by TheRaven64 (641858)

It's a really neat idea. 'We're philanthropists,' says the foundation's representative, 'we'd like to give you drugs - entirely free - that will save tens of thousands of lives in your country.' Pretty much the offer you can't refuse, for any politician - no one wants to be the one that turned down an offer to save that many lives. 'There's just one small thing you have to do for us,' says the foundation. 'Well, not really for us - we'd love to avoid this - but unfortunately the drug companies won't let us have the drugs unless you sign this IP treaty with the USA. It's to protect their investment, you understand.'

Well, that's fine - just one treaty, and it can't be that bad. Until you realise that it means that you are now not allowed to produce cheap generic versions of the drugs locally (or import them) - after the donation runs out, you have to keep buying the US versions that are several times the price. So, after a few years, it's probably going to cost more lives than not taking the money originally, but that's okay, you're a politician, you're not going to be accountable.

Oh, and as a bonus, it protects US IP-based companies (in which, coincidentally, the investors in the B&MGF have a lot of other investments) from foreign competition, by preventing another country from bootstrapping an industrial economy in the same way that the US, China, and so on, did.

Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.

by spun (1352)

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
The Wealth of Nations,Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775

If Government is stripped of all other functions save the defense of property, it is a tyranny of the rich. I believe that is why the rich nearly invariably favor small government. The more desperate the have-nots are, the more they will put up with and the less they will demand. Taking away social safety nets favors the rich employer who desires a pool of desperate, starving, cheap workers.

But the truly rich make up less than one percent of our population. Why do the non rich desire smaller government? Is it out of some philosophical principle? Well, if humans were commonly genius-saints, perhaps. But we aren't. Most of us start from our assumptions and reason backwards to find support. And most of the upper middle class assume they will be rich one day, despite the lack of any evidence that this is likely. The gap between an upper middle class person making $100,000 to $250,000 per year and an actual owning class person is tremendous. We do not have as much upward mobility in our society as we would like to believe, but everyone believes we do. Why? Simple: anyone who says they don't think they can make it is obviously a failure. Who wants to admit to being a failure? The myth says hard work will make you rich, what, are you lazy?

This is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor, even though the middle class has far more in common with the poor than the rich.

by Doc Ruby (173196):

Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

        Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
        Yes 26
        No 55
        Not Sure 19

        Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
        Yes 7
        No 77
        Not Sure 16

        Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?
        Yes 11
        No 68
        Not Sure 21

        Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
        Yes 8
        No 73
        Not Sure 19

        Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
        Yes 77
        No 15
        Not Sure 8

        Should contraceptive use be outlawed?
        Yes 31
        No 56
        Not Sure 13

        Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
        Yes 34
        No 48
        Not Sure 18

        Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?
        Christ 67
        Other 15
        Not Sure 18

But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.

False equivalence. There is nothing actually "Communist" about Democrats, nothing anywhere near as severe as the truth about the Republican Party and its actions. "They're both as bad" is a lazy judgment, when the facts show the difference between "bad" and "intolerable".

by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)

Spain is now added to the growing list of countries attempting to put the free internet genie back in the bottle. Many scoff at such attempts and repeat tired old platitudes from the early 1990s about how the internet routes around censorship, etc. But what they forget is that in the last 10, and particularly in the last 5 years, the internet has changed. Drastically. An unfree web is closer now than at any time in the history of the network.

Several developments have lead us to this point. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, was the development of the Great Firewall of China. The apparatus designed, developed and implemented by the Chinese communist party has conclusively proven that the internet can be controlled, filtered and censored on a massive scale. The technologies developed for its implementation, largely by western companies, are now being sold back to western governments with much the same task in mind. While the wall is not airtight, it does offer the governments the level of control they once enjoyed over traditional media like books and newspapers. As a mass medium, the internet can be successfully centered.

Secondly, the internet has become more centralised. Despite the hype behind Web 2.0, the majority of new internet technologies and sites are controlled by a smaller number of huge companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. What's your hompage right now, and how do you find your way to sites? This is in stark contrast to the very early days of the web, or even the 1990s, where there were no search engines, and the only meeting places were on irc. People now store most, if not all, of their private information on the servers, the "clouds", of big companies, so all that is needed to gain large awareness on the net is control of this relatively small number of private interests.

Thirdly, the vast majority of internet users are now technically unsavvy. Combined with the increasing complexity of website and protocols, this means that the network has become and ever more inscrutable blackbox, and most users will be unaware of any censorship efforts or implementations; that is, where they are not completely apathetic. Whereas in the past, netziens were more likely to spot, and indeed protest at censorship, nowadays most users simply will not care as long as their webmail and social networking accounts are unaffected. Governments can site this apathy as justification, and indeed have.

