If you want some idea of what things migh have been like with a monolithic telecoms system have a good laugh at the situation here in the UK. Despite the so-called de-regulation (and the BT fan club known as Oftel) BT still have that vital control over the local loop and are fighting tooth and nail not to let anyone else get access to it. The cheapest ISDN rental I can get works out at over 40USD per month - and don't forget there are NO free/unmetered calls with BT. This is changing in areas where you are lucky enough to have a one of the cable companies that is any good. The ISDN prices are high to protect leased line revenue, and ADSL is being rolled out as slowly as possible to protect ISDN revenue. I don't know that this is BT policy, but it is a reasonable conclussion.
I may eventually get ADSL for about 65USD per month - 512/256k if I'm lucky - but there is no SLA so I will be expected to pay even when there is no service - right, I should think so. ----
This reminds me of something - I'm sure soneone will know. There was a manager in the US military (I know, but General/Admiral on a project is still a manager) who hated meetings and said something like "All meetings are to be held on Saturdays". Brilliant. I think it was WWII but could have been Nasa/Skunkworks - really vague memory. ----
I'm interested, do you mean in everything or IT in particular, and do you have any references to back up this surprising claim? What metrics are you using? ----
When you are fully conversant with my personal circumstance, by all means feel qualified to comment.
I certainly wouldn't want to exclude Norway, I think I'd rather live there (from what I know of it) than here(UK)
To someone who thought before posting this might be indicative of an interest based upon admittedly insufficient knowledge. Among other things it could be considered wise to obtain more information before coming to a firm conclusion. As for speaking the language, well that wouldn't bother me, I'd have to learn it wouldn't I? If you are familiar with IR35, UK fuel duty, fatty two jags and other delights you might appreciate why I may be considering relocating, within Europe. Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Ireland are all quite attractive which is why, yes I am THINKING about it.
So no I don't know YET what I would rather do. There are several other factors too. If you don't like one throwaway comment at the start of a post about a separate subject, well I hope you will eventually learn to cope with the world not being as you want it.
From dictionary.msn.com, for those that need the help- consider:
to think carefully about something
To end with an appropriate quotation, hmm..
"It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." ----
I certainly wouldn't want to exclude Norway, I think I'd rather live there (from what I know of it) than here (UK). I don't know enough about the Eastern European countries to comment - I'm not being exclusionist, see below.
I was thinking more of the practicalities. The FSF is solely US, so has to cope with Federal and State laws, I was thinking a Euro-XXX version would have an easier time if it was in an analagous situation with regard to legal matters, i.e. individual country and EU law is supposed to be becoming more harmonised. I'm not implying Norway should join the EU, it seems to be doing quite nicely outside, but as far as I can tell there probably wouldn't be any great legal mismatch, whereas I'm not so sure about the Eastern European states - at least for now.
I was just thinking it might help the FSF-EU[R(OPE|ASIA)] to start within a simpler framework and expand when and if practicable.
Apologies to any Norwegian or Eastern European (or Asian) people, I did not mean to be offensive, and any slight was from ignorance, not intent. I was hoping the FSF-XXetc could learn to crawl before trying to do the hurdles bakwards.:-) ----
I don't really think that saying JFK threatened the USSR with nuclear war is calling him great, you could as well say that he nearly started a war.
Your comments about the juvenile nature of the cold war is precisely what I meant by 'the threat of force' - it's like two kids calling each other names in the playground (schoolyard) with neither quite having the nerve to throw the first kick, punch etc.
Kennedy & Krouschev, or any 2 leaders during the cold war really, were playing chicken, but with our lives.
