sovereign in particular areas at the time of Confederation (1867). It's important historically to note that Confederation was conceived and debated whilst the American Civil War was raging a few miles to the south, and to suggest that that war did not inform those discussions to a considerable degree is simply naive. Accordingly, Canada is a very "loose" federation, and the provincial premieres are barons with varying degrees of power.
Because the degree of financial success varies wildly with province, Canada developed an "equalization" process, where tax dollars are transferred from so-called "have" provinces to "have not" provinces. Currently, there are only three "haves" - Ontario, Alberta, and BC, of which Alberta contributes the most per capita by far. Now, a new oil field, Hebron, has been located off the coast of Newfoundland, perenially the most "have not" of the bunch (especially after the cod stocks disappeared). In the UK, there would be no question that the revenue from this field belongs to London to distribute as it sees fit; in Canada's case, the revenue would go to Newfoundland. Now, here's the type of absurdity you will only find in Canada: although Alberta's substantial oil revenues are counted to determine its "have" status, the current Premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams, is adamant that any revenues Newfoundland receives from Hebron not only belong to Newfoundland alone, but that they should not be counted towards Newfoundland's status in the equalization formula. The current federal Tory minority hangs by a thread, and Williams' rhetoric has pushed federal Tory fortunes in that province to the bottom. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has offered all the Atlantic provinces a sweeter equalization deal but wants to add oil revenues into the equation, but Williams foams at the mouth whenever this is mentioned.
Now perhaps people understand why I wish libertarianism was a viable political option. Can you imagine, on a personal level, the gall of the indigent neighbour next door whom you have supported for the last 25 years, who, when he strikes oil in his backyard, not only refuses to share the wealth, but insists you continue to support him to the extent that you have in the past? I'd tell him to stuff it; Harper doesn't have that luxury. Welcome to the theatre of the absurd we call Canadian politics.
PS Don't get me wrong; I love my country and all its contrasts. It's beautiful and barren, lush and harsh, civilized and wild, and endlessly revealing. If only we didn't have all the politicians...
What if I wished the politicians had the balls to ban you - permanently? Don't laugh - that happened in Argentina and Chile, and is happening now in Zimbabwe (and by some reports, in Russia). It's unfortunate that you don't see that that is the logical consequence of imposing your will on someone else; eventually, someone with a larger gun will impose their will on you.
In fact, I think this is the greatest strength of the American republic - it allows for experimentation in the 50 states, and then lets people decide what works, and what doesn't. For example, IIRC, Massachussets is introducing universal health care (please correct me I'm wrong). From what I know of New Hampshire, they would run screaming from that idea. So, if the MA scheme ends up being too expensive for employers, will they relocate their premises to southern NH? Will the people in southern NH accept the higher taxes in MA, and move there so they can be certain of having health insurance? I have no idea, but the experiment is interesting.
Meanwhile, where I live in Canada, we can't even discuss the idea of a mixed public/private system without the shrill bogeyman of "two tier American style health care" being chanted towards us with all the fervour of Orwell's sheep. Frankly, I think a mixed public/private system is the best solution, but I don't *KNOW*. In Canada, I'll never be given the chance to find out - I have some faith that America will eventually sort it out properly.
First off, I live in Canada. As you might know, our political system is slightly different here. We have "ridings" (a little over 300 across the country), which you may think of like congressional districts. We don't elect a Prime Minister directly; instead, we vote only for a Member of Parliament (MP) from our riding. The party that wins the most ridings is usually (not always) asked to form a government, and the leader of that party becomes PM.
Now, when I was much younger, there were three major parties: the Liberals (much like the Democrats), the Progressive Conservatives (GOP), and the New Democratic Party (loony left). Usually, only the Conservatives (aka Tories) or Liberals (aka Grits) won enough seats to form a gov't. The NDP would usually win between 10-20% of the total popular vote, but because of our "first past the post" voting system, they usually only won about 5% of the seats. The Grits have won most elections since the early 1900's; when the Tories win, it's usually only for a single term, and it's often a minority (i.e. the Tories have the most seats but less than the other parties put together). The Grits think of themselves as "Canada's natural governing party", and their electoral success has been pretty consistent for the last century. Noticing this, starting in the late 70's, the Tories began a steady move to the so-called "centre".
Now, let me explain the colours of the Canadian political rainbow. Because the province of Quebec is constantly threatening to separate, we have in that province separatists, "soft" nationalists (people who will vote to stay in Canada if they get bribed enough), and "hard" nationalists (people who will vote to remain in Canada no matter what). In our Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland), the collapse of the fish stocks and the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the US led to widespread unemployment. This has led in turn to a situation where many people work for six months of the year, and then draw "pogey" checks for six months. There are numerous fiefdoms in the area, all predicated on the ability to "deliver my six months". Moving west, we have Ontario, which is the largest province in terms of population. It tends to be the swing vote, and whoever wins the most of its 100+ seats generally wins the election. Next comes Manitoba and Saskatchewan - basically agrarian. Generally slightly left of centre, but they have swung to the right from time to time, especially if one of their own is running. Next comes Alberta, an oil-rich province which one might label the "Texas" of Canada. Their economy has been booming since the oil shocks of the 70's. The politics are pretty right wing on both economic and social policies, and the party usually delivers all but one or two seats to the Tories. Finally, we get to British Columbia, which is an interesting mix of San Francisco and Orange County. There are huge industries in BC: forestry, mining, high tech, and tourism, and there are also large numbers of "tree huggers" who worry about the environment, the social safety net, and getting excellent bud. It probably has the most volatile pattern of any province. Sorry for all these prelims, but it will let me answer your question in real world terms.
