Slashdot Mirror

Bill Gates is gonna counter by releasing a song about how we need more H1B's to replace Godless communist OSS programmers.

I would say that "Catan" on 360 will be just the boardgame "Settlers of Catan" and we'll be nickelled and dimed for the Seafarers, Cities and Knights and possibly even for 6 player support (although there's no reason not to have that in the first place).

It's hard to tell, so just in case you're serious . . .

JAPANESE attack on Pearl Harbour

Microsoft is also obviously aligned Lawful Evil (despite what my sig may say :P).

Actually, we had a similar call at this center once - guy calls in, regular issue but midway through the call he says "holy crap, I've got to go, there's a fire" and disappears without hanging up the phone. Agent doesn't know what to do, turns and tells one of our "witty" support people what's on the go, he replies . . . "roll her a fire truck".

Of course we also have to deal with "the tech stole my laptop", "the tech slept with my 18 year old daughter" and the state police calling looking for tech # 12387 because he's wanted in connection with 2 rape/murders.

It's a rewarding job, but not without it's challenges :S

Also classic Fred Penner and Sharon, Lois & Bram tunes!

Where would we be as a nation without "Skinamarinky-dinky-dink"?(sp?)

I'm not sure, but not as many Americans as it takes to screw up an Iraq exit policy. (Zing!)

Not only is the Canadian film industry doing well, Stargate is filmed here!

Just in case you couldn't tell - the first two seasons consist entirely of them going to planets that look like backwoods BC.

I presume you just watched V For Vendetta?

...but the RIAA has a little more sway than me with Congress. :)

well considering it's from godless communist china they must be sticking it to evil!
hooray!

I don't think it's just "used to". To the best of my knowledge, the US is still one of (if not THE) largest arms exporters in the world.

There is a certain amount of good to be said for not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, but selective interference doesn't get you any friends.

China's approach seems to be "we'll sell you whatever you want", without any moral implications whatsoever. It may not fit in with Western sensibilities, but as you said it does get the short term desired effect.

To be perfectly clear (in case I wasn't before) I don't think China will ever invade Nigeria et al; simply look to them (and former satellite states of the CCCP) for oil rather than the Middle Easta and OPEC.

Possibly the same people who came up with "military intelligence".

Was that a question to me, or to the person quoted?

The claim is that Europeans would not accept a theocracy.

There are, to use the widest brush possible, two avenues of thought in contemporary Europe: A) that we are heading towards a situation called 'lots of Islam everywhere you look', or B) that we are not heading towards 'lots of Islam everywhere you look'.

What everyone (at least, everyone I know and speak to on a regular basis) is however aware of is that the notion of "stopping theocracy", "not accepting theocracy", "preventing theocracy", "being opposed to theocracy" is absurd.

A theocracy is, how I define it, simply a government (at any level, whether local or national) that is run with a clear eye towards religiously founded laws and principles, with plenty of weight given to the opinion of religious persons (the more 'religious' the more weight) and with active government support for promotion and partaking in religion, coupled with a very heavy hand (by policy or in practice) used against anyone not belonging to the main religion(s), or opposing either that religion or religion in general.

What everyone fully knows is that in order to _get_ a theocracy, all you need is _a lot of people who want a theocracy_, or rather a society run on these terms. If 7000 out of 10000 inhabitants in a city wants their local government run according to the above principles, then the notion of the rest of Europe stopping them from doing this is absurd. It would violate literally hundres of principles in every declaration ever signed, and is completely unthinkable.

It's like saying "The American public would never permit the Oort cloud to contain comets with ice in them!" - what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? If someone starts a debate as to whether America "should" or "should not" stomach the Oort cloud containing ice-filled meteors you would consider them crackpot because the discussion is meaningless and whatever your opinion is doesn't matter.

When it comes to Europe, it is again plain to every European I know, whether adhering to group A or group B of the above, that the opinion of Europeans as to a theocracy is completely irrelevant so long as there are enough individuals here who _want_ a theocracy. Telling them that 'no, we are sorry, we don't like this, we are going to use the means at our disposal to ensure that you do not govern yourself in that way' is an absurd thought. It would take a galaxy wide leap in European popular thinking, philosophy, ideology, government and public discourse to consider that. If so it would be hailed by the rest of the world as something like a resurgence of Nazism. The question thus isn't normative ("are we going to accept a society like this?"), but positive ("what % of people are going to want a society like this?").

Discussing whether Europe would accept a theocracy inside itself is like discussing whether Europe would accept it outside itself, e.g. our opinions about whether we are going to expunge Islam from Iran any time soon. Are we "godless Europeans" "going to accept" a "Theocratic Iran"?

The racism comment was because many consider even the raising of the word 'theocracy' to be indicative of a scaremongering, phobic and subconsciously racist mindset, as it evidences what you consider _might_ be possible. If you belong to this group you would simultaneously hold the opinion much like group A that theocracy isn't something you can oppose and that it will happen if there are enough who want it, and that it is not going to happen. Again, everyone knows that it couldn't be avoided if enough wanted it, while a subset thinks that just raising the possibility is racist.

I am of course highly interested in and would find it a joy to read discussions about in which specific way Europeans would "refrain from accepting an internal theocracy", and which actions (speech, movements) they would take to act that out. Also naturally any criticisms of the above - it's rather simplified, as written descriptions neccessarily have to be, but the broad strokes are in my view all accurate.