How about we compare them to the US military instead?
Diffcult to do because a lot of the deaths attributed to the US military - see for eaxmple here turn out out to have been carried out in practice by the Islamists. Bad US policy caused by an inability to let go of the Russians as an an enemy is responsible for both.
Burning civilians alive with missles out of nowwhere, torturing prisoners and treating them like dogs imho it isn't that sure anymore who the terrorists are. My best guess is that it depends on where you live.
We in the West are (rightly) self critical in these matters - but please don't be under any illusions about the way other countries view these things. Unlike the West they aren't the least bit embarassed or apologetic.
Re: It is all about what you are brought up to want.
High school teachers are greedy and incompetent and sacred = can not be fired for being bad.
Actually what is wrong with the system in the UK is precisely the threat of being fired for being bad. If that is not yet the case in the US then that is the one good thing left in the system
The trouble is that no one knows what "bad" actually is - let alone how to measure it reliably enough to make any use of the results.
In the UK we have used exam results - but the problem here is that when the teacher's job depends on the students' results then the students' results can no longer be allowed to depend on the students. Since the exam boards are now also "commercial" operations then they are motivated to collude with the schools to corrupt the system. As a University Lecturer I have seen the sorry results of this year by year as the exam scores get better yet the students' ability to actually understand anything gets progressively worse.
A teacher's job should be made more difficult to get in the first place, and well enough paid to attract the best. After that however you have to take the risk of trusting those people you have employed to remain professional.
There will always be a few who will take advantage of this - but the alternative is infinitely worse.
The irony is that the concept of a software licence was originally invented to give the purchaser MORE rights than copyright itself allowed.
Thus the licence typically allowed you to make the ephemeral copies necessary to run the program, to install it onto your hard drive and to make a backup. All of this would have been technically illegal under copyright law as understood in the 50s and 60s.
Thus the licence was always IN ADDITION to the rights that you automatically acquired on purchase.
Now however they seem to want to make the licence into something that takes away rights that you had. This may not be legally sound - but since when has that stopped them?
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little.
Hollywood is a monopolistic cartel. As such it is the creation of copyright - which encourages monopolistic behaviour by middlemen. So you are right in a sense. Without copyright the Hollywood cartel would not exist. However many believe that the world would be a better place for consumers AND the original creators without the cartel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
It's like arguing religion with fundamentalists.
I think you are being unfair to the fundamentalists here. They usually have a book that provides a basis for their arguments. You know where you are with them. These copyright people just keep shifting their ground.
Do you really think other governments are on our side?
This confirms that encryption is no panacea, but is certainly worth deploying. The fact that it can make China's Great Cannon attacks harder, if not impossible, should also give pause to government officials around the world as they try to demonize encryption and call for it to be weakened or even banned.
Most officials of most governments are cheering China on under their breath. It is only in pubklic that China is condemned. In private they have the same agenda. It is just the remaining barriers of free speech and democracy that stop them saying so publicly.