Actually juvenile seems a bit too grown up, infantile seems nearer. The sad thing is I can't see how the west could have done a lot better - details yes, but not policy. Depressing. ----
He's even more preposterous when he describes Tolkien as Utopian, I presume he's not talking about 'The Hobbit' but the LOTR, where is the ideal society here? Even the ending isn't particularly 'Happy', just the least worst that the central characters could have achieved. LOTR is admittedly not dystopian either, but either description is over-simplistic. It's not idealising the 'good' races either, every 'good' race has bad characters, OK marginally so with the dwarves, and I can't remember any good orcs or trolls - so while he shows the bad in the good, he doesn't show the opposite. Is this utopian? I think not. FEH
It's all very well saying how he (and others) opposed the Vietnam War in 67, and others didn't - but why? If it was predisposition (bias) on both sides it's understandable - Moorcock et al being anti-government by nature, OK. But it doesn't have to mean those who supported the war then were fascist. I would be interested in their views after all the facts became widely known - supporting it then could be better described as fascist. ----
Firstly (and for me, most importantly), this is NOT an anti-US or anti-FDR rant.
I heard Gore Vidal on the radio the other day (BBC Radio 4) talking about his new book. He was talking about the theory that FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese until they attacked Pearl Harbor. Vidal said his parents were part of the inner Washington elite and this was fairly common knowledge, and accepted by US historians. I thought that this was interesting and I wondered if anybody knew of any verifiable information one way or the other. Note: I am not saying that I believe this, and it wouldn't excuse the attack on PH, but I am prepared to consider the possibility. Sometimes the 'truth', whatever that is, only comes out a long time after the event. ----
I think that the fact it is referred to as the Cold War indocates that the struggle was predicated upon the threat of violence. What might have happened without, for example JFKs threats during the Cuban Missile Crisis - possibly the nearest the world came to nuclear war, that is publicly known anyway? ----
Except Moorcock can't write. I read more of his books than I care to remember when I was a lot younger, I must have liked them. I've still got some, but I almost never evict books. Some of the ideas weren't bad, but done to death or what? Flogging a dead horse doesn't come into it, he ground the skeleton to powder.
Best thing he did, imnsho, was to inspire Hawkwind to write Silver Machine - oh deary me, I bet that showed my age;-( ----
I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned that you have to grok 'the matrix' because you can't be told what it is - even though you can, of course. ----
I think that if you're on the wrong end of any form of government you probably don't care what it's labelled. I was wondering if the US and the UK could be considered oligarchies rather than democracies. In the UK you don't get to vote if you're insane, a member of the House of Lords (has his tonyness changed that?), a convict, under 18 etc. No universal franchise there. DO you think 'people of colour' in 40s/50s US regarded that as a democracy, or women in WWI Britain? I doubt it - and these aren't extreme examples.
As to precision in language, well, with me it isn't related to programming (though that is one of the things I do), but I've always felt that if you aren't using the same terms, you can't really understand each others viewpoint - my father started me on algebra at 7 and I did a science degree before going into IT, and I read philosophy a bit, all of which makes me 'careful' with language:-)
Why do you think legal contracts are so turgid:-D
So I don't mind 'loosening' the precision a bit, now we've established a common frame of reference.
Back to the debate... An interesting question is as to whether a Fascist society is open or closed - i.e. can anyone become a member of the ruling class? In Nazi Germany etc (Fascist Dictatorship) you could become a member of the elite (subject to racial criteria of course) but power still ultimately rests with the tyrant.
In ST the civilians may become citizens and join the elite - eventually. So there are no (human)racial restrictions on membership, and power doesn't reside in one individual, we have an open oligarchy. This may still be fascist, but if we revise things slightly it looks a little different. If the same society exists before, or after, the war does this change the picture - if there is no enemy to demonise and no real danger in becoming a citizen, does this change the picture, I think it does. Nazi Germany was Fascist before the war, maybe (without the war) the ST society isn't????
As an aside I know Italy gave us fascism, but I feel that the Germans made it into a dirty word - I know Mussolini was bad enough (Abyssinia etc), but Hitler was a whole different bastard.
Personally I have a down on totalitarian regimes of any stripe, but democracy isn't so hot either - in the US it looks like the guy with the most votes is going to come second and in the UK it's quite common for the ruling party to have a minority too. Someone else said it best "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
I should probably quote RAH from 'Time Enough For Love' on democracy, but I can't be bothered...:-)
Yes, I love a good debate, it only gets ugly if people feel their ego/self picture is threatened. This is the sort of debate I normally get into down the pub or on usenet, mine's a pint of HSB. ----
Most PS2 were pre-sold, none in shops (I Think).