The Web has changed. We're going to see more and more Governments implementing acts like these. It's in the interests of all big players to shape the internet into a controllable mass medium and that's why they're going to keep pushing these laws, worldwide, until they achieve that goal. In ten years times, earlier times will be looked back on as anarchy by all but a few idealists, who will be looked on as hippies or cranks.

by Scaba (183684)

Other things audiophiles don't take into account:

      1. they can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy at a reasonable compression, either
      2. bragging about buying $5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brain
      3. the average listener can tell the difference between having a conversation with a real person about music versus listening to an insecure nerd trying to one-up everyone.

by Faizdog (243703)

This post makes the point perfectly well why socialism is bad!!
http://imgur.com/5RkJK.png
---
This morning I was woken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Dept of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Dept. of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
----
(This is all besides the point that NOTHING being proposed right now is actually socialism, it's just a trigger word to get the RIGHT all riled up and stifle honest and meaningful debate).

DOWN with SOCIALISM! No Death Panels! Show us your birth certificate. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for the White House!! Rah Rah Rah.

by David Gerard (12369)

British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys [today.com]. "Women are hardwired to like pink," says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, "because their cavewoman foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees." Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.

Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from two bone needles. Being too successful will increase women's testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness. Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.

IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave. Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, so women naturally can't take a joke. Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.

Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn. Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.

In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.

"In conclusion," says Professor Hunt, "all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on. Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa."

by zerofoo (262795)

A CFO at a local community bank once told me (I was the manager of network services for the bank):

"I don't want to know how the watch works, I just want to know what time it is."

That put my job into perspective.

-ted

by Ender_Stonebender (60900) Alter Relationship

Try the "computer as kitchen" analogy.

System memory = counter top; where stuff that's being worked on now is
Hard drive = refrigerator and cabinets; stuff you want to keep/use, but aren't using now
CPU = oven
Programs = food processor, blender, etc.

I've found it to work surprisingly well.

Since the app is aimed at little kids, it graphically depicts the holiness and splendid beauty of this biblical moment with the Egyptians' donkey-sizes penises as ejaculating like horses.

AMEN.

by Geof (153857)

>the point is, regardless of who the person is you are holding in prison, you have to live by your -OWN- standards.

Thank you. How we treat bad people is not about them, it is about us. Saddam deserves to suffer for his crimes. But when we surrender to the bloodthirsty urge for vengeance (which can be satisfying, even - as in this case - fun), it is ourselves we corrupt. Saddam does not matter: he is beyond redemption. It is we who matter. If we treat the foulest human beings with a level of decency (decorum, seriousness), then we make it easy to respect each other. If, on the other hand, we give in to our baser instincts, we lay the groundwork for lashing out selfishly whenever it feels good.

Want to respect Saddam's victims? Then prosecute and punish him with all the seriousness, formality, and consideration you can muster. The kind of immature self-gratification described here ultimately dismisses those he tortured and killed. Their persecutor was an evil man, not a clown.

(P.S.: Just in case someone misreads me, I loved the movie. There's a big difference between that and the legitimate serious acts of the American people's political representatives and government.)

by caitsith01 (606117)

I am sort of enjoying watching the United States have these epiphanies about protectionism, minimum wages, banking regulation etc. Not because I wish ill on you guys - I absolutely don't. If we must have a 900 pound gorilla of a country indirectly ruling the world, I'd prefer America to, say, China. Or just about anyone else.

But for years and years, the rest of the world has protested long and loud as the U.S. has rammed radical capitalist theories down our throats - no, you may not protect local IP, jobs, vulnerable industries, agriculture, culture, etc etc etc. Globalise everything, open your markets, participate in the race to the bottom. It has seemed crazy and backwards to you that any of us would even consider having high minimum wages, good unemployment benefits, strong unionised workforces, public health, free education and so on. Such things are apparently "socialist", which to many Americans (especially of the right wing bent) really means a combination of "communist" and "totalitarian".

Sure, globalisation has created a lot of growth. But it has also been unneccessarily destructive, and in many countries has wrought untold damage before any benefit has been seen.

So now, after forgetting all about the New Deal and after ignoring the post-WWII warnings your own leaders and intellectuals gave you about the corporatisation of your nation, you finally start to see what can happen to an economy and a society when you strip all of those terrible 'protectionist' policies away and then expose it to harsh conditions. Banks are hiring foreigners because (a) it's cheaper and (b) you have created a culture where the only "right" is corporations doing things as profitably as possible and the only "wrong" is putting anything ahead of money. You're a late entrant in the race to the bottom that you created.

