But my respect to the Italians has gone up.
US and France, are the two leading figures in the Israel-Hezbollah problem. However, we know that the US army is currently locked up in its own affair, so they won't be able to fight. The US has enough problems with warm bodies already. But France I believe hasn't seen a major engagement since the Vietnam War. So when France said they would go help settle the fight between Hezbollah and Israel, I thought it was something good.
France is taking on a role against a major dispute. France is actually going to help. France has lost it's snobby attitude. And I'm wrong. So far, France has pledge 200 soldiers.
What the crap.
France was expected to supply between 2,500 to 4000 troops to the campaign, due to the fact that they're the leading figure to the conflict. The US deployed the majority of their troops to Iraq, because they're the major player. Some countries only deployed maybe 1 company of men, but that's expected coming from a teir 3 country. But the French deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces falls short of the countries with a weaker army.
Right now it seems, that Lebanon is in need of a peacekeeping force more than before. It would seem that with Lebanon deploying 15,000 troops to combat Hezbollah, a civil war is imminent. In order to save this country from becoming a basket case (again), they need a peace keeping force, and not one that's bent on demolishing anything that movies (America, Israel).
As the leading figure in the role against the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict, France should be commiting at least a quarter of their army to mediate the conflict. That's a 3 month tour for the French military, which I believe is more than enough.
Bottem line is, that if you want to stop a war, your going to have to donate a large amount of troops in order to do so. By not doing so, you only prove that you're merely talk but no action.
I however, tip my had towards Italy. While you're not the leading figure, nor the best army, you are still willing to take the responsiblity. I wish you luck.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
RIAA and other industries
It's been a while since I've written something about a company. Well, anything about corporations for that matter. And republican readers (who pass by this thread), can also agree with me on my strikes against the RIAA.
Recording
Industry
Association of
America
Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml
Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.
This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.
Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.
The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).
Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.
Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.
I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.
RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).
Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.
hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org
Recording
Industry
Association of
America
Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml
Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.
This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.
Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.
The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).
Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.
Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.
I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.
RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).
Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.
hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