No, I didn't buy one:-) The
BBC coverage includes the price in various countries in USD - not surprisingly the US price is the lowest. They had to delay the launch because of production problems in Japan.
----
Ah, true, I doubt exophobia or xenophobia are in most dictionaries yet. I like Orson Scott Card, I think he's a better writer than RAH, not that that's important. I don't like Heinlein's world in ST, I think Forever War was a good answer, but that doesn't mean I necessarily find ST fascist. I don't find the concept of a just war suspect, but I do believe that a just war is something very rare. It is arguable (but NOT necessarily true) that, for the Russian people (NOT the ruling party) the Great Patriotic War against Germany in 1941 was a just war. I believe that for those jewish soldiers fighting against nazism (who new about the Holocaust), they were fighting a just war. Or is war NEVER justified or justifiable? If a group is fighting against extermination, when the very existence of that group is under threat, war may very well be just.
From The Oxford English Disctionary:
Dictatorship: 1. The office or dignity of a dictator. 2. Absolut authority in any spere.
Dictator: 1. A ruler or governor whose word is law, an absolute ruler of a state.
2. A person exercising absolute authority of any kind or in any sphere; one who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictated what is to be done.
Oligarchy: Government by the few; a form of government in which the power is confined to a few persons or families; also the body of persons compsing such a government.
From http://dictionary.msn.co.uk (thanks for the reference):
Dictatorship: 1. dictator's power or rule: a dictator's power or authority, or the period of time during which a dictator rules 2. government by dictator: government by a dictator 3. country ruled by dictator: a state ruled by a dictator.
Dictator: 1.POLITICS tyrant: a leader who rules a country with absolute power, usually by force
Oligarchy: 1. small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes
I maintain my contention that a dictatorship is ruled by a dictator, singular. E.G. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Modern Iraq.
I was wrong about autocracy, that's closely related to dictatorship, the society in ST is an oligarchy, see above.
Uh, human 'species' not 'race', in the context quoted, the dictionary definition of fascism, 'race' means like jewish, negro, caucasian etc. So, no point there.
Also it could be regarded as a matter of species survival, I don't remember how/why the war in ST started - look at how propaganda in most wars villifies the opposition, it's SOP.
Dictatorships are by one person not a group, so no point there, maybe you meant autocracy, or elite?
I don't remember any opposition either, but most governments only allow ineffective opposition to their form of existence, look at the former Soviet Union, McCarthy in the US, Tiananmen Square, WACO, for how governments deal with that one, so while I would agree with your point, I don't regard that as indicative of fascism. Possible but not conclusive. ----
I wish that people weren't so ignorant. An amendment to a document is considered PART OF THE DOCUMENT!!!
amendment == change
Therefore it can be changed.
I don't want to mock the U.S. - there are plenty of good things about it, but there's also lots of bad things too, or can only a USian criticise the U.S.?
The British Empire never ruled the world, just quite a large part of it, if it had ruled the world, well, it probably still would.
It's not as if the US isn't a colonial power too, or am I mistaken about the status of Puerto Rico? And what's the deal with kidnapping a foreign a Foreign Head of State to try him in the US for crimes against US but not local laws allegedly comitted NOT on US soil? What would US reaction be if Clinton had been kidnapped to stand trial for adultery in an Islamic country? Remember in some parts of the world this is a VERY big deal.
Just look at your own country with the same critical eye you look at others, and don't get upset when people from other countries react to a USians smug criticisms by responding in kind.
As for comaprable systems, hmm try China - a military superpower too, larger population Arguably works better than the US, not a democracy of course but you didn't specify that. For a larger democracy (but admittedly not yet as much military power) have a good look at India, they do rather well with a largely illiterate population. Admittedly they have a rather dynastic approach to democracy, but then with Gore and Bush so does the U.S......... ----
I know, it's not easy etc,etc. But it does happen, and prohibition was an illustration that it isn't always that hard to change. I know that was repealled, but that was yet another change.
