looks like lithuania.

London, Lithuania, magical places to my ears.

You wouldn't believe how many red-state Americans still consider Europe as a third-world collection of countries.

"Everybody wants to come to America!" they say.

Now I'm really curious about Lithuania. That's one of those places that always seems to fly under the radar of current events.

fuck, i know new hampshire is in the north east USA, and i live in lithuania, which is NEAR RUSSIA.

Vote for me!!!!11!!1

I think what's most revealing here is that she thinks she can just finesse it, "i'll just keep on a talkin' and people won't notice". Yeah, that's exactly the kind of person you want running the country.

>> ^MINK:
lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.
corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.

You are mixing up two systems: economic systems and political systems. Lies are fraud. Fraud is illegal. People who commit fraud go to jail. That is not the jurisdiction of the market (economics) it is the jurisdiction of law enforcement (government).

Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.

I think BansheeX addressed this already. Monopolies are not inherently bad, they are only "bad" (from a consumer's standpoint) if they produce low quality products at high prices. I put "bad" in quotes because even this isn't "bad". Absent of regulation, consumers only trade when they feel they are gaining something. If they didn't think they were gaining anything from a buggy version of Windows, they wouldn't buy it. You miss the point about monopolies because you aren't considering the alternatives. Nobody has the right to buy a product, if nobody wants to produce it. You aren't entitled to bug-free, low cost software, nor are you entitled to software at all. What if Microsoft didn't even exist? What if people didn't even have the option of buying buggy high-priced software? How would that be better for the consumer? The mere existence of Microsoft and the option they provide improves the life of the consumer. And they exist because what it supply's is in demand. That fact does not change whether it is the only company, or 1 of 1000 companies.

The point is that Monopolies which don't satisfy their customers are never monopolies (or even alive) for long--again, just look what AMD did to Intel. Intel provided a window of opportunity where competition was profitable and someone took the risk and usurped them.

>> ^MINK:
lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.
corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.
individual freedom will always fuck up the common good. crime does pay. if you legalise business practices which are currently criminal, you'll get more of it, not a magical balanced free utopia.
Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.
here on the sift we have a free market of ideas and video uploads, and look what happens, a bunch of cliques and lolcats and vote whores and the noise level is so high that you can't find the good shit without watching 10 crappy videos. Can you imagine what it would be like here if siftbot stopped checking for sock puppet accounts?


You're confused, I blame the all-encompassing buzzword of the day "regulation" for this, people don't understand the markets and have come to take it as meaning "government making it all better and overseeing greed." Government indeed has desirable functions in law enforcement and offering recourse through courts for disputes. They should NOT be price-fixing, monopolizing money, or handing out taxpayer money under socialist ideals of directing industry or "enhancing market confidence," this has collusion and corruption written all over it. Politicians are humans and someone spending millions of his own money to get in a low-salary position of controlling other people's money is probably going to be a more harmful source of greed than any businessman. Because even though Henry Ford became a millionaire, thousands of people got cars out of the deal. Not sure the same would have come from government expenditures...

But many would consider this form of corporate wealth redistribution "regulating" the market. I don't.

Your example of false advertising is an example of where law enforcement should take place. Can I sell a product that purports to do something it doesn't? No, that's a swindle, the contract was not upheld, and you can go to government-provided courts to be compensated. Similar things apply to other swindles, though in most cases even the government can't prevent you from falling for some e-mail scam to a Nigerian clearing house. Unless, of course, you agree to have them snoop all your incoming e-mail to check for this stuff. I'd hope you understand that that's a pretty stupid of you, though, for giving up your privacy in order to protect yourself from being gullible. Not understanding cost/benefit ratios is a huge socialist mistake. They're always missing the potential costs and focusing on the benefit.

Gun bans, for example, have the intention of reducing violence but in reality remove the deterrent criminals otherwise have against a society that does have them, causing crime to increase. Plus, it makes you defenseless to oppressive government. The utopian allure of creating a "perfect" society where no gun crime exists and everyone can live in peace and trust is what gets them to miss the greater cost incurred that any thinking man would have foreseen.

The Fed is another one. Fractional reserves caused a lot of bank runs in the old days. Instead of banning this practice, they backstopped it with a central bank, but the central bank price fixed interest rates, causing a crash in 29. Further temporary socialist measures turned it into a fifteen year depression, a nuclear explosion compared to the firecrackers of the original problem. Then the FDIC was created. This incentivized a lot of risk and borrowing, which has helped the current problem fester. See how the failure to correctly solve one problem has led to a cascade of "solutions" that create even more problems that beget even more solutions? That's socialism, my friends. It just builds and builds until eventual collapse.

