Uh, power is going to change hands no matter what kind of government you have or how often it replaces key figures. The question is, does the successor have to kill off his predecessor and other rivals (and big chunks of the populace) to take over? I can think of two countries offhand where the transfer of power is quite stable, despite having rather different government types. And while the US hasn't been stable (or in existence, for that matter) for as long as GB, what's a few centuries between friends?
So stability has not so much to do with the type of government but with the extremes the would-be rulers are willing to go through to get ahold of it. So you can have (Republics)/(Monarchies) which are stable until (their first elections)/(the current hereditary ruler dies), at which point some general takes an army into the capital. It's happened for both types. Those countries I would describe as unstable.
I've long ago decided that just about any type of government *could* work well and be quite stable, it just depends entirely on the temperament of its citizens and the effectiveness of the rulers (ignore the last for Anarchies).
Evidently I thought the Napoleonioc wars commenced on the date of his birth :) I didn't think he was *that* good a general!
Re: French involvment in the Revolutionary War, I recall reading about how when US troops marched through Paris towards the front in WW1, they saluted the tomb of the French king who assisted us (brain fart, can't remember his name or what they said). I always thought it a very moving and ironic piece of history.
The Afrika Corps was under-supplied and under-manned because British bombers were so effective at bombing their supply ships, thanks to the codebreaking work done at Bletchley Park Exquisitely effective work, but the point remains that you weren't dealing with a significant portion of the Wermacht. The majority was, as you said, freezing their asses off at Stalingrad.
I agree with your point about the Soviets. They would definitely have won the war. I wish they had. They might have shut the hell up about it. Thank you. Although I doubt the majority of Western Europe would appreciate your last sentiment. Check out the soc.history.what-if newsgroup, you might like it.
In Australia's case in WWI, that was about right. Uh huh. You realize that would involve conscripting nearly every male between the ages of 18 and 40, yes? From a purely biological standpoint, a nation couldn't do that without killing itself, to say nothing of equipping or feeding them. For numbers, Australia sent something like 360,000 troops. I couldn't find the total population at the time, but the voters on the conscription issue totaled close to 2 1/2 million. That's 14%, not 33%.
It really pisses me off that every time the US gets knocked by a Pom Gets knocked? Some moron can't do math and you feel it's a profound statement that puts an 'American idiot' in his place? I have said before that Britain stood no chance of actually losing either of the wars, but there was no way in hell they could have won them, either. How about next time you feel like attributing nonexistent remarks to me, you actually read what it is I've said.
And what is this 'dragged kicking and screaming into the wars' bullshit? Since fucking when are we expected to jump right into them for your benefit? Oh my, the Commonwealth sent troops right from the beginning! All Americans should bow down before them and anyone else who like to fight wars right from the get-go.
Not at all. Smith seemed to think that by virtue of being ruled by indigenous peoples it is automatically much better and that foreigners are by definition horrible. In fact, rereading his post I don't know where he pulled this bit about Africa. It's not related in any way to the original post.
The movie was wrong in that it was the British who captured the first Enimga machine. But please bear in mind that there were several others that were 'acquired' and the US did do one or two of those. And you cannot honestly tell me that Britain has never fiddled with the history books a little.
The US has never had to go through a modern war on it's own territory. And outside of the Blitz, neither have you. As bad as the bombing was, it simply doesn't compare to an invasion by land forces. In fact, when was the last time there was any fighting in Britian?
No precision bombs then. It was indescriminate bombing. Civilian targets etc. And when the Allies got the upper hand, the British were just as eager to start doing the same to German cities. In fact, they prefered night missions which decreased precision and increased civilian casualties.
It's understandable that we needed outside help for supplies, afterall, we are an isolated island without the massive natural resourses of the US. Yes, very understandable. Correct, Britain does not have the natural resources of the US. But when you say it you make it sound like it's somehow our fault and that we were simply expected to supply unbelievable ammounts of food and weapons.
Very true, there was almost no chance Hitler could have staged a successful Sea Lion.
his troops were busy being pummelled in Africa Oh, you mean the Afrika Corps? The under-supplied, under-manned Afrika Corps? The Afrika Corps that only lasted as long as they did because they were so well led? The Wermacht could eat up those casualties in a heartbeat. They had 2/3 of their army fighting the soviets and most of the rest was in Western Europe.