Oh, one last thing: here's the number of ridings up for grabs in each area:
Atlantic Canada: 32 seats
Quebec: 75
Ontario: 106
Manitoba & Saskatchewan: 28
Alberta: 28
BC: 36
As you can see, the number of seats in Quebec and Ontario make them the prime battleground. This leads to resentment in western Canada, which feels it contributes mightily to the country's economy but is shut out of real power. This will be important, as I will explain.
As I noted, the Tories, seeing the Liberals always win, started moving to the "centre". A wimp named Joe Clark actually won an election in 1979, but it was a minority, and he was soon defeated (with
So you were smart. Big deal. Intelligence, by itself, is not that important -- it only provides potential. While it is a common amongst the youth to feel that their innate abilities and potential somehow deserve accolades and celebration, most learn quickly upon entering adulthood that accomplishment counts for far more. What saddens me is that, years after you have left physical childhood behind, you still think like a child.
Youth culture today?! I'm 51 years old, boyo, and I have nothing to do with youth culture today.
So, because in your mind, I'd done nothing "worthwhile", I wasn't deserving of respect. So if there's a hobo on the street, it's OK for you to hit him, since he clearly isn't deserving of respect? Or to call him names? Both of which teachers did to me in public school.
Perhaps we are arguing because we have different definitions of the word "respect". To me, that means when, for example, the teacher is taking the class through long division for the third time, and I completed my assignment with no errors the first time through, the teacher should show enough respect for my abilities to allow me to take out a book and read quietly at my desk. Note this does not mean that I should be able to get up and do jumping jacks, or start talking with a friend; this would be showing a lack of respect to the teacher. Perhaps you could share your definition of "respect", and then we'll see where we stand.
As for demanding celebrations and accolades: please point out anywhere where I stated I requested either of those. All I wanted to be was left alone after I had learned the lesson to read something else. At my old public school desk, I learned a method of putting a book in my lap, and looking like I was paying attention. However, on occasion, I got so engrossed in what I was reading, I didn't realize the teacher had walked up behind me. What happened next? I got boxed in the ear. Perhaps you think this is an appropriate response; I don't. And I think it shows a lack of respect for me - after all, it's not like that teacher didn't know me; I had been in his class all year.
Finally, you say "it's accomplishment, not intelligence that counts". But I had accomplished the teacher's ostensible goal: I had learned the lesson, and learned it perfectly. And my reward for accomplishment? Enforced boredom and wasted time. Do you think that's appropriate?
I don't know where you live, but I live just north of Toronto, Ontario. I don't smoke either, and I particularly hate it when I'm eating, and someone lights up 3 feet away from me. Now, a few years back, the government told eating establishments that if they wanted to allow smoking, they had to separate rooms for smokers, or go non-smoking completely. Many restaurants complied, and installed expensive, separately ventilated, enclosed smoking rooms. But this wasn't good enough for the anti-smokers; they continued arguing, and now smoking rooms are not permitted at all. Too bad for the spots who spent all the money on the smoking room. But that still wasn't enough. Next, the anti-smokers argued against smoking on outdoor patios. And they won again. Now you can't smoke on a patio. But that wasn't enough, either. Now the anti-smokers want to make it illegal for you to smoke on any public property - in a city park, for example. Want to bet they won't win again?
And this is why I tend towards the libertarian view - if you don't want to go to a place that allows smoking, don't go. When we tried all sorts of reasonable compromises, the anti-smoking gestapo just took that step, and kept on taking more, and our craven politicians gave in on every step ("think of the children!").
How ridiculous can you get? First off, the CEO of a bridge company would do everything in his power to keep his bridge operational. You don't get any revenue when it's down. Plus, the lawsuits would likely break the firm, so the idea he'd get a bonus is just laughable. Finally, if it could be proved that the CEO deliberately neglected maintenance, he would likely go to jail.
Now, my (presumed statist) friend, tell me exactly who is going to jail for the Minneapolis collapse? Who is even going to lose their job? It seems to me that with the government, no one has to take responsibility, while in private firms, people do. Jeff Skilling with Enron, the family behind Adelphia, the jerk from Tyco (name escapes me): they're all in jail for fraud. But what about Delay, Ney, or others who have accepted bribes? They may lose their seats, they may have to pay fines, but I doubt any of them ever sees a minute behind bars. If accountability is your issue, it appears to me it is much stronger and more efficient in the private sector than accountability for government.
