Wouldn't it be better for them to move to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has already established such a state? (with a sufficient flexible definition of what it means to be white)
The problem here is that under the guise of AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism), governments force private parties to exclude customers, which governments themselves cannot do, due to legal requirements for due process. These AML/CFT measures are a large financial burden to institutions, and the risk of fines is huge, so they rather err on the side of overblocking than underblocking.
Financial institutions would love it, if there would be a government organization to which they could send all their customer applications and transactions, and get a OK/NOK back, so they can offload trying to interpret a terrorist list that includes such things as: "a person with 'JAN' in his name is a suspected terrorist".
I think we will have to live with the virus for the foreseeable future: we cannot root it out, only reduce its impact. We also cannot maintain the current rules for much longer, however, seeing that vaccination is highly effective at preventing deaths, I think we should simply drop all restrictions once everybody has had a reasonable chance to vaccinate themselves (except for hospitals and a few other places where immune-compromized people come together), keep a close eye on possible dangerous mutations, work on updating vaccines if needed, and accept that people who refuse the vaccine from that point on are mostly a danger to themselves -- and that fear of that danger will be the only thing that will enable them to overcome their fear for needles. We can nudge them, help them by having mobile vaccination services that work discretely, but not force them.
Yup, in a true meritocracy, everybody would have the same starting position, which would mean, for example, that we introduce a 100% inheritance tax. Even then, nature is unfair with the skills it distributes. I therefore reject meritocracy. A much better alternative is to organize society in such a way, that everybody can contribute according to his or her skills and aptitude, and everybody is rewarded at least a decent income for that. Economically and technically we have the means to do so, only the political will and understanding is missing. (Reading tip: The Tyranny of Merit by Michael J. Sandel).
If you are talking about merit, you should also focus about what merits you actually want to look for and reward, because often, the merits that are rewarded are those that happen to be more prominently present in men -- which in itself is already discriminatory. This also means organizations do not function optimally, as perfectly illustrated in this article. If we refocus on what skills and personalities we actually want positively contribute to an organization, and recognize that diversity in itself has significant value (read Rebel Ideas by Mathew Syed), we don't even need discriminating methods to get a more diverse workplace. With a proper understanding of who adds value, we don't get to hire only those minority people that show majority traits as token representatives to meet some arbitrary quota, which will not lead to a healthy viewpoint diversity, and that latter is what is actually called for.
Believing that this is an intentional tactic is grossly over-estimating the intelligence of those who cause the trouble in the first place, which is mostly short-sighted greed by people accidentally in positions of power (both inside and outside the country: in Syria, the Assad family aren't exactly known as friendly chaps with prudent forward looking policies either). Also, if we have a shortage of skilled labor, there are much better ways to lure those in than creating a holy mess abroad. Just paying a better salary or creating better living conditions here already works.
Agreed, that law is wrong on more than front.
Considering the anti-abortion law that was passed in Texas, and ignored by the Supreme Court, I wouldn't bet on what the American Taliban is willing to do to push through their agenda.
Wouldn't a fake imposter be the real thing pretending to be an imposter? That is how I read the title of this article. :-)
Joining such an outlet in a large number could be used to actually change the charter and remove all such bigoted ideas from it. Just make sure you get the majority.
Should have quoted a fee high enough to retire immediately after the case, because that is what such a case does with your reputation. And don't forget to require payment up-front.
I must vehemently oppose the idea of collecting information about a persons race, ethnic background or gender (point 2). I am actually in favor of a total ban for governments and legal entities to collect such information at all. These aspects are totally irrelevant for the social value or inventiveness of an invention, and by collecting such information, you further strengthen the forces that try to divide and separate people on such features, that is, you are actively promoting discrimination.
The lesson learned: you can never buy anything with DRM, until the DRM on the product is fully broken: it is rental at best.
Of the two crimes of supporting a business that uses unfair business practices or the infringement of copyrights held by the same business, the latter is clearly the lesser.
Lets reformulate that to "effectively commercially available, as shown by a the continued sale of copies to unrelated third parties, over which all applicable taxes have been paid."
I wouldn't agree with the statement that drugs are cheaper because of the huge amounts of money wasted on criminalizing and prosecuting it. It is more expensive because of it, and drug lords know that: they love the fact that it is illegal, because it increases the profit margins more than a hundred-fold. That is the lesson they learned in the Prohibition Era, and never forgot. Most common drugs cost next to nothing to produce, and, if it weren't for the artificial scarcity, combined with constant advertising accompanying enforcement of crazy laws, the stuff would be available for a few cents per dose, and probably less people would use it. The solution to the drugs-issue has the following ingredients: 1. decriminalize, and 2. de-commercialize: allow sale, but not advertising or profits (note how this is going wrong with the legalization of marijuana). Provide it at cost to those who want it. 3. Resolve the underlying social and psychological issues, this is the hardest part, but probably far cheaper than continuing on the senseless road we're on now.
That German word is "Idiot": perfectly understood by speakers of English as well, but if you want something with a more alien sound "Dummkopf" is also appropriate.
If properly done, taxes are on profits, and since profits are excess income over and above what is needed for a company to operate and recoup its costs, it can even be argued that higher taxes actually do more to induce companies to work hard. With low or non-existing taxes, they might very well become lazy with the status quo as long as the profits are high enough to make the shareholders happy -- especially if you also have the law-makers on board with a heavy dose of regulatory capture -- which is the real killer if you want to "foster growth."
Reality is always more amazing, more weird, and therefore more interesting but also more scary than fantasy, because it is not constrained by the limits of our imagination.
I want to copyright the word copyright, and then forbid everyone from using it.
Re: Re: Re:
There is indeed a group of immune-compromised people who would have to take special care. That is, unfortunately, nothing new to them. You also have the risk of new mutations to develop, but most vaccines so-far protect reasonably well against those as well: remember that the mRNA vaccine aims at the virus' weapon, its spikes, a mutation to those is far more likely to make the virus less effective (that is also why the vaccine in most cases works better than natural immunity: your natural immunity could attack some other aspect of the virus, good enough to heal you, not good enough to arm you against mutations on those aspects). We already have to be on the look-out for mutations of many other viruses that are out in the wild. With vaccinations, we basically restore the status-quo from before 2020.