Er, I think I'm gonna just roll over and mostly agree with you.
I'm not going to make a strong point on this but he wasn't locked up for having the wrong thoughts, he was locked up for publishing them in a book. I won't defend either of these outcomes.
Austria has been particularly bad at prosecuting actual Nazi war criminals who actually killed people, and picking on this guy simply drags his dumbkopf arguments to the top of the front page again. Austria has demonstrated, yet again, that it is not ready to join the "freedom-loving nations." It is willing to throw an idiot in jail for three years for being an idiot and publishing a book demonstrating exactly why he's an idiot.
And yes, Austria is not that special. AFAIK, no European country has a Bill of Rights like the US ("you stole our revolution, we want it back!") which flatly bans any restriction on political speech (though c.f. Joe McCarthy), not even with our new wonderful Human Rights Act in the UK - basically we have all the rights US citizens have, unless there is a law stating otherwise!
As to shared European culture? Well, the news coverage in the UK was very strong on the free speech issue - basically condemning the whole trial as an awful publicity coup for the neo-Nazis, and saying the best thing to have done with him was to leave him in obscurity. But, if you decide to amalgamate the massive variations in culture across the whole of the European continent, you can't fail to notice that the European dominated ex-British colonies (US,Canada,Oz,NZ) definitely fit into this culture (I can't speak for ex-Spanish or French colonies.) Being British, I share more culture with the US and Canada than with, say, Poland or Greece. Poland was very recently Communist and Greece (& Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany) was recently Fascist. I still can't get over the fact that Spain, Portugal & Greece were allowed to continue being Fascist until the '60s and 70s. And were our Allies!
Also, the UK has just banned "Glorification of Terrorism" which will likely mean the following statement could put me in prison (once the law comes into force): "Robert Mugabe is brutal tyrant. He must be removed by force." Now replace Robert Mugabe with say, Saddam Hussein, or Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh, or... you get my drift.
Now, seeing as we don't have the protections the US has. Imagine if the US had no such protection, and your President had control over the majority in Congress. Do you not think he would jump at the chance to create such a law. Again, you stole our revolution and we want it back!
So, yes, you're right. I'm not shocked though. This is fully expected, and in the current climate I can only see further restrictions on political speech.
I'm getting pretty tired of society being held hostage by a bunch of ignorant barbarians who basically worship symbols and idols.
Sorry, I think I'm missing some context here. Are you referring to Muslims protesting the use of symbols and idols to represent the Prophet Mohammed? Or, Christians actually worshiping symbols and idols in their holy places? (crucifixes, altars, icons, etc)
Remember that thing Moses said about not worshiping idols? He said it to those who became Muslims too.
As to your sig. AFAIK it is only Austria and Germany that criminalise Holocaust denial. Myself, I agree that such laws are odious and plainly counter-productive. But you must see that those two countries do not make the entire continent, and their recent histories are somewhat "special" as regards the organised murder of six million human beings.
I'm always impressed and humbled when someone not from the US can quote our founding fathers
Yeah, but your founding fathers were British (mostly, I think.)
The American revolution was a British revolution that just happened to occur in one of the colonies. We tried to have a revolution at home a century beforehand, but that didn't quite work out (military dictatorship, etc.)
On the night before the invasion of Iraq began, a bomber dropped a bomb on a crowded restaurant because there was false intelligence that Saddam Hussein may have been there. The aircraft pilot knew he was dropping a bomb on a public place full of civilians going about their daily business of eating at a restaurant. He knew he would kill many more people than his single target, who was not definitely there anyway.
This man is a murderer, he knew he would kill innocents, and he knew he might not get Saddam Hussein, but he did it anyway.
The problem is, as has been highlighted by a recent report by Iraq Bodycount, 6% of the deaths caused by small arms fire in Iraq are children, 25% of deaths caused by explosives are children, but 48%(!) of the deaths caused by aircraft (American bombs) are children.