But the measure of intelligence is not whether you make mistakes - it's whether you learn from the ones you do make. I hope you learn from all of this, I really do. Getting rid of the Republican Party and moving your idea of "centrist" away from what the rest of us regard as "far right" might be a good starting point.

by Confused (34234)

>If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.

Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.

Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.

The second part is that burglars and petty thievery becomes much more serious, when they're caught with a weapon, as it then becomes armed delicts, which increases the jail time a lot. So many criminals decide not to risk that, plus the hassles of being caught with a weapon.

In addition to all of that, if weapons are banned, organising one becomes more difficult. So no more just whipping out the gun from grannies drawer when you want to teach someone a lesson, you need first to find a dealer you can trust, the stuff is more expensive, you risk legal trouble while buying the weapon and so on. Until one's done with all that, a lot of momentum is gone and most but the very dedicated won't bother with it.

But all of this is moot anyway, because handguns are a sacred cow in the USA and no amount of reasoning and real life experience in other parts of the world will change the mind of the public.

Clarification of Options by IorDMUX (870522)

One tab: I sat down with Slashdot in mind, and got right to work.

2-5 tabs: I'm doing normal-esque internet browsing.

6-10 tabs: Heavy internet browsing, with a mix of forums thrown in for good measure.

11-20 tabs: Outta' my way, I'm a man on a mission! (Likely either trying to fix code in an obscure language or learn scripting for a PC game, I'm hitting the forums hard.)

Over 20 tabs: Porn.

None, I don't use browsers: Uphill, both ways.

My browser doesn't support tabs, you insensitive clod: ASCII porn.

by blahplusplus (757119)

"But 'going without' seems to not be part of today's vocabulary...."

There is a fundamental, philosophical, problem with the traditional means of distribution: the product is abundant.

Cars are not abundant. It takes a significant expenditure of materials and effort to put one together. When I drive off in one, I cannot simply dupe it and give the dupe to my friend. The laws of physics dictate a level of scarcity to this good, and as such it makes perfect sense to expect to receive money from every person who obtains a car.

The world of "data" follows different laws of physics. Once I have the data in my hot little hands, I can dupe it and give it to my friends at zero direct cost to the producer. There is no deprivation of use nor loss of mineral resources nor expenditure of manpower nor anything of the sort on the part of the original developer when I dupe the game. None. And I can keep duplicating this ad infinitum, at the same cost (of zero). Furthermore, my friends can do the same thing with the copy I gave them...there is no quality loss. Once the good exists, it can instantly exist everywhere. It is "abundant."

So, since data follows these laws (rather than the laws of physics as they apply to physical goods) people feel like they are being cheated when they are asked to pretend like data follows the laws of physical matter. They feel like they are buying into a game of control that is unfounded in reality and ultimately to their detriment (since they have to pay money for something that doesn't cost anything to produce *at this point* (excluding initial development costs).

I think that is the crux of the issue. We all know the good is abundant, and we all feel like pretending it is not abundant is just silly, and harmful to us (our money is valuable and if we can get games for free then we have optimized our entertainment budget and have more money left over to spend on things like real cars or educations for our kids or what-have-you).

What about the potential sale that we are "stealing" by copying a game? We tend to respond to such a representation of the situation with great cynicism. We feel like the only reason you feel entitled to every single "potential sale" is because of your insistence in everyone pretending that an abundant good is not abundant. We also feel that the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism doesn't guarantee a ROI on any kind of development project, so when you pound your fist in frustration at your inability to monetize your efforts we just say, "so try something else...thats what every other entrepreneur in the world has had to do...what makes you special? If you can't make money making games, do something else, and stop whining." That is the same answer we get when we complain about being downsized, or having low-paying jobs, or what-have-you...so we are just responding in turn.

Lastly...the age-old mantra that if you can't get money for every copy of a game sold then nobody will produce games. I call BS. Piracy has been alive and well since before the computer games industry even existed...and since long before DRM existed...and the games industry thrived anyway. And it still thrives, despite the continued piracy. Enough people pay for the games (even though they don't have to) that the industry remains profitable. If that model suddenly stops working, alternative models will take its place (subscription-based games and so on). If that doesn't work, and we actually reach a state of utter cultural impoverishment where no games (or music or movies, for that matter) are being produced because nobody can figure out how to make a living doing it (and no hobbiests manage to churn out anything but crap)...which I maintain is an economic impossibility...but if it actually does occur THEN it might make sense to talk about legislation...and there would be a conscious buy-in to the legislation from the masses who are hungry for cultural enrichment. However, this has not happened, and I therefore submit that it makes no sense to try to preemptively pass laws based on the premise that it might happen (given that it is unlikely and that the situation could be remedied after the fact anyway).