What if the first amendment was repealled? Can't happen? Why not?
What if the Constitution is quietly ignored?
How exactly did the Fourth Amendment protect Steve Jackson Games from the Secret Service, for example?
Q. When is a democracy not a democracy?
A. When the gut who gets the most votes comes second?
I am NOT anti-US, I just get hacked off when 'merkins bang on about their sacred cow of a constitution without looking how it really works, and when they criticise other countries electoral systems. A lot of people are laughing at you right now guys, it's unfortunate but true.
Sometimes outsiders have a better view of how things work - I.E. 'merkins can have a more balanced view of problems in the UK than we do - and vice-versa.
There's lots of good things about the US, but not everything is good - just like anywhere else. ----
The constitution, alas, only tries to keep the government from interfering. Private citizens are,
regrettably, allowed to be as dumb as they want.
Funny, I thought that was the First
Amendment that did that....
Which means that your precious constitution has been changed - how many amendments are there now? What was the Eighteenth amendment.
Now tell me how the constitution protects you?
Seriously, though, if people aren't willing to risk their lives for their causes then those causes probably aren't worth fighting for anyway. Endless robot war only dilutes the purpose of fighting in the first place
Wasn't it Patton who said something like "It's OK to die for ones country, but it's better still to make the enemy S.O.B. die for his country"
If you take the view quoted above to it's conclussion you'd join Fight Club- but the object of war isn't to have a 'fair fight', it's to achieve one's desire as cheaply as possible.
Read "The Homecoming od Beorthnoth", it's two old soldiers picking a battelfield clean in the dark, and discussing what happened. The Saxon(?) leader Beorthnoth was leading the defense against a viking raid, and his forces held a position of advantage - basically they were impregnable. But this wasn't 'fair' so he gave up his advantage to fight on equal terms. Result? All his men who trusted him to lead them and keep their homes and families safe were slaughtered and their villages pillaged. The play has a few scathing comments on 'honour'.
War is about winning, not playing fair -Weapons of mass destruction may be immoral (I think so), but in terms of realpolitik this is less important than their being ineffective. ----
Nope. You got it backwards. This one is legit. "Product" refers to the MS stuff. In other words, you
can't advertise of sell the OEM versions of stuff separate from the hardware. You can sell naked
hardware, but not naked MS software.
Unless you are in Germany where this clause is meaningless. They basically ended up saying that the principle of first sale applies to OEM software sold by PC makers - i.e. they can do what they like with it.
Seems since the end of WWII the Germans are very careful about totalitarian tendencies - they came dorn on the Co$ like a ton of bricks too. ----
Slashdot Mirror
How long before the US starts criticising some other country's electoral process, again? :-)
----
Despite the so-called de-regulation (and the BT fan club known as Oftel) BT still have that vital control over the local loop and are fighting tooth and nail not to let anyone else get access to it.
The cheapest ISDN rental I can get works out at over 40USD per month - and don't forget there are NO free/unmetered calls with BT. This is changing in areas where you are lucky enough to have a one of the cable companies that is any good.
The ISDN prices are high to protect leased line revenue, and ADSL is being rolled out as slowly as possible to protect ISDN revenue. I don't know that this is BT policy, but it is a reasonable conclussion.
I may eventually get ADSL for about 65USD per month - 512/256k if I'm lucky - but there is no SLA so I will be expected to pay even when there is no service - right, I should think so.
----
I think it was WWII but could have been Nasa/Skunkworks - really vague memory.
----
What metrics are you using?
----
As for speaking the language, well that wouldn't bother me, I'd have to learn it wouldn't I?
If you are familiar with IR35, UK fuel duty, fatty two jags and other delights you might appreciate why I may be considering relocating, within Europe. Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Ireland are all quite attractive which is why, yes I am THINKING about it.
So no I don't know YET what I would rather do. There are several other factors too.