You'll never convince the yanks though. They've been indoctrinated since age six to believe that they saved the world Go fork yourself. I suppose 'Brits' have been indoctrinated to believe they could have pulled off D-Day and crushed the Japanese themselves. Britain wouldn't have lost, but they sure as hell wouldn't have won. The Soviet Army would have pushed to the Channel and then you'd have had yet another unfriendly nation across the waters. Would you like that?
I propose that the French take up the practice of reminding Americans that they saved their butts in the war if independence But they don't. You know why? Because they recall not one, but two occasions when lots and lots of US troops forcibly evicted foriegn armies from their territory.
During your great war of independence, that formed your nation, where you kicked redcoat butt, most of the British army was busy fighting Napoleon, and could not have cared less about you whiney colonials WTF?!?! Hello, McFly?!? The Napoleonic Wars were 30 fucking years after the US revolution. And your opinions on accents are so stupid I'm not even going to address them.
Canada and Australia, who hardly count as major players in WWII, had more troops combined in WWII than the US ever did, and for much longer WTF are you smoking? Canada and Australia couldn't field that many troops today. The US put out 16 million soldiers. For the present day Australia and Canada to do that would require them to enlist a third of their population.
The US contribution, besides money, was a big infusion of fresh troops and equipment when the militaries of the countries who had been in since the beginning were depleted. Silly me, we just supplied Men, Material, Money, and Munitions on a scale unprecedented for a single nation in all of human history. How on earth could a little thing like that affect a war?
Off course, Africa is still full of, and ruled by, indigenous people. Not the same in america, is it? Yes, and my they're certainly doing a a good job of it. Just kinda makes you want to drop everything and move to Africa, right?
When was the (mainly african) slave trade banned in the US? Well gee, Britain must be more free since they banned the practice 180 years ago as opposed to our piddley-ass 135 years.
One of the big arguments in favor of continued trade with China, instead of a Cuba-style embargo, is that increased trade will translate to increased contact with the west, leading to increased information about Good Western Things (tm) which will lead, ienvitably, to greater human rights and democratization for the people of China.
It's an excellent counter-argument. The government set up 'special police units' to patrol bulletin boards and what not. But with usage in China increasing all the time, how long until the watchers and the watchers' watchers and so forth begins to outnumber the rest? I'd say the problem here is the revolution-junkies who expect installing a bunch of fiber lines into China to cause a major overnight change. It's gonna take a while, and we probably won't see any big sudden changes unless the government tries to do something stupid (like outlaw net access).
For some reason, this picture I saw of a Power That Be in China, complete with military uniform, sitting in front of a PC was the funniest damn thing...
I've never heard that before, but I sure as hell hope it's not true. Making it illegal to have a belief, no matter how screwbally it may be, is a BAD thing. To be sure, I wouldn't want this person teaching a history class, just as I wouldn't want a member of the Flat Earth Society to teach a geography class or a boss that thinks serfdom and slavery is really cool. But I'm not going to prosecute them over it. I simply won't hang around (or work with, take classes taught by, etc) that person. Other than that, if they want to get through life being stupid it's fine by me.
I'd say that in the long run, Gibson is correct. Content producers will have to seek other media for their product. But as was said, there are too many lawyers spouting IP law, too many companies making too much money while paying too many politicians for IP to just keel over tomorrow. It'll go down kicking and screaming until the bitter end.
Dyolf Knip
Re:WRONG: Corporations Have NO *Right* to Make Mon
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Sure they do. But what they've forgotten is that they have the right to lose it, and lots of it, too.
Oh of course! Nobody ever remembers how much fun Wolfenstein was. The original Civilization? Pah! Lost in the mists. And the real oldies like Pac Man or Frogger are long since forgotten. Think anyone will even remember that obscure Slashdot site in another decade? Very doubtful.
And re: UseNet... Well imagine you had transcripts of conversations that lasted for weeks and involved dozens or hundreds of people. By definition that is going to contain a lot of crap, but then so does your average library. Haven't you ever checked out a book and put it down in disgust after 5 minutes? I know I have.