I would say that another socialist mistake you are making is that law enforcement itself is a proper regulatory measure. Not when they're selective, they're not. There is plenty of legislation out there that legalizes something for one industry, but not the other. Banks can loan out money they don't have at interest. Any other industry, and you're thrown in jail for fraudulent lending practices.

LOLskers at your Microsoft argument, too. Who prevents Microsoft from churning out crap? Consumers, mayhaps? People were free to not adopt Windows ME or Vista, and that's exactly what happened, their sales were disappointing for both. Anyone investing in Microsoft don't like failures leading to lost earnings. But Microsoft is smart and continues to sell XP, which is a perfectly good OS even today. But if they currently get any tax credits or subsidies, they shouldn't. No company should have access to forcibly appropriated money, period.

I think the real scary thing about all this, besides the fact that you don't understand it, is that you seem to be implying that a government office operating on forcibly appropriated money is capable of greater efficiency than the private sector. Maybe it comes close for laying pavement and picking up garbage. But in the grander scheme, no. It wasn't the case with Chernobyl and it ain't today, buddy. You take a hell of lot of innovations and products for granted if you believe that.

lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.

corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.

individual freedom will always fuck up the common good. crime does pay. if you legalise business practices which are currently criminal, you'll get more of it, not a magical balanced free utopia.

Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.

here on the sift we have a free market of ideas and video uploads, and look what happens, a bunch of cliques and lolcats and vote whores and the noise level is so high that you can't find the good shit without watching 10 crappy videos. Can you imagine what it would be like here if siftbot stopped checking for sock puppet accounts?

Well, I lived in Maine, which is right next to Canada and on the east coast. So I'm an expert in Relations with Canada, England Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Italy, Greece, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Cuba, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and OH, what do you know? Russia is on the Atlantic too, so count that one in there. Then add Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra-Leone, Liberia, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Ghana, Guyana, Suriname, Guyane, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize.

And that's just the Northern Atlantic.

Well, and Of course I was in Japan, Korea, Iraq and Kuwait, so add those and all surrounding countries.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to use my new-found skills to disssolve the DMZ and instill peace in the Koreas, Stop the mini wars in Africa, get the Columbian government to stop all drug trafficking into the U.S., convince Israel to calm down, get the Kurds, Sunnis and shiites to stop fighting and work together, Convince Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait to give half their oil to the U.S. for free, and Iran to stop all the "naughty business" with nuclear research.

You would think after all that, and with all my foreign relations skills I could convince MINK to stop being a douche. Well, I'm not God, you know.

It'll be a busy day.

the doctor who fixed my collapsed lung was amazing, working 3 jobs in state hospitals in Lithuania for basically no money. He could earn a million times more if he worked in the private sector or moved to a different country. I asked him why he worked for the state. He said his job is to help his people.

Crazy deluded communist contributing to the destruction of the economy?

when i moved to lithuania, the immigration process was terrible. i wrote in a magazine article that to me, nation states were just different brands of "life", and i was free to choose whatever EU state I wanted to live in, and Lithuania needed some better marketing and PR.

Lithuania should provide me with free beer while i wait for the forms to be processed, and maybe a massage. there should be a group of dancing girls singing "Welcome to Lithuania, The best place to pay your taxes, thankyou for applying for a residence permit".

That is definitely the future, as people stop caring so much about their "homeland" and all the bullshit that goes with it. Politicians are losing their grip on that tool.
It could happen within a couple of generations, i.e. 50 years, maybe when nationalism goes out of fashion after too many ridiculous wars over microregions.

>> ^Abducted:
It doesn't count! Russia and Georgia aren't true democracies. If anyone is allowed to waltz into lesser democracies in the middle east, then why wouldn't the same hold true here?


go and read about what "true democracy" is.

>> ^MINK:
And in my city, the town hall has a plaque on it quoting GWB from his speech in Lithuania: "Anyone who would choose Lithuania as an enemy, has made an enemy of the United States".

>>>>>National identity: SOLD, to that fat guy in the back!

it's called NATO, (not the NA Empire, obviously) and the Lithuanian politicians are clamouring for more of it, because of russia's "imperial aggression". It's twisted.

