cockroaches are dominant in numbers, but this is no reason that they will dominate the internet. The intnernet is about power as much as anything else. A billion poor Chinese do not wield enough influence yet to change the world.
This is not just about raw numbers.
Iran is favored in Afghanistan, except the US with their aid budget precludes buying for example farsi software. We like to ship them English Windows. Mac OS X could be used with a pashtun and dari and uzbeck but no wat in 2003 was the US going to buy Mac's.
Pakistan is pretty much hated by the average Afghan. They had to escape to Pakistan but they don't forget how badly they were treated.
China has been all over Afghanistan for 8 years now seeking to win tenders and gain influence.
fact is you can gain influence by bribing people.
Corruption is endemic.
".....The sharing of family wealth has been a critical component in maintaining the semblance of a united front within the royal family. An essential part of family wealth is the Kingdom in its physical entirety, which the Al Saud view as a totally owned family asset. Whether through the co-mingling of personal & state funds from lucrative government positions, huge land allocations, direct allotments of crude oil to sell in the open market, segmental controls in the economy, special preferences for the award of major contracts, outright cash handouts, and astronomical monthly allowances, - all billed to the national exchequer - all told, the financial impact may have exceeded 40% of the Kingdom's annual budget during the reign of King Fahd. Over decades of oil revenue-generated expansion, estimates of royal receipts have varied, ranging as low as an unlikely $50 billion and as high as well over $1 trillion. [5]. This method of wealth distribution has allowed many of the senior princes & princesses to accumulate largely unauditable wealth and, in turn, pay out, in cash or kind, to lesser royals and commoners, and thereby gaining political influence through their own largesse.
During periods of high oil prices as were the late 70s, early 80s, and again, immediately after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, national income has outpaced the developmental needs & social obligations of the Saudi government and the effects of royal skimming were diminished. From the mid 80s through the 90s, when international crude oil prices dropped to the teens and below, the subsequent shortfall in income, and the availability of surprisingly limited financial reserves (when compared to such countries as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates which continued to grow during crude price droughts because of dividends generated from years of prudent investments.)[6]. According to well-publicized but unsubstantiated reports, King Abdullah has intentions to reduce the Al Saud share of the budget, an act which may sow discontent within the royal family, but would be popular with the Kingdom's citizenry."
Fact is no one knows really how much the Royal family keep and how much gets shared.
Saudi Arabia has the wealth to never export oil but to process it all on shore. INstead that potential excess to invest in expensive downstream processing goes in to the royal family.
Afghanistan will be the same.
Have a read of :
http://www.amazon.com/Plowing-Sea-Nurturing-Sources-Developing/dp/0875847617
Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia?
The GDP per capita is 20K USD. But
Yeah the work the Saudi's don't want to do, as if a benign oil corporation and a corrupt government would rather pay high wages to locals or import Filipinos and Indians to live in work camps and work like slaves.
Saudi Arabia is poor, because the downstream value of the oil is lost. The sales values goes to the corrupt ruling family, the ordinary Saudi lives in poverty.
It will be the same in Afghanistan. The raw material will be ripped out at the lowest cost (lowest cost meaning maximum pollution) and the real wealth of downstream value add will take place out of Afghanistan.
Just like the raw opium.
Don't forget China shares a border with Afghanistan
and
"Dude, Just push the fucking button, not my family gonna get wasted
SOME Cubans. Some Mexicans.
Except all the people in power and all the people who will be in power are just paid proxies for corporates interests. Boot out this or that politician? The corporations will just pay to have an equivalent replacement. They will ensure the message changes from time to time ( Obama was given a different script to Bush) but behind the scenes there is nothing but a plutocracy. "Democracy" is just the marketing bullshit phrase used to sell yet more plutocratic power grabs.
I agree, I live in France and I can watch Movies over the Internet via Orange, and I do. I pay 2.99, or 3.99 for the abiitity to watch ONE time. However I only get 24 hours. My partner usually falls asleep at the halfway point so she never usually get the times to watch the rest.
I don't want HD, or blueray or other crap definitions. I use piratebay because I can download a film in 40 minutes and watch it that night in bed, and my partner can rewatch it some other time.
I would pay 5 Euros a download for a 1 gig sized version. But no one wants to sell to me, because copyright is A MONOPOLY in distribution. There is no incentive for the distributers to reacts to changing market conditions.
I WILL NOT BUY DVD's anymore. I do not buy CD's anymore.
Cinema? Yes I reluctantly go. I saw Avatar in non 3D. 10 Euros a ticket, 40 euros for the family.
People defending copyright have no idea on the intention of copyright. They have no idea the abusive monopolistic position of copyrights holders.
Their distribution model sucks and is overpriced.
Yeah back in the day when I saw a web browser for the first time and how SLOW it was, I laughed and predicted gopher would rule the known universe. Not one of my finer moments
You watch TV for free and you listen to the radio for free. Think carefully about value for money. If your barber overcharges you change barbers. If the Rolling Stones album is a rip off, the copyright is owned by a monopoly - no one can compete.
"....Why should I? It works for me....."
OK, it works for you. What more can I say?
"...you're not a serious music fan at the moment because you don't like the CD format...."
Oh really? Newsflash - only "serious" ( as defined by you?) listen to CD's.
"...Explain to me how musicians who are currently used to touring....." What follows this makes no sense to me.
"....you and your ilk will have killed live music....."
Sorry but I see lots of live music. I also play with about 5 different bands as well, all in "live" situations. You have a fixed limited idea between the old record label system and what SHOULD replace it.
You seem somehow to make a logical leap that the only way a fan will be attracted to a live show is via an album release. Is that so?
Overall, it seems you want everything to stay the same. Well it is not - it is changing.
"....You perhaps need to be as informed about musicians as I am....."
Oh really? I started listening in a serious way to music in 1964. Your assumption is quite arrogant.
"....n general I listen to very few of them because they lack the quality of those who undertook a proper music "apprenticeship" in the pubs and clubs...."
This is just a complete and utter bullshit generalization. Every generation has superb musicians with superb skills. Perhaps your much cherished system is not working so well if you are mired in the past musically?
Meanwhile I stand by my assertion that copyright is broken and it's use by record labels does not benefit the audience or the musicians - it however benefits you personally. Great.
"*ALL* I care about" Well what you care about is not frankly very interesting in the overall scheme of things. That you are happy with a broken outdated system is fine. Your argument seems to be based around " I am happy, I personally cannot visualize another system of music distribution, thus I ignore the implications of a monopoly situation".
Black or white? Your definition, perhaps because people disagree with you?
None of the music I own was connected to me by marketing. It was discovered via means other than a major label.
By the way I work with lots of musicians and I tell them all the same when I record them, give your music away in order to build an audience for your live performances. The old system is dead.
Maybe Eric Clapton made money from the "old system" but 99% of the working musicians never made a dime from recorded music.
The cost of recording music now is virtually free now anyway.
And yes, if there are thousands of music web sites, we have enough technology and search knowledge to allow people to find what they want.
Now explain tome exactly how this music monopoly benefits anyone besides you. It certainly does not benefit the majority of musicians. Oh, I guess maybe copyright exists to make sure U2 and Eric Clapton can make the maximum from their music and damn the rest.
The sooner musicians realize they have to get up on stage and work, that the day of recording an album and winning the lottery is over.
But you go ahead and live in the past, you and Eric.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
