Posts by ScottY

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    Don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but a cyber attack last week on a US law firm that is suing the Chinese government appears to be similar to the attack on Google China.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Table 6.2: 'Rich pricks' & Others,

    Great post, Keith. Unfortunately most of the debate in this country about tax never goes beyond the simplistic.

    They're not taxes on income, but many countries (including Australia) have stamp duties and death duties, and capital gains taxes, whereas we don't. If you look at the overall picture we're not particularly heavily taxed.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    Surely you mean "copyright" not chomsky :)

    Thankfully, other than on that thread, most of the copyright discussions on PAS have been constructive and interesting.

    And while this threadjacking may not be quite so illuminating, I still enjoy the tendency of these PAS threads of late to descend into discussions about world history and military matters.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    Yes! We have got to Chomsky. Now it's all on.

    I propose an alternative to Godwin's Law: as soon as Chomsky is mentioned in a thread, the thread is officially beyond being saved.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    If we're going to go all 19th century, then my advice is be wary of the Prussian menace.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    The game some people are playing of "pick the best of these crappy overlords" seems rather bizarre.

    Indeed. But fun. Don't make me relinquish my right to engage in pointless debate.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    This is the most depressing thought I've come across in a few months. The US are the largest global exporters of death and misery, not virtually and hypothetically but actually, at this very moment. The fact that we'll just laugh it off is a little dismaying.

    The point I was making is that in the US dissent, debate and the mocking of the powers that be are the norm. In China? Not so much.

    A good example of this is the "Teabagger" movement in the US. Could you imagine a similar protest in China? I suspect the military would be on the streets.

    I'm no apologist for the US, and its Iraqi adventure is an appalling travesty. But China's no saint. It may not be engaged in active hostilities in other parts of the world at this time, but it props up and supplies weapons to some pretty nasty regimes. For example, it is hard to see how the regimes in North Korea and Burma could have survived this long, but for Chinese support.

    I'm optimistic about the future of China and its relations with the rest of the world. But we need to remember China has a long way to go still. Happily, it seems they are moving slowly in the right direction.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • OnPoint: Google to Embargo China,

    I’ve only just picked on this thread, so forgive me if I seem to be backtracking.

    I don’t subscribe to the view expressed by Tom that China is a growing military threat. Such is the complexity of the global economic system that large military conflagrations are likely to be just too damaging for the big players. There will always be tensions, but China needs the US consumer market, and the US needs Chinese capital and labour. A major military event, even if “merely” using conventional weapons, would devastate both nations economically. The two are inextricably linked.

    That doesn’t mean there won’t be tensions between the two states. I suspect, however, that both sides know they can’t afford to push too hard.

    On the other hand, it intrigues me that a number of people on this thread have expressed the view that they would rather find themselves under Chinese rule than US. But if we had to decide, would we really choose rule by a one-party state that crushes dissent?

    By all means we ought to criticise US actions in Iraq and elsewhere. But let us not forget some of the appalling things done by the Chinese government, to its own people and to others: Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square etc. These events should not be dismissed as being “in the past”. After all, Mao, a bloodthirsty monster every bit as bad as Stalin, is still revered by tens of millions in China.

    It is to be hoped that increasing prosperity in China will gradually weaken the power and resolve of the Communist Party. And there is no question China is liberalising and joining the global community. These are good things. But if I had to choose my conqueror I’d still pick the US. I'd at least be able to watch the Daily Show.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy,

    Prohibition makes no sense. It is irrational to ban a substance that is only mildly harmful, while allowing other more harmful substances to be legally sold.

    Cannabis is harmful - exactly how harmful is clearly a matter of some contention. But alcohol and tobacco are also harmful. More so.

    It is irrational to argue in favour of continuing the prohibition on cannabis, unless you are also in favour of banning alcohol and tobacco.

    We accept that people are allowed to drink, and we legislate to control where it can be purchased, carried and consumed, and what you can do while under its influence. There are similar rules around the sale of tobacco.

    Legalise it, control it and tax it. This will reduce crime, lessen the ower of the gangs, and provide revenues that should cover any potential health cost.

    This is not something that affects me personally as a smoker, because I don't smoke anything. I grew up in a family of smokers and this has made be rabidly anti-tobacco. I also never found marijuana to be my thing.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Speaker: ACTA: Don't sell us down the river,

    Also, given the presumption of guilt, good luck proving that you weren't exposed to the song

    Which would certainly be a problem if there was a presumption of guilt in copyright cases. But there isn't. A court may presume copying when it can be shown that the defendant had access. But access won't be presumed just because something was available somewhere on the internet.

    Access may be presumed if a tune is being played on the radio a lot, but even then it will be a question of when, for how long etc.

    And finally, I didn't mean to get sucked into this vortex. So I'll try to exit if I can. But it's ... so... hard... Help!

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 17 18 19 20 21 80 Older→ First