Here's a photo from a music festival this weekend, which is itself a propaganda action against belarussia, being subverted into a progeorgian demonstration by the liberal dishing out of free georgian flags to kids who don't know their history.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc18/kineticdreams/16082008191.jpg

very sad state of affairs to be experiencing perverted nationalism in europe.

fortunately many people are sick of it, as i am.

yeah i agree with you, especially as european languages come from indian.

lithuanians and londoners use the double negative, but the BBC doesn't.

but...

i do think it is "uneducated" to speak only in your "mother" accent.

learn a different accent and use that for business. Why should business adapt to 10923782937 accents? that makes no sense. educate yourself, learn how to talk in the business arena. NOBODY is born talking business english, even "whites" have to learn it.

I sleep with a trilingual linguistics graduate, and i speak lithuanian (the most archaic indoeuropean language still alive) so you know, i get your point. but i think "tolerance" goes too far into the realm of "impractical" and "lazy".

I used to teach swimming, and i would use a posh correct english accent in the health club and a broad south london accent in the public pools in the rough neighbourhoods. Why not?


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
I'm not against having a standardized vocabulary, spelling, or grammar. What was specifically the topic of the video that comment was a reply to was the uproar over a black teacher teaching kids that they were "uneducated" if they said "axe" instead of "ask." And it simply isn't true. It has nothing to do with education and everything to do with English having multiple dialects. And historically, the dialect spoken by white Americans has always been considered okay, regardless of how far from the supposed standard it is (which is why I brought up the Boston pronunciation of "car" as "ca-" and the non-existent Southern contraction "y'all") while the dialects of minorities such as Black Americans and Latin Americans has traditionally been frowned upon.

Thinking there is a standard English pronunciation is delusional. There are accepted standards (plural) of English, most of which are based on white, affluent speech. Now that English is an international language, however, that will surely change. Take India, for instance. They say things like:

"Open the air conditioner."

Instead of:

"Turn on the air conditioner."

Is it wrong? Not if everyone in India talks that way. As more countries embrace English and make their own personalized changes to the language you'll see less arguing about what is "educated" and "uneducated" English and more open acceptance of the fact that people who live in different places speak English differently--and get along just fine without needing "standard" English.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
i see nothing wrong with there being a "business english" standard, or "bbc english". Of course it's not ebonics or half spanish.

I learned Lithuanian to help me get work in Lithuania. I don't swear in front of new clients. I don't walk around talkin fakkin sarf landan aksent and insistin dat peeples rispek my rights, innit.

almost all jobs involve speaking to people, and therefore the way you speak is part of your job performance. What's wrong with that?

In the UK there was a trend for putting call centres in scotland because the scottish accent was judged to be the most trustworthy. What should I do, cry "discrimination!" and insist on more call centres in liverpool (an accent nobody can understand or trust)?

bear in mind i am not at all anti immigration, i just think that it's normal to have a separate language and etiquette for business, and there's no way that's going to be based on a fringe accent, it's gonna get melted down to "average".

People never used to say "gonna" on TV. Now they do. Things change. It's ok. There's many other ways to oppress minorities if that's what you want to do. Eradicating accent prejudice is never ever going to work.

I'm not against having a standardized vocabulary, spelling, or grammar. What was specifically the topic of the video that comment was a reply to was the uproar over a black teacher teaching kids that they were "uneducated" if they said "axe" instead of "ask." And it simply isn't true. It has nothing to do with education and everything to do with English having multiple dialects. And historically, the dialect spoken by white Americans has always been considered okay, regardless of how far from the supposed standard it is (which is why I brought up the Boston pronunciation of "car" as "ca-" and the non-existent Southern contraction "y'all") while the dialects of minorities such as Black Americans and Latin Americans has traditionally been frowned upon.

Thinking there is a standard English pronunciation is delusional. There are accepted standards (plural) of English, most of which are based on white, affluent speech. Now that English is an international language, however, that will surely change. Take India, for instance. They say things like:

"Open the air conditioner."

Instead of:

"Turn on the air conditioner."

Is it wrong? Not if everyone in India talks that way. As more countries embrace English and make their own personalized changes to the language you'll see less arguing about what is "educated" and "uneducated" English and more open acceptance of the fact that people who live in different places speak English differently--and get along just fine without needing "standard" English.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
i see nothing wrong with there being a "business english" standard, or "bbc english". Of course it's not ebonics or half spanish.