You can point guns very specifically at individuals, or even blow yourself up within a group of men who are your enemy. You cannot point a bomb at an individual from the air, so you don't, you just call it collateral damage when "extra" people die. But, still the aircraft pilot knows that he will kill children by dropping the bomb, so why does he do it?
My big question is: Why is the pilot not as evil as the terrorists?
According to Slashdot users, I'm funny, insightful and interesting! So why aren't girls all over me?
Ah, sorry about that. I'll lend you one when I'm finished.
It requires the kids to be fluently tri-lingual, english, french, and one other.
Um, no. I did well at the International Baccalaureate, am a native English speaker and learnt French under the system to an adequate level - I can just about survive in France for a holiday (no chance in French-speaking West Africa.) In no way could I be described as anywhere near fluent in French.
Typically the kids enter the program no later than about 12 years old
The "program" is a two year program, starting at 16 or 17 yrs old. However, at the Washington International School (Wash. D.C., my school - I'm English), if you start early (like 12 or before) you will come out bilingual, but that's nothing to do with the IB. I started at 14 and did 3 years.
Supposedly the program is advanced enough to convince the French and the Brits it is the equivalent of a Bac or an A-levels
Yep. I went straight back to England for university. Worst choice of my life! I had offers from MIT, Caltech, McGill, and elsewhere but decided to sod off to Brunel University in bloody West London. Argh!
No, and it usually isn't. Especially with dance music.
BUT it is mastered onto high quality analog tape using high quality D/A converters with sampling frequencies above 44.1kHz and bit-depths above 16bits. By an engineer with years of experience and equipment that is far superior to the crap you and I have in our house.
The point I'm generally trying to make is that analog vinyl records contain more original information about the music than a 16-bit 44.1kHz CD. Getting that information off the record and into your ears is another matter, but at least you don't start out crippled. (and the cover art is bigger, and you can mix/beatmatch properly, and there's 40yrs of 2nd hand oldies that no-one is buying)
"there was probably never an analog recording of whatever you want if it is relatively recent."
Um, walk down my high street (Gloucester Rd, Bristol, UK) and you will find a bunch of record shops (yes, vinyl) within a ten-minute walk. Inside these remarkable shops are BRAND NEW releases of BRAND NEW TUNES that you are unlikely to find anywhere on CD. (Yes it is dance music.)
When I get my laser turntable(!) and 24-bit 96kHz A/D converter I'll have higher definition digital copies than you could get on CD anyway.
"Please, don't foster the idea that we're a bunch of anarchists producing code that's any less functional than the rest of industry, because quite the opposite is true."
by the opposite you mean "...we're a bunch of anarchists producing code that's MORE functional than the rest of industry..."
You seem to labour under the misapprehension that anarchy is an arrangement that will always fail. Anarchism is not a bunch of hooligans smashing things up, it is a reasonable and well thought out political theory that has had its practical successes.
See the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.
There is something incredibly wrong when the largest radio owner in the US censors songs like 'War Pigs', '99 Red Balloons' and even 'Blowin in the Wind' because of their anti-war lyrics. Not that I'm against a "war" (that's another post) but the fact that the company doesn't view Americans to be adult enough to cope with an anti-war(monger/pig) sentiment.
'Hey Joe' - cos it mentions a gun? Please!
'Sunday Bloody Sunday' - cos it criticises a slaughter of innocents!?!
Secondly, does it have anything to do with Terry Pratchett and the Discworld novels? There's a character called Nanny Ogg, and the Grand Vizier in Pyramids! (I think) was called Vorbis (or was it the high-priest in Small Gods?)
Rubbish. A friend of my aunt's here in the UK asked his prospective (eventual winner) MP about some controversial issue (not to do with 'puters) and was told that he should "stick it up your arse".
Well, it's now a week later, but anyway I'd just like to point out that I don't agree with the British justification for copyright; I merely point out that arguing against proposed EU laws by discussing the motives of the USA's founding fathers is, frankly, idiotic.
