I constant trend in the US and UK is institutional meanness.
If something good is to be handed out by the state (welfare benefits, healthcare, education or relief from wrongful imprisonment) then every possible financial stringency is invoked to avoid doing it on grounds of cost - but if something bad is to be done (arrest, trial, imprisonment etc) then NO EXPENSE WILL BE SPARED.
Actaully it's not a drug war - it's a war against the laws of economics.
As such it is impossible to win - and that should have been clear from the very beginning.
The more successful you are in "winning" the war - the more the price of drugs rises - and hence the incentives and financial backing of your opponents grows.
. A petty dispute? I don't call the fact that a private company is hoarding rights to a song that should have been in the public domain decades ago to the tune of $2 million/year petty.
Especially when it is the most lucrative musical copyright in history.
There is a simpler explanantion - US law enforcement has been subcontracted to the Vogons:
FORD: Oh, give it a rest! Do you really enjoy this sort of thing?
VOGON GUARD: Resistance is……what d’ ya mean?
FORD: I mean does it give you a full satisfying life? Stomping around, shouting, throwing people out of spaceships?
VOGON GUARD: The hours are good.
FORD: They’d have to be.
VOGON GUARD: But now that you’ve come to mention it, I suppose much of the actual minutes are pretty lousy. Er, er. Except some of the shouting I quite like. Resistance is use-
FORD: Yeah, sure, yes... You’re good at that I can tell… but if it’s mostly lousy, then why do you do it? What is it? The girls? The leather? The machismo?
VOGON GUARD: I-I-I- I dunno…I-I-I... I think I, just sort of, do it really. He-uggh.
FORD: There Arthur, you think you’ve got problems.
ARTHUR: Yes, this guy’s still half throttling me!
FORD: Yeah!, but try an’ understand his problem.
VOGON GUARD: Right, so, what’s the alternative?
FORD: Well, stop doing it, of course.
VOGON GUARD: Hmmm…. Hmm…. Er... well... doesn’t sound that great to me.
FORD: Well, wait a minute, that’s just the start! There’s more to it than that, you see?
VOGON GUARD: Er… no. I, I think that if it’s all the same to you, I better just get you both shoved into this airlock and then go and get on with some other bits of shoutin’ I’ve got to do.
Of course one could try ignoring them until they actually complained - and then respond immediately - just enough delay to cause them an overhead but not enough to give them justification for a big lawsuit.
No. It doesnt work like this. Hotspot network is an additional, SEPARATE, VLANed one. Traffic goes thru different IP, doesnt count towards data caps (its us so Im assuming there are caps), and you need to login using unique identifier.
Yes - but as I said ASSUMING that the s/w is all working correctly that is ....
Charging customers for equipment that can't opt-out of a service that only enriches the seller, not the customer?
One thing the customer does gain is another option for plausible deniability when faced with a copyright infringement accusation based on an ip address.
Yes I know that it is supposed to be configured so that the address of the party accessing the hotspot wil show up rather than the hotspot host BUT that assumes that all the s/w is working correctly - and how likely is that?
feels like another instance where equal rights for all is turning into more rights for some less rights for others in the name of equality “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Re: It merely implies that you couldn't be bothered to use another approach.
any faith based belief system is going to find itself in that position, by the very nature of faith based belief systems.
Actually this is not true (and you are hoist by your own petard!) - because according to Godel's theorems there are an infinite number of true but unprovable statements.
Any system that was based on one or more of those would remain faith based (since the statements can't be proven) but could never be in the position you describe -since the statements are true.
Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
Actually resorting to violence doesn't necessarily imply either that your position can't be defended otherwise or that you are incompetent. It merely implies that you couldn't be bothered to use another approach.
I do think on a monarchy policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of rebels. They do have an ideology of freedom.
All very fine when the radicals have an ideology of freedom. However the current lot of radicals don't. Their ideology is up there with the most repressive ideologies the world has ever seen.
The problem we are facing is this: Should you tolerate intolerance?
So long as the intolerance does not express itself in actions that impact on the freedom of others then yes you should (that is freedom of speech). However that does not mean that you have to be polite to those who promote intolerance. We have been too polite in the past and that has created the problem. To solve it we need to stop being polite - without resorting to force in the way that Gen Clark suggests.
So yeah, the US government and the Russian government don't like each other very much.
I find it worrying that you don't seem to recognise the difference between the Soviet government and the Russian government.
For a while after 1991 the Russians tried to follow the US capitalist prescriptions and the result was disaster. The country was robbed clean by the oligarchs and went down hill rapidly and, worse still, was not much rewarded diplomatically by the west for its trouble.
Putin came in and put a stop to this process and has revived the country considerably (admittedly partly aided by oil revenue). I visited in 1994 and again in 2013 and the difference is quite remarkable.
Consequently he is well like by the Russians and it will take quite a lot to change that. People remember how bad the 1990s were.