What?! One of these guys doesn't have a face?
The classrooms we all endure at public school are more designed for the meta-effects than the effect on the individual. Schools were designed to train children to sit still, to take lunch at a bell, to take breaks at a bell, and to be discharged by a bell - perfect fodder for the primitive factories of the industrial revolution. This is why society can't figure out what's wrong with schools now; they're turning out people who can't think for themselves, and that's not what a post-industrial economy needs.
And, of course, one of the functions of the standard public school is the same one as military boot camp - to break the individual's spirit, to make him/her conform, to expressly have him/her (oh, let me use "he" from now on, but understand it includes women as well) not think for himself, but to have him follow orders blindly - again, just what was needed on the production floor. Someone above posted that "Atlas Shrugged" was poorly written, but there is a passage at the end where Galt is being tortured by electric shocks, and James Taggart is hanging over him, frothing at the mouth, shouting "He'll take orders! He'll take orders!!" (not an exact quotation, but the gist of it). That seems an accurate description of the goal of public schools.
I'm sure like many others here, I got very good marks at public school, but was also often in trouble and sent to the principal's office for mouthing off in class, etc. Why? Because while I would accept that the teachers were more learned (or in some cases, less ignorant), I never thought for a moment that they were more intelligent. They demanded respect from me, but never offered the same in return (there were precious few exceptions, and for their counsel, I will always be greatful).
So what messages did I receive in those public school classrooms? "You're no better than anyone else", "Take your place and shut up", "Slow down and learn at the same rate as everybody else; you're not special". All the while, within myself, I was thinking "But I can go faster than everyone else", "I can see a better way to do this", and "I am special". When the very core of your being is surpressed, you naturally look for a way to allow it to flourish.
And this is the core of libertarian thought: if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone. Don't tell me what to do. Don't order me to attend your schools. Don't take my money for your causes. Let me trade freely (for example, let me buy sugar from Cuba). Let me read, or view, or say, what I want. I don't need you to tell me what to do; I'm quite capable of figuring it out for myself. Let me have sex with any adult I want, male or female (n.b. I'm quite straight, but I see no reason to surpress other adults' desires; I'm still protective of minors). Let me put into my body what I choose to put in it.
Now, the operative clause above is "if I'm not hurting you". There can be much debate between libertarians about that, as it applies to various issues. Second-hand smoke and drunk driving are two; I very much believe the dangers of the former are over-blown, while the dangers of the latter are relatively obvious. Global warming is another contentious issue, on which my own mind is not at all made up. Finally, abortion is the ultimate issue on which libs can disagree; some feel a woman controls her body, others feel that when the woman consents to sex, she implicitly consents to the creation of a life within her. (Please let's not get sidetracked on this issue - I'm just raising it to say that there are issues with which libs can (violently) disagree.) So I'm not saying being a libertarian means that you think you have the answers to everything, although it may often seem so.
Why are so many nerds libertarian? Because you can't code by rote. You can't create or develop a new application following s
Read through the many posts in this thread that discussed the YouTube Terms of Service. As I recall, by uploading anything to YouTube, you give YouTube *and any other user* a sub-license to copy, and *distribute* your uploaded material. Nothing in the word "distribute" implies that it requires a physical copy; you can distribute information by broadcasting it. Thus, what Viacom did is within the YT Terms of Service. It's not a question of copyright; it's a question of whether the original creator agreed to allow Viacom (implicitly, I'll agree) to use his material by putting it on YT; he did. The second part of the question is whether the originator violated Viacom's copyright; he clearly did, but in a such a minor way, I think Viacom is being ridiculous in suing. If I were in Viacom's PR department, I'd be pushing the lawyers to get the kid to pay them some small amount, like $1, and then let the matter drop.
That said, I think Viacom is acting like an ass, but that's what having lawyers does. I worked for a company where we designed a new logo, drew up a bunch of designs (this was in the dark ages before PhotoShop - we actually created technical drawings with little strips of LetraSet, peeling them off their backing, then sticking them on a page, and finally taking a picture of the finished product so we could send it to the printers; creating logos, brochures, etc. was much more expensive than it is now). We got them back, all pleased, and took the finished stuff up to senior execs to see. We were all patting ourselves on the back, and then our corporate lawyer walked in. He looked at them, and was horrified. He felt the star design was too close to that of a competitor, and said we would be sued because it looked too much - not exactly, but too much in his estimation - like the competitor's. We had to junk everything, and start again. He was probably right - some other lawyer at the competitor would have noticed, and he would have sued us. Shakespeare was right.
You may have an interesting point, but since I was unable to parse the phrase "but since it using unfair youtube embedded into the blog" or the innovative word "smth", I will never know.
Here's the important words in the Terms of Service:
to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service
How can you reproduce the video without downloading it? One of the functions of YT is you can download material, so I think that would qualify as a "permitted" use "through the functionality of the website". It doesn't specify that you are restricted to distributing material through the YT website. Of course, IANAL, this is only my interpretation.