SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Youngest Flexer of the Century
Most favored nation and/or trade partner (ancient history)
China is slick, there's no getting around that. They have a maturity that all Western nations lack. It comes with their 5000 years of history.
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1997/05/favored_china.html
Most Favored Nation (MFN) status was granted to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1979 and has been renewed on a yearly basis ever since. MFN allows the PRC access to U.S. markets at tariff rates that average six percent. Nations without the designation face a forty-four percent tariff. Most nations have MFN with the exception of six including Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. Clinton has until June 3 to formally notify Congress of his decision. From that point, Congress has 90 days to reverse his decision. (The Washington Post, 5-20-97).
"I am moving, therefore, to de-link human rights from the annual extension of Most Favored Nation trading status for China." --President Bill Clinton, announcing MFN status for China, White House, 5-26-94.
I have wondered, from to time, where that term came from. "Most Favored Nation". What does that even mean?
I stumbled over an explanation, in a seemingly unrelated article.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/opium-war-1857.htm
The agreements reached between the Western powers and China following the Opium Wars came to be known as the "unequal treaties" because in practice they gave foreigners privileged status and extracted concessions from the Chinese. Ironically, the Qing Government had fully supported the clauses on extraterritoriality and most-favored nation status in the first treaties in order to keep the foreigners in line.
WTF? MFN, or Most Favored Nation was forced upon China, by the US and UK, almost 150 years ago. We fought the First Opium War, and then the Second Opium War to establish that we can trade wherever we want, in whatever manner suits us. China was required to grant MFN status to the US and the UK, and then later, to any European nation requesting said status.
So - a status that was forced down China's throat, at the point of a sword, we grant to China more than a hundred years later.
For such an intelligent son of a bitch, Clinton was pretty damned stupid. Not only did he give military tech to China, for free, but he kowtowed to the Chinese leadership with the choice of terms. Most Favored Nation.
I wonder if Clinton and Obama are related? Both like to grovel at the feet of foreign rulers . . .
In effect, that title validates any demands, any claims, that China might make upon the US. We GAVE a foreign power privileged status, and we GAVE them concessions, repeatedly. And, they didn't even have to bring a sword to the negotiations, because Bill Clinton was so eager to betray the United States of America.
The fatal flaw of libertarianism, exemplified by BSD vs GPL
I'll get right to the point: libertarianism's fatal flaw is that it commits a fallacy, the name of which I do not know, in assuming that the fewest up-front restrictions on personal freedoms necessarily and inevitably translates into the most freedom for the most people into the indefinite future.
The BSD vs GPL licensing example is perhaps the single best illustration of this I've seen in the tech world to date. Debate, and I use the term charitably, rages on still about the merits of each license, with the BSD partisans making almost verbatim the exact same argument just laid out above: that the BSD license is morally, ethically, and pragmatically superior because it places fewer restrictions on who may do what with the code.
By contrast, they say, the GPL is infectious, inserting itself like a retrovirus into the replication machinery of any code licensed with it and forcing certain behaviors (redistribution of source) the BSD types disagree with. As I understand it, the reason they give explicitly for disliking this is that it means fewer people will use the GPL compared to the BSD license, which theoretically therefore translates into BSD-licensed code both proliferating and persisting more than its GPL'd siblings.
What this *actually* means, on the psychological and perhaps subconscious level, is "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me." Sorry guys, but it's the truth: dress it up however you like, but the underlying principle here is "I don't wanna share."
It also betrays an almost stunning naivete about human nature, the very same one that small-L-libertarianism itself seems predicated on. There is a sort of ceteris paribus assumption at work here, one which assumes that the wide world of coding is meritocratic (it is not), equal-access (it is not), and measures worth solely on quality, correctness, usefulness, etc., of code (it does not). It is the Just World Fallacy writ small and in C, you might say.
It *completely* fails to take into account human nature, and such wholly non-technical yet pervasive and powerful human engines of corruption as the corporation. Witness Theo de Raadt's anger, entirely justified morally but also entirely his own fault, over the lack of gratitude from corporations who took OpenSSH and OpenBSD itself for their own use and contributed back, perhaps, a single laptop, which took over a year to arrive.
From the outside, this makes perfect sense. I mean, if you leave a plate of cookies out with a sign that says "free cookies," you don't have a right to complain when someone comes by and takes the entire plate for him/herself. But somehow this simple and obvious line of thought seems to elude the BSD-license partisans, or maybe they quash it for ideological reasons, such as faith (and it *is* a faith position...) in the idea that their code will conquer by virtue of spreading far and wide and continuing to evolve.
In addition to being an oddly r-type strategy for the kind of people who, well, think in terms of r-type and K-type to begin with, they neglect to reckon with the fact that entities with larger resource bases than they do can close the source. Oh, yes, you still have the original code and can fork it, but de facto, the original code *becomes* the fork, due to lack of reach and distribution. Hobbyist coders, who are mostly the ones who use the license, simply cannot compete with BigCorp Inc's programmers, not on time, not on money, and in some cases not on talent, at least not collectively. The world does not work like a cartoon (there's that Just World Fallacy again!); the plucky underdog usually gets beaten nine ways from Sunday and loses everything.