If you don't like one throwaway comment at the start of a post about a separate subject, well I hope you will eventually learn to cope with the world not being as you want it.
From dictionary.msn.com, for those that need the help-
consider: to think carefully about something
To end with an appropriate quotation, hmm..
"It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
----
I was thinking more of the practicalities. The FSF is solely US, so has to cope with Federal and State laws, I was thinking a Euro-XXX version would have an easier time if it was in an analagous situation with regard to legal matters, i.e. individual country and EU law is supposed to be becoming more harmonised.
I'm not implying Norway should join the EU, it seems to be doing quite nicely outside, but as far as I can tell there probably wouldn't be any great legal mismatch, whereas I'm not so sure about the Eastern European states - at least for now.
I was just thinking it might help the FSF-EU[R(OPE|ASIA)] to start within a simpler framework and expand when and if practicable.
Apologies to any Norwegian or Eastern European (or Asian) people, I did not mean to be offensive, and any slight was from ignorance, not intent. I was hoping the FSF-XXetc could learn to crawl before trying to do the hurdles bakwards. :-)
----
Otherwise why not go for FSF-EU as this would cover an area with more homogenised legal and intellectual systems than 'Europe' or 'Eurasia'.
But it is a joke, right?
----
Your comments about the juvenile nature of the cold war is precisely what I meant by 'the threat of force' - it's like two kids calling each other names in the playground (schoolyard) with neither quite having the nerve to throw the first kick, punch etc.
Kennedy & Krouschev, or any 2 leaders during the cold war really, were playing chicken, but with our lives.
Actually juvenile seems a bit too grown up, infantile seems nearer. The sad thing is I can't see how the west could have done a lot better - details yes, but not policy. Depressing.
----
LOTR is admittedly not dystopian either, but either description is over-simplistic. It's not idealising the 'good' races either, every 'good' race has bad characters, OK marginally so with the dwarves, and I can't remember any good orcs or trolls - so while he shows the bad in the good, he doesn't show the opposite.
Is this utopian? I think not. FEH
It's all very well saying how he (and others) opposed the Vietnam War in 67, and others didn't - but why? If it was predisposition (bias) on both sides it's understandable - Moorcock et al being anti-government by nature, OK. But it doesn't have to mean those who supported the war then were fascist. I would be interested in their views after all the facts became widely known - supporting it then could be better described as fascist.
----
I heard Gore Vidal on the radio the other day (BBC Radio 4) talking about his new book.
He was talking about the theory that FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese until they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Vidal said his parents were part of the inner Washington elite and this was fairly common knowledge, and accepted by US historians. I thought that this was interesting and I wondered if anybody knew of any verifiable information one way or the other.
Note: I am not saying that I believe this, and it wouldn't excuse the attack on PH, but I am prepared to consider the possibility. Sometimes the 'truth', whatever that is, only comes out a long time after the event.
----
I think that the fact it is referred to as the Cold War indocates that the struggle was predicated upon the threat of violence. What might have happened without, for example JFKs threats during the Cuban Missile Crisis - possibly the nearest the world came to nuclear war, that is publicly known anyway?
----
I read more of his books than I care to remember when I was a lot younger, I must have liked them. I've still got some, but I almost never evict books. Some of the ideas weren't bad, but done to death or what?
Flogging a dead horse doesn't come into it, he ground the skeleton to powder.
Best thing he did, imnsho, was to inspire Hawkwind to write Silver Machine - oh deary me, I bet that showed my age ;-(
----
I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned that you have to grok 'the matrix' because you can't be told what it is - even though you can, of course.
----
I was wondering if the US and the UK could be considered oligarchies rather than democracies. In the UK you don't get to vote if you're insane, a member of the House of Lords (has his tonyness changed that?), a convict, under 18 etc. No universal franchise there.
DO you think 'people of colour' in 40s/50s US regarded that as a democracy, or women in WWI Britain? I doubt it - and these aren't extreme examples.