How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company? Anyone else notice that Lars never answered this? Free speech indeed.
Sales may have been even higher without all those people out there stealing music on Napster. Well they could just as easily have been lower. I don't know for sure. You don't know for sure. Nobody on/. knows for sure. Yet somehow the RIAA is so very sure, they're willing to start lawsuits about it. How do they know that, I wonder?
If they say "don't copy this," then listen to them *the*same*way*. Well screw them then. If they won't sell it and don't want you get it from an external source, what are you supposed to do? Just sit and twiddle your thumbs and say, "Golly gee, you know I tried to do this nice and legal-like and they just told me to fuck off. I guess I'll cry now."?
That's like Chevy refusing to sell you spare parts for an Impala and then getting an injunction keeping you from scouring junkyards to find it yourself.
If the company's not willing to accept legal tender for a product of theirs which would otherwise earn them none, then I'll look elsewhere. I have no sympathy for their telling me to keep my money.
I was pleasantly surprised by an example of a company making their own abandonware available just a few weeks ago.
For my finances, I use Quicken 98, but there were some glitches in the online services. So I promptly went to Intuit's website to get a patch for it. Lo and behold, they did not offer a patch, but rather the entire program, as well as all previous versions. And Quicken 98 was barely 2 years old!
If financial programs can be made freeware after only 2 years, how can these game companies be pissed about people getting their software, which cannot be gotten anywhere else, 5, 10, or even 15 years after its prime?
He also links to a page where you can get the original
I'm curious, exactly what site did he link to that has the real DeCSS software available? Cuz it sure as hell isn't OpenDVD.org. Granted, they might link to sites with it, but are we now prosecuting for 2-level deep linking?
The student had to sign an agreement to only use his website for academic purposes
Very true. Of course, if they decide to use this to excuse their actions, they will be forced to do the same to every other page at Oxford, and just image how well that will go over.
And yes, it is about Freedom of Speech. If anything I say has to be approved by a committee before it is deemed acceptable, I have just lost that freedom, plain and simple.
A good analogy for this situation is this: Cops get a tip from a foriegn agency that I am producing counterfeit money at my home, so, after obtaining a warrant so it's all nice and legal, they rush over to my house, where they find a bunch of twenties lying on the table. Guilty as charged! They promptly drag me off to the slammer, a situation which can only be reversed if I go through the proper channels, of course. But what they had never bothered to check was whether or not there was actually any funny money at my residence. Turns out I had just gotten those bills from the bank and were thus quite real. But even when this is made very public, they refuse to let me out.
Now who in their right mind would say these guys did the right thing?
they received the cease-and-desist letter Yes, they did, and rather than spending 30 seconds to make sure that they actually needed to cease-and-desist what it is the MPAA claimed, they have spend a large amount of time and money, started what is likely going to be a big PR smack-down for them, set a precedent for British institutions folding under American pressure, and made themselves look like idiots to anyone who knows what DeCSS is. Yep, they certainly did all right in my book, yessiree.
Why should Oxford care about DeCSS? Because the MPAA is demanding that they take action because of it!
Anyone remember when we had the 1st Amendment A better question would be, where on earth did you get the idea that the UK had a 1st Ammendment?
What would really have been funny would be if the MPAA made a typo when they sent it so that the wrong page got pulled. Oxford apparently didn't bother to check it, so how would they know?
I can just see the headline... "Jane Doe's Studies in 15th Century Lit. Webpage Pulled for DeCSS Violations!"
If they had bothered to actually look at the page, they would have noticed that the DeCSS had nothing to do with dvd's and there wouldn't have been any "wasted staff effort". That's the whole issue here: a panicked, unfounded, knee-jerk reaction by an educational institution when it was threatened by a corporate body with no power over them.
Exactly. To some, it's simply another weapon that just happens to be a few notches up on the lethality level and is to be used as such. To others, it's this awful, fear-inspiring representation of Shiva and bears no resemblance to earlier weaponry.
Interestingly enough, I can't decide which is a healthier attitude, since the latter group is likely going to be terrified of anything Nuclear (power plants, spaceship drives, research, etc).