Communism was a Western invention that never really fitted Russia. It is not surprising that it didn't work there. It was better suited to Germany (indeed East Germany was quite a successful state).
The current Russian government has little to do with communism. I did see/meet a few old communists on my last visit and they were a pathetic bunch, frankly in enial aboiut what has happened.
The big story in Russia of the last 20 years is the revival of the Orthodox church - which the west has largely ignored except when it sees a way to put a negative spin on it.
In St Petersburg 2 years ago I saw a small group of communist demonstrators (maybe 10 people). Just around the corner was a queue to get into the Kazan Cathedral where the Cross of St Andrew was visiting with the Patriarch of Moscow. The queue stretched around several blocks and totalled probably amile in length. I walked along it for half an hour without reaching the end.
I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
Actually we didn't describe the Taliban as terrorists. We accused them of harbouring terrorists (Al- Qaeda).
If you could point to some acts of terrorism. (ie violent acts designed to be effective by intimidation rather than by the direct defence or acquisition of territory) then you might have a point - but you can't because what Russia is doing (if it is doing anything directly) is old fashioned direct warfare.
If anything the acts of terrorism are coming from the Ukrainian government side.
the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
If that is true it is a really frightening indictment of the American public's view of the world.
I was using Russia because General Clark served from 1966 to 2000, during which the enemy was overwhelmingly Russia.
For most of that period the enemy was overwhelmingly the Soviet Union - a very different entity from Russia. The US was unwilling to recognise the change that happened between 1986 and 1991 and hence hade made Russia into more of an enemy than it should have been.
Post 1991 there was no real reason to regard Russia in a worse light than any other ex Soviet/Warsaw pact country. Unfortunately the US had formed alliances with nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, the Baltics etc on the basis that they were anti-communist - when in fact they were as much anti-Russian. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist the West should have dropped these movements and adopted a policy of even handedness on the old national rivalries that re-surfaced. The current anti-western mood in Russia that has driven Putin's policies is the direct result of this mistake.
you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism.
Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism. Also it depends who you ask. To many in Ukraine it looks like the West sponsored a coup.
On the post: The Drug War Is Creating Problems Too Big To Fix
Re: It is NOT too big to solve
If something good is to be handed out by the state (welfare benefits, healthcare, education or relief from wrongful imprisonment) then every possible financial stringency is invoked to avoid doing it on grounds of cost - but if something bad is to be done (arrest, trial, imprisonment etc) then NO EXPENSE WILL BE SPARED.
On the post: The Drug War Is Creating Problems Too Big To Fix
Re: Re:
Given the story above, about falsification of drug testing, not actually having/doing drugs does not seem to make a whole lot of difference!
On the post: The Drug War Is Creating Problems Too Big To Fix
Re:
On the post: The Drug War Is Creating Problems Too Big To Fix
Re: drug what?
As such it is impossible to win - and that should have been clear from the very beginning.
The more successful you are in "winning" the war - the more the price of drugs rises - and hence the incentives and financial backing of your opponents grows.
On the post: Happy Birthday Copyright Bombshell: New Evidence Warner Music Previously Hid Shows Song Is Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
In respect of Happy Birthday Warner doesn't have customers - it has victims!
On the post: Happy Birthday Copyright Bombshell: New Evidence Warner Music Previously Hid Shows Song Is Public Domain
Re: Re:
Especially when it is the most lucrative musical copyright in history.
On the post: Cop To Vet On Receiving End Of Bogus Raid: Investigating Things Beforehand Just Slows Us Down
Re: Re:
FORD:
Oh, give it a rest! Do you really enjoy this sort of thing?
VOGON GUARD:
Resistance is……what d’ ya mean?
FORD:
I mean does it give you a full satisfying life? Stomping around, shouting, throwing people out of spaceships?
VOGON GUARD:
The hours are good.
FORD:
They’d have to be.
VOGON GUARD:
But now that you’ve come to mention it, I suppose much of the actual minutes are pretty lousy. Er, er. Except some of the shouting I quite like. Resistance is use-
FORD:
Yeah, sure, yes... You’re good at that I can tell… but if it’s mostly lousy, then why do you do it? What is it? The girls? The leather? The machismo?
VOGON GUARD:
I-I-I- I dunno…I-I-I... I think I, just sort of, do it really. He-uggh.
FORD:
There Arthur, you think you’ve got problems.
ARTHUR:
Yes, this guy’s still half throttling me!
FORD:
Yeah!, but try an’ understand his problem.
VOGON GUARD:
Right, so, what’s the alternative?
FORD:
Well, stop doing it, of course.
VOGON GUARD:
Hmmm…. Hmm…. Er... well... doesn’t sound that great to me.
FORD:
Well, wait a minute, that’s just the start! There’s more to it than that, you see?
VOGON GUARD:
Er… no. I, I think that if it’s all the same to you, I better just get you both shoved into this airlock and then go and get on with some other bits of shoutin’ I’ve got to do.