Unfortunately (?), Europe does not have your constitution. In Britain, at least, copyright does not exist to encourage artists to create works that will soon enter the public domain. It is there because of a 'moral right' for an artist to control his own work.
There is no fundamental right that the public should eventually benefit from it. That is an invention of the US's founding fathers, who objected to the British copyright laws.
But surely, from my limited knowledge of U.S. government structure, once the case is in the hands of the judiciary, whatever the DOJ (executive branch) does is irrelevant. The defendant has been found guilty and its fate is now in the hands of the judicial branch - which cannot be touched by the executive.
Previously, yes, I imagine the DOJ could stop pursuing MS, but now MS has been found to have broken the law - and penalties imposed, the DOJ cannot simply stop the process.
That's funny, it was only a few years before that those same generals helped save Britain and the rest of Western Europe during WWII.
I think you'll find that was mostly ordinary people. Heroic soldiers, sailors and airmen from all around the world. One or two generals stand out for their brilliance, but the majority pale into insignificance compared to the men who got down and dirty with Jerry.
We do not have anything vaguely similar in the UK, the closest is the European Court of Human Rights, which doesn't have a document _everyone_ understands, like your constitution. Essentially, the Monarch, through Parliament, can do anything it likes. Anything, except limit the powers of future parliaments. That means that we can't even get a constitution if we wanted one. Parliament has absolute power, and we all know what that does.
Intellectual property on the seed. Remember the modified genes are patented. Any farmer (and this has already happened) who sells/gives away the seed will have a hefty lawsuit thrown at them. The farmer only has a license to the IP in the seed. Aaaargh!!!!!!!! It really makes me want to vomit that the fundamentals of life are being treated this way.
Slashdot Mirror
No, sorry mate.
The word "productizing" does not exist in American, and neither does "productising" exist in English.
Fucking verbisationers. Go away and pick on someone else's language.
Er, I think I'm gonna just roll over and mostly agree with you.
... you get my drift.
I'm not going to make a strong point on this but he wasn't locked up for having the wrong thoughts, he was locked up for publishing them in a book. I won't defend either of these outcomes.
Austria has been particularly bad at prosecuting actual Nazi war criminals who actually killed people, and picking on this guy simply drags his dumbkopf arguments to the top of the front page again. Austria has demonstrated, yet again, that it is not ready to join the "freedom-loving nations." It is willing to throw an idiot in jail for three years for being an idiot and publishing a book demonstrating exactly why he's an idiot.
And yes, Austria is not that special. AFAIK, no European country has a Bill of Rights like the US ("you stole our revolution, we want it back!") which flatly bans any restriction on political speech (though c.f. Joe McCarthy), not even with our new wonderful Human Rights Act in the UK - basically we have all the rights US citizens have, unless there is a law stating otherwise!
As to shared European culture? Well, the news coverage in the UK was very strong on the free speech issue - basically condemning the whole trial as an awful publicity coup for the neo-Nazis, and saying the best thing to have done with him was to leave him in obscurity. But, if you decide to amalgamate the massive variations in culture across the whole of the European continent, you can't fail to notice that the European dominated ex-British colonies (US,Canada,Oz,NZ) definitely fit into this culture (I can't speak for ex-Spanish or French colonies.) Being British, I share more culture with the US and Canada than with, say, Poland or Greece. Poland was very recently Communist and Greece (& Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany) was recently Fascist. I still can't get over the fact that Spain, Portugal & Greece were allowed to continue being Fascist until the '60s and 70s. And were our Allies!
Also, the UK has just banned "Glorification of Terrorism" which will likely mean the following statement could put me in prison (once the law comes into force): "Robert Mugabe is brutal tyrant. He must be removed by force." Now replace Robert Mugabe with say, Saddam Hussein, or Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh, or
Now, seeing as we don't have the protections the US has. Imagine if the US had no such protection, and your President had control over the majority in Congress. Do you not think he would jump at the chance to create such a law. Again, you stole our revolution and we want it back!