Far from being the unwashed moon-unit closet Communists they are accused of being, the GPL's partisans understand human nature all too well, and in particular have come to grips with the fact that we are not angels. They understand that sometimes a couple of well-placed extra regulations can end up preventing a lot of real restrictions on freedom later on.
Mandating that the source be redistributed while allowing charge for the distribution of binaries is actually much more free-market in the long term, in that it ensures that should the distributing entity get greedy and stupid, current, relevant source is available for immediate forkage. Now this doesn't solve the problem with the gap in power and reach between the underdog and BigCorp Inc, but it *does* mean that the value and hard work put into the original code is not lost to the greater community, i.e., the barrier to entry is *lower* in this case since one need not attempt to reverse-engineer everything that happened since BigCorp Inc acquired and closed the source after forking it.
The real point to all this is that this BSD/GPL dust-up is a microcosm of small-L-libertarian thinking and the central fallacy therein. In life, as in coding, the smallest up-front number of restrictions on personal freedom does *not* translate into the most freedom for the most people for the greatest amount of time. In fact, it doesn't take too much brainwork even from a purely deductive standpoint, with no empirical observation whatsoever needing to be done, to see that this is so: game theory and the iterated prisoners' dilemma, for example.
We have a number of such posters on this board who are frankly completely round the twist on this, as religious as any suicide bomber, and I'm *not* just talking about the "violently-imposed monopoly" spammer. Worse still, they consider themselves some sort of original, enlightened, superior thinkers, as if they're the first ones to do the ideological equivalent of dropping trou and pissing an Anarchy symbol into the snow, reality and human nature and empirical observation be damned. Dunning-Krugeritis affects this crowd badly, and prevents them from having the humility to examine their beliefs critically. Worse still, they act as if they're morally as well as intellectually superior.
Well, libertarians, I leave you this thought: two wrongs might not make a right, but sometimes they can prevent a third, fourth, fifth, or hundredth wrong, or much worse wrongs. Your misplaced purity obsession leads to far worse in the medium and long term, and you're too full of yourselves to see it, or even open your eyes to look. The world is not just, humans are not angels, there are other shades besides #000000 and #FFFFFF, and emergent behavior is a thing.
For the love of Stallman, THINK. As the point of code is not code for code's sake, the point of the economy is not making money for money's sake. Do not let the tools become the masters of the craftsmen (and women) using them. Remember than money was made for humans, not humans for money. The root of all evil is treating people like things and things like people.
Murder of Two Cyclists Covered Up in Mexico
Mexico says round-the-world cyclists were murdered
Mexican investigators say two European cyclists did not die in an accident as first claimed - they were murdered. The bodies of Holger Hagenbusch, from Germany, and Krzysztof Chmielewski, from Poland, were found at the bottom of a cliff in Chiapas state.
Local authorities had said the pair appeared to have fallen after losing control. However, relatives and fellow cyclists suspected it was more sinister, and had called for a deeper investigation.
The newly appointed special prosecutor, Luis Alberto Sánchez, said, on Friday, that they were killed in what appears to have been a robbery. "Our investigations up to now indicate this was an intentional homicide," he said.
[...] After travelling to Mexico to identify his brother's body, [Reiner] also found out information about the Polish biker. "The Polish cyclist was decapitated and had a foot missing," he wrote on Facebook.
[...] Chmielewski sustained a head injury that may be a gunshot wound, said Mr Sánchez. His body was found next to a bike - but it was not his own. It belonged to his German companion, which aroused suspicions.
LDS Church Splits With "Boy" Scouts
White Women's Weaponized Tears
How white women use strategic tears to avoid accountability
What We Know (And Don't Know) About 'Missing White Women Syndrome' (i.e. you don't even need to see the tears to weaponize them)
R U even juuling, bro?
Student warns about 'Juuling' trend in eye-opening video
Juul, the vape device teens are getting hooked on, explained
arrr yooo {2Z} juuling Delysid in class, breh¿
Bully Hunters
Bully Hunters organizers shut down campaign after disastrous first stream
With your host, Zombi Unicorn.
White House Correspondents' Dinner - Trump Era #2 of 8
America's Rapey Dad
Bill Cosby Found Guilty of Sexual Assault in Retrial
Bill Cosby Was Found Guilty on 3 Counts of Indecent Assault. Here's How Much Time He Could Serve
Cosby, who is 80, faces a maximum of 30 years in state prison.
The verdict prompted an outburst from Cosby in the Montgomery County, Pa., court house on Thursday, as he called District Attorney Kevin Steele an “a—hole.”
The three counts each carry a sentence of up to 10 years in state prison, but it remains to be seen how much time Cosby, will actually be sentenced to serve, and whether he could serve those sentences at the same time.
The Latest: Cosby's Alma Mater to Reconsider Honorary Degree
Janice Dickinson at Cosby Trial: ‘Here Was America’s Dad on Top of Me’
Methaqualone (Redirected from Quaaludes)