As to precision in language, well, with me it isn't related to programming (though that is one of the things I do), but I've always felt that if you aren't using the same terms, you can't really understand each others viewpoint - my father started me on algebra at 7 and I did a science degree before going into IT, and I read philosophy a bit, all of which makes me 'careful' with language :-)
Why do you think legal contracts are so turgid :-D
So I don't mind 'loosening' the precision a bit, now we've established a common frame of reference.
Back to the debate...
An interesting question is as to whether a Fascist society is open or closed - i.e. can anyone become a member of the ruling class? In Nazi Germany etc (Fascist Dictatorship) you could become a member of the elite (subject to racial criteria of course) but power still ultimately rests with the tyrant.
In ST the civilians may become citizens and join the elite - eventually. So there are no (human)racial restrictions on membership, and power doesn't reside in one individual, we have an open oligarchy. This may still be fascist, but if we revise things slightly it looks a little different.
If the same society exists before, or after, the war does this change the picture - if there is no enemy to demonise and no real danger in becoming a citizen, does this change the picture, I think it does. Nazi Germany was Fascist before the war, maybe (without the war) the ST society isn't????
As an aside I know Italy gave us fascism, but I feel that the Germans made it into a dirty word - I know Mussolini was bad enough (Abyssinia etc), but Hitler was a whole different bastard.
Personally I have a down on totalitarian regimes of any stripe, but democracy isn't so hot either - in the US it looks like the guy with the most votes is going to come second and in the UK it's quite common for the ruling party to have a minority too. Someone else said it best "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
I should probably quote RAH from 'Time Enough For Love' on democracy, but I can't be bothered...:-)
Yes, I love a good debate, it only gets ugly if people feel their ego/self picture is threatened. This is the sort of debate I normally get into down the pub or on usenet, mine's a pint of HSB.
----
Most PS2 were pre-sold, none in shops (I Think). :-)
No, I didn't buy one
The BBC coverage includes the price in various countries in USD - not surprisingly the US price is the lowest.
They had to delay the launch because of production problems in Japan.
----
I like Orson Scott Card, I think he's a better writer than RAH, not that that's important. I don't like Heinlein's world in ST, I think Forever War was a good answer, but that doesn't mean I necessarily find ST fascist.
I don't find the concept of a just war suspect, but I do believe that a just war is something very rare. It is arguable (but NOT necessarily true) that, for the Russian people (NOT the ruling party) the Great Patriotic War against Germany in 1941 was a just war. I believe that for those jewish soldiers fighting against nazism (who new about the Holocaust), they were fighting a just war. Or is war NEVER justified or justifiable?
If a group is fighting against extermination, when the very existence of that group is under threat, war may very well be just.
From The Oxford English Disctionary:
Dictatorship:
1. The office or dignity of a dictator.
2. Absolut authority in any spere.
Dictator:
1. A ruler or governor whose word is law, an absolute ruler of a state.
2. A person exercising absolute authority of any kind or in any sphere; one who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictated what is to be done.
Oligarchy:
Government by the few; a form of government in which the power is confined to a few persons or families; also the body of persons compsing such a government.
From http://dictionary.msn.co.uk (thanks for the reference)
Dictatorship:
1. dictator's power or rule: a dictator's power or authority, or the period of time during which a dictator rules
2. government by dictator: government by a dictator
3. country ruled by dictator: a state ruled by a dictator.
Dictator:
1.POLITICS tyrant: a leader who rules a country with absolute power, usually by force
Oligarchy:
1. small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes
I maintain my contention that a dictatorship is ruled by a dictator, singular. E.G. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Modern Iraq.
I was wrong about autocracy, that's closely related to dictatorship, the society in ST is an oligarchy, see above.
----
Uh, human 'species' not 'race', in the context quoted, the dictionary definition of fascism, 'race' means like jewish, negro, caucasian etc. So, no point there. Also it could be regarded as a matter of species survival, I don't remember how/why the war in ST started - look at how propaganda in most wars villifies the opposition, it's SOP.
Dictatorships are by one person not a group, so no point there, maybe you meant autocracy, or elite?