So, yes, you're right. I'm not shocked though. This is fully expected, and in the current climate I can only see further restrictions on political speech.
In despair,
Rich
Sorry, I think I'm missing some context here. Are you referring to Muslims protesting the use of symbols and idols to represent the Prophet Mohammed? Or, Christians actually worshiping symbols and idols in their holy places? (crucifixes, altars, icons, etc)
Remember that thing Moses said about not worshiping idols? He said it to those who became Muslims too.
As to your sig. AFAIK it is only Austria and Germany that criminalise Holocaust denial. Myself, I agree that such laws are odious and plainly counter-productive. But you must see that those two countries do not make the entire continent, and their recent histories are somewhat "special" as regards the organised murder of six million human beings.
Yes that's exactly what the ZX-81(woohoo!) had.
I can't remember exactly how many "pixels" there were, but the text font was as you described.
GP was too quick to pounce.
"According to the bi-partisan 9/11 commission, Iraq neither had WMDs nor programs to build them."
Interesting. But why on earth should the 9/11 commission have an opinion on Iraq's alleged NCB* weapons?**
* ooh I hate the term WMD: NCB=Nuclear,Chemical,Biological - been around forever, perfectly serviceable, just not as vague
** please, mod me offtopic.
Okay,
Linux running VMware with Windows as a client.
I think that's enough for me to get by as a Windows developer without ditching the Macintosh. (Or needing to buy a PC again. Yay! )
The American revolution was a British revolution that just happened to occur in one of the colonies. We tried to have a revolution at home a century beforehand, but that didn't quite work out (military dictatorship, etc.)
You stole our revolution, and we want it back.
On the night before the invasion of Iraq began, a bomber dropped a bomb on a crowded restaurant because there was false intelligence that Saddam Hussein may have been there. The aircraft pilot knew he was dropping a bomb on a public place full of civilians going about their daily business of eating at a restaurant. He knew he would kill many more people than his single target, who was not definitely there anyway.
This man is a murderer, he knew he would kill innocents, and he knew he might not get Saddam Hussein, but he did it anyway.
The problem is, as has been highlighted by a recent report by Iraq Bodycount, 6% of the deaths caused by small arms fire in Iraq are children, 25% of deaths caused by explosives are children, but 48%(!) of the deaths caused by aircraft (American bombs) are children.
i lian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf
http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civ
You can point guns very specifically at individuals, or even blow yourself up within a group of men who are your enemy. You cannot point a bomb at an individual from the air, so you don't, you just call it collateral damage when "extra" people die. But, still the aircraft pilot knows that he will kill children by dropping the bomb, so why does he do it?
My big question is: Why is the pilot not as evil as the terrorists?
According to Slashdot users, I'm funny, insightful and interesting! So why aren't girls all over me?
Ah, sorry about that. I'll lend you one when I'm finished.
Um, no. I did well at the International Baccalaureate, am a native English speaker and learnt French under the system to an adequate level - I can just about survive in France for a holiday (no chance in French-speaking West Africa.) In no way could I be described as anywhere near fluent in French.
The "program" is a two year program, starting at 16 or 17 yrs old. However, at the Washington International School (Wash. D.C., my school - I'm English), if you start early (like 12 or before) you will come out bilingual, but that's nothing to do with the IB. I started at 14 and did 3 years.
Yep. I went straight back to England for university. Worst choice of my life! I had offers from MIT, Caltech, McGill, and elsewhere but decided to sod off to Brunel University in bloody West London. Argh!
No, and it usually isn't. Especially with dance music.
BUT it is mastered onto high quality analog tape using high quality D/A converters with sampling frequencies above 44.1kHz and bit-depths above 16bits. By an engineer with years of experience and equipment that is far superior to the crap you and I have in our house.
The point I'm generally trying to make is that analog vinyl records contain more original information about the music than a 16-bit 44.1kHz CD. Getting that information off the record and into your ears is another matter, but at least you don't start out crippled. (and the cover art is bigger, and you can mix/beatmatch properly, and there's 40yrs of 2nd hand oldies that no-one is buying)
This is all a bit OT anyway.