I learned Lithuanian to help me get work in Lithuania. I don't swear in front of new clients. I don't walk around talkin fakkin sarf landan aksent and insistin dat peeples rispek my rights, innit.

almost all jobs involve speaking to people, and therefore the way you speak is part of your job performance. What's wrong with that?

In the UK there was a trend for putting call centres in scotland because the scottish accent was judged to be the most trustworthy. What should I do, cry "discrimination!" and insist on more call centres in liverpool (an accent nobody can understand or trust)?

bear in mind i am not at all anti immigration, i just think that it's normal to have a separate language and etiquette for business, and there's no way that's going to be based on a fringe accent, it's gonna get melted down to "average".

People never used to say "gonna" on TV. Now they do. Things change. It's ok. There's many other ways to oppress minorities if that's what you want to do. Eradicating accent prejudice is never ever going to work.

It doesn't count! Russia and Georgia aren't true democracies. If anyone is allowed to waltz into lesser democracies in the middle east, then why wouldn't the same hold true here?

>> ^MINK:
And in my city, the town hall has a plaque on it quoting GWB from his speech in Lithuania: "Anyone who would choose Lithuania as an enemy, has made an enemy of the United States".

National identity: SOLD, to that fat guy in the back!

i see nothing wrong with there being a "business english" standard, or "bbc english". Of course it's not ebonics or half spanish.

I learned Lithuanian to help me get work in Lithuania. I don't swear in front of new clients. I don't walk around talkin fakkin sarf landan aksent and insistin dat peeples rispek my rights, innit.

almost all jobs involve speaking to people, and therefore the way you speak is part of your job performance. What's wrong with that?

In the UK there was a trend for putting call centres in scotland because the scottish accent was judged to be the most trustworthy. What should I do, cry "discrimination!" and insist on more call centres in liverpool (an accent nobody can understand or trust)?

bear in mind i am not at all anti immigration, i just think that it's normal to have a separate language and etiquette for business, and there's no way that's going to be based on a fringe accent, it's gonna get melted down to "average".

People never used to say "gonna" on TV. Now they do. Things change. It's ok. There's many other ways to oppress minorities if that's what you want to do. Eradicating accent prejudice is never ever going to work.


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
One issue that no one has mentioned is the issue of power. When people talk about standard English in America, what they are usually really talking about is the English spoken by white, middle-class Americans. There's this unspoken assumption that if you don't speak like a white, middle-class American then you aren't educated. And that's really the tragedy of this story. Some of these kids might be capable of getting perfect scores on their SAT's but because they pronounce words differently than the minority group that is currently in power (white Americans) they'll be judged as somehow inferior on a job interview.

I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "standard English." There's British English, Australian English, Singaporean English, Indian English and a host of others. There's not even a "standard American English." There are many regional standards that have overlapping facets but still also have a lot of variation--the most important variation being pronunciation. Think about this--why is it in this clip the black children are considered uneducated for pronouncing ask as "ax" yet Boston children are not considered uneducated for pronouncing "car" as "ca-."

>> ^chilaxe:
Irishman, it's an injustice to the complexity of the situation to continually describe one side of this conflict as 100% correct.
It's easy to say from a distance that it'd be fine to live under the domination of a larger military power, but the countries that actually have to do that feel quite differently, which is why Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine have all rallied behind Georgia.
Military conflicts are always stupid.


Hear hear. Always stupid.

But I am in Lithuania, I can tell you the "support for georgia" is almost entirely an opportunity to express anti-russian anger and vengeance, rather than a call for peace. After a "peace" demonstration they sang old traditional lithuanian war hymns about "get on your horse and go to battle". wtf.

The connection between "russkies go home" and "yankees go home" is entirely lost on the majority people here. They are blinded by the opportunity to go on and on about russian aggression, while their own troops are in Iraq "installing democracy" with the USA.

The delivery of a tiny amount of aid to georgia by the us administration was CHEERED here. No irony detected. And support seems to be for the flag and state of georgia, not so much her people. Forget the fact that the government of georgia is fucked up, let's support it because it's not russia!!

And in my city, the town hall has a plaque on it quoting GWB from his speech in Lithuania: "Anyone who would choose Lithuania as an enemy, has made an enemy of the United States".

The clever thing about the "new empires" is they just stopped using the word "empire" and now everyone's fucking happy.