I don't remember any opposition either, but most governments only allow ineffective opposition to their form of existence, look at the former Soviet Union, McCarthy in the US, Tiananmen Square, WACO, for how governments deal with that one, so while I would agree with your point, I don't regard that as indicative of fascism. Possible but not conclusive.
----
Therefore it can be changed.
I don't want to mock the U.S. - there are plenty of good things about it, but there's also lots of bad things too, or can only a USian criticise the U.S.?
The British Empire never ruled the world, just quite a large part of it, if it had ruled the world, well, it probably still would.
It's not as if the US isn't a colonial power too, or am I mistaken about the status of Puerto Rico? And what's the deal with kidnapping a foreign a Foreign Head of State to try him in the US for crimes against US but not local laws allegedly comitted NOT on US soil?
What would US reaction be if Clinton had been kidnapped to stand trial for adultery in an Islamic country? Remember in some parts of the world this is a VERY big deal.
Just look at your own country with the same critical eye you look at others, and don't get upset when people from other countries react to a USians smug criticisms by responding in kind.
As for comaprable systems, hmm try China - a military superpower too, larger population Arguably works better than the US, not a democracy of course but you didn't specify that.
For a larger democracy (but admittedly not yet as much military power) have a good look at India, they do rather well with a largely illiterate population. Admittedly they have a rather dynastic approach to democracy, but then with Gore and Bush so does the U.S.........
----
I know, it's not easy etc,etc. But it does happen, and prohibition was an illustration that it isn't always that hard to change. I know that was repealled, but that was yet another change.
What if the first amendment was repealled? Can't happen? Why not?
What if the Constitution is quietly ignored?
How exactly did the Fourth Amendment protect Steve Jackson Games from the Secret Service, for example?
Q. When is a democracy not a democracy?
A. When the gut who gets the most votes comes second?
I am NOT anti-US, I just get hacked off when 'merkins bang on about their sacred cow of a constitution without looking how it really works, and when they criticise other countries electoral systems. A lot of people are laughing at you right now guys, it's unfortunate but true.
Sometimes outsiders have a better view of how things work - I.E. 'merkins can have a more balanced view of problems in the UK than we do - and vice-versa.
There's lots of good things about the US, but not everything is good - just like anywhere else.
----
Funny, I thought that was the First Amendment that did that....
Which means that your precious constitution has been changed - how many amendments are there now?
What was the Eighteenth amendment.
Now tell me how the constitution protects you?
----
IF the TOS was modified susequent to djnitro agreeing to the original then he shouldn't be bound by the version now on their website.
One of the problems with the web is proving that what is on a web page today is/isn't what was on that page previously.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but what is to prevent an ISP just changing its TOS without telling its customers??
----
not a command for Gort (the robot).
Btw as Klaatu wasn't Gort's master I don't suppose he was in any position to give orders anyway.....
----
----
Wasn't it Patton who said something like "It's OK to die for ones country, but it's better still to make the enemy S.O.B. die for his country"
If you take the view quoted above to it's conclussion you'd join Fight Club- but the object of war isn't to have a 'fair fight', it's to achieve one's desire as cheaply as possible.
Read "The Homecoming od Beorthnoth", it's two old soldiers picking a battelfield clean in the dark, and discussing what happened. The Saxon(?) leader Beorthnoth was leading the defense against a viking raid, and his forces held a position of advantage - basically they were impregnable. But this wasn't 'fair' so he gave up his advantage to fight on equal terms. Result?
All his men who trusted him to lead them and keep their homes and families safe were slaughtered and their villages pillaged. The play has a few scathing comments on 'honour'.
War is about winning, not playing fair -Weapons of mass destruction may be immoral (I think so), but in terms of realpolitik this is less important than their being ineffective.
----
They basically ended up saying that the principle of first sale applies to OEM software sold by PC makers - i.e. they can do what they like with it.
Seems since the end of WWII the Germans are very careful about totalitarian tendencies - they came dorn on the Co$ like a ton of bricks too.
----