"there was probably never an analog recording of whatever you want if it is relatively recent."
Um, walk down my high street (Gloucester Rd, Bristol, UK) and you will find a bunch of record shops (yes, vinyl) within a ten-minute walk. Inside these remarkable shops are BRAND NEW releases of BRAND NEW TUNES that you are unlikely to find anywhere on CD. (Yes it is dance music.)
When I get my laser turntable(!) and 24-bit 96kHz A/D converter I'll have higher definition digital copies than you could get on CD anyway.
CDs are dead! Long live DRM free vinyl!
"Please, don't foster the idea that we're a bunch of anarchists producing code that's any less functional than the rest of industry, because quite the opposite is true."
by the opposite you mean "...we're a bunch of anarchists producing code that's MORE functional than the rest of industry..."
You seem to labour under the misapprehension that anarchy is an arrangement that will always fail. Anarchism is not a bunch of hooligans smashing things up, it is a reasonable and well thought out political theory that has had its practical successes.
See the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.
There is something incredibly wrong when the largest radio owner in the US censors songs like 'War Pigs', '99 Red Balloons' and even 'Blowin in the Wind' because of their anti-war lyrics. Not that I'm against a "war" (that's another post) but the fact that the company doesn't view Americans to be adult enough to cope with an anti-war(monger/pig) sentiment.
'Hey Joe' - cos it mentions a gun? Please!
'Sunday Bloody Sunday' - cos it criticises a slaughter of innocents!?!
Sad, sad times.
First off, I like the name.
Secondly, does it have anything to do with Terry Pratchett and the Discworld novels? There's a character called Nanny Ogg, and the Grand Vizier in Pyramids! (I think) was called Vorbis (or was it the high-priest in Small Gods?)
stitchattarkadahl.co.uk
Rubbish. A friend of my aunt's here in the UK asked his prospective (eventual winner) MP about some controversial issue (not to do with 'puters) and was told that he should "stick it up your arse".
The papers were not interested.
Well, it's now a week later, but anyway I'd just like to point out that I don't agree with the British justification for copyright; I merely point out that arguing against proposed EU laws by discussing the motives of the USA's founding fathers is, frankly, idiotic.
Unfortunately (?), Europe does not have your constitution. In Britain, at least, copyright does not exist to encourage artists to create works that will soon enter the public domain. It is there because of a 'moral right' for an artist to control his own work.
There is no fundamental right that the public should eventually benefit from it. That is an invention of the US's founding fathers, who objected to the British copyright laws.
But surely, from my limited knowledge of U.S. government structure, once the case is in the hands of the judiciary, whatever the DOJ (executive branch) does is irrelevant. The defendant has been found guilty and its fate is now in the hands of the judicial branch - which cannot be touched by the executive.
Previously, yes, I imagine the DOJ could stop pursuing MS, but now MS has been found to have broken the law - and penalties imposed, the DOJ cannot simply stop the process.
Er, you've got it the wrong way around. We're not the customer, we're the product.
The advertisers are customers and they pay Slashdot/Andover for our eyes.
An important distinction that isn't as widely understood as it should be.
:)
We do not have anything vaguely similar in the UK, the closest is the European Court of Human Rights, which doesn't have a document _everyone_ understands, like your constitution. Essentially, the Monarch, through Parliament, can do anything it likes. Anything, except limit the powers of future parliaments. That means that we can't even get a constitution if we wanted one. Parliament has absolute power, and we all know what that does.
Yes, but if all your mates decided to jump off a bridge, would you follow them?
Intellectual property on the seed. Remember the modified genes are patented. Any farmer (and this has already happened) who sells/gives away the seed will have a hefty lawsuit thrown at them. The farmer only has a license to the IP in the seed. Aaaargh!!!!!!!! It really makes me want to vomit that the fundamentals of life are being treated this way.