On the post: Wordpress Takes A Stand Against Abusive DMCA Takedown Notices; Others Should Pay Attention
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wordpress Takes A Stand Against Abusive DMCA Takedown Notices; Others Should Pay Attention
Re:
On the post: Cablevision Follows Comcast Down The Compulsory WiFi Hotspot Rabbit Hole
Re: Re: One thing gained
Yes - but as I said ASSUMING that the s/w is all working correctly that is ....
On the post: Cablevision Follows Comcast Down The Compulsory WiFi Hotspot Rabbit Hole
One thing gained
One thing the customer does gain is another option for plausible deniability when faced with a copyright infringement accusation based on an ip address.
Yes I know that it is supposed to be configured so that the address of the party accessing the hotspot wil show up rather than the hotspot host BUT that assumes that all the s/w is working correctly - and how likely is that?
On the post: Yeah, Russia Probably Forged A Weapons Cache Supposedly From The US Using A Video Game To Model The Weapons
Re:
More likely that a batch of Stingers actually had that mistake and the video game used a weapon from that batch as its model.
On the post: Pride Toronto Seeking To Trademark Names Of 2 LGBT Marches, Claims It's Doing So Defensively
Re:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
George Orwell
On the post: DailyDirt: Gold Doesn't Grow On Trees...
Re: I agree, Gold is worthless.
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: It merely implies that you couldn't be bothered to use another approach.
Actually this is not true (and you are hoist by your own petard!) - because according to Godel's theorems there are an infinite number of true but unprovable statements.
Any system that was based on one or more of those would remain faith based (since the statements can't be proven) but could never be in the position you describe -since the statements are true.
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: Re: Resorting to threats and/or violence = Admission that your position can't be defended with words
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: The Past Speaketh
All very fine when the radicals have an ideology of freedom. However the current lot of radicals don't. Their ideology is up there with the most repressive ideologies the world has ever seen.
The problem we are facing is this: Should you tolerate intolerance?
So long as the intolerance does not express itself in actions that impact on the freedom of others then yes you should (that is freedom of speech). However that does not mean that you have to be polite to those who promote intolerance. We have been too polite in the past and that has created the problem. To solve it we need to stop being polite - without resorting to force in the way that Gen Clark suggests.
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: The US had relations with the Russian Tzar.
I find it worrying that you don't seem to recognise the difference between the Soviet government and the Russian government.
For a while after 1991 the Russians tried to follow the US capitalist prescriptions and the result was disaster. The country was robbed clean by the oligarchs and went down hill rapidly and, worse still, was not much rewarded diplomatically by the west for its trouble.
Putin came in and put a stop to this process and has revived the country considerably (admittedly partly aided by oil revenue). I visited in 1994 and again in 2013 and the difference is quite remarkable.
Consequently he is well like by the Russians and it will take quite a lot to change that. People remember how bad the 1990s were.
Communism was a Western invention that never really fitted Russia. It is not surprising that it didn't work there. It was better suited to Germany (indeed East Germany was quite a successful state).
The current Russian government has little to do with communism. I did see/meet a few old communists on my last visit and they were a pathetic bunch, frankly in enial aboiut what has happened.
The big story in Russia of the last 20 years is the revival of the Orthodox church - which the west has largely ignored except when it sees a way to put a negative spin on it.
In St Petersburg 2 years ago I saw a small group of communist demonstrators (maybe 10 people). Just around the corner was a queue to get into the Kazan Cathedral where the Cross of St Andrew was visiting with the Patriarch of Moscow. The queue stretched around several blocks and totalled probably amile in length. I walked along it for half an hour without reaching the end.
That is the scale of the change in Russia.
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No
I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
Actually we didn't describe the Taliban as terrorists. We accused them of harbouring terrorists (Al- Qaeda).
If you could point to some acts of terrorism. (ie violent acts designed to be effective by intimidation rather than by the direct defence or acquisition of territory) then you might have a point - but you can't because what Russia is doing (if it is doing anything directly) is old fashioned direct warfare.
If anything the acts of terrorism are coming from the Ukrainian government side.
the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
If that is true it is a really frightening indictment of the American public's view of the world.
On the post: General Wesley Clark: Some WWII-Style Internment Camps Are Just The Thing We Need To Fight Domestic Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Re: No
For most of that period the enemy was overwhelmingly the Soviet Union - a very different entity from Russia. The US was unwilling to recognise the change that happened between 1986 and 1991 and hence hade made Russia into more of an enemy than it should have been.
Post 1991 there was no real reason to regard Russia in a worse light than any other ex Soviet/Warsaw pact country. Unfortunately the US had formed alliances with nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, the Baltics etc on the basis that they were anti-communist - when in fact they were as much anti-Russian. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist the West should have dropped these movements and adopted a policy of even handedness on the old national rivalries that re-surfaced. The current anti-western mood in Russia that has driven Putin's policies is the direct result of this mistake.
you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism.
Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism. Also it depends who you ask. To many in Ukraine it looks like the West sponsored a coup.
Next >>