Oh, so you'd rather have that nice, cozy shock wave that comes with detonating a nuke in an atmosphere?
"Birds and trees to absorb radiation"?????!!!! Since when is that a good thing? People have a tendency to absorb it too, you know!
In space, the radiation simply expands and expands until its no worse than background levels. Space is the perfect place for radiation, and there's way more there already for a few measly nukes to make a difference.
And so what if you blow up a chunck of the moon? Is blowing up many, many, MANY more chunks of Earth OK in comparison?
Slashdot Mirror
So stability has not so much to do with the type of government but with the extremes the would-be rulers are willing to go through to get ahold of it. So you can have (Republics)/(Monarchies) which are stable until (their first elections)/(the current hereditary ruler dies), at which point some general takes an army into the capital. It's happened for both types. Those countries I would describe as unstable.
I've long ago decided that just about any type of government *could* work well and be quite stable, it just depends entirely on the temperament of its citizens and the effectiveness of the rulers (ignore the last for Anarchies).
Dyolf Knip
--
Re: French involvment in the Revolutionary War, I recall reading about how when US troops marched through Paris towards the front in WW1, they saluted the tomb of the French king who assisted us (brain fart, can't remember his name or what they said). I always thought it a very moving and ironic piece of history.
The Afrika Corps was under-supplied and under-manned because British bombers were so effective at bombing their supply ships, thanks to the codebreaking work done at Bletchley Park
Exquisitely effective work, but the point remains that you weren't dealing with a significant portion of the Wermacht. The majority was, as you said, freezing their asses off at Stalingrad.
I agree with your point about the Soviets. They would definitely have won the war. I wish they had. They might have shut the hell up about it.
Thank you. Although I doubt the majority of Western Europe would appreciate your last sentiment. Check out the soc.history.what-if newsgroup, you might like it.
Dyolf Knip
--
It really pisses me off that every time the US gets knocked by a Pom
Gets knocked? Some moron can't do math and you feel it's a profound statement that puts an 'American idiot' in his place? I have said before that Britain stood no chance of actually losing either of the wars, but there was no way in hell they could have won them, either. How about next time you feel like attributing nonexistent remarks to me, you actually read what it is I've said.
And what is this 'dragged kicking and screaming into the wars' bullshit? Since fucking when are we expected to jump right into them for your benefit? Oh my, the Commonwealth sent troops right from the beginning! All Americans should bow down before them and anyone else who like to fight wars right from the get-go.
Dyolf Knip
--
Dyolf Knip
--
In fact, rereading his post I don't know where he pulled this bit about Africa. It's not related in any way to the original post.
Dyolf Knip
--
Dyolf Knip
--
And outside of the Blitz, neither have you. As bad as the bombing was, it simply doesn't compare to an invasion by land forces. In fact, when was the last time there was any fighting in Britian?
No precision bombs then. It was indescriminate bombing. Civilian targets etc.
And when the Allies got the upper hand, the British were just as eager to start doing the same to German cities. In fact, they prefered night missions which decreased precision and increased civilian casualties.
It's understandable that we needed outside help for supplies, afterall, we are an isolated island without the massive natural resourses of the US.
Yes, very understandable. Correct, Britain does not have the natural resources of the US. But when you say it you make it sound like it's somehow our fault and that we were simply expected to supply unbelievable ammounts of food and weapons.
Dyolf Knip
--
his troops were busy being pummelled in Africa
Oh, you mean the Afrika Corps? The under-supplied, under-manned Afrika Corps? The Afrika Corps that only lasted as long as they did because they were so well led? The Wermacht could eat up those casualties in a heartbeat. They had 2/3 of their army fighting the soviets and most of the rest was in Western Europe.
You'll never convince the yanks though. They've been indoctrinated since age six to believe that they saved the world
Go fork yourself. I suppose 'Brits' have been indoctrinated to believe they could have pulled off D-Day and crushed the Japanese themselves. Britain wouldn't have lost, but they sure as hell wouldn't have won. The Soviet Army would have pushed to the Channel and then you'd have had yet another unfriendly nation across the waters. Would you like that?
I propose that the French take up the practice of reminding Americans that they saved their butts in the war if independence
But they don't. You know why? Because they recall not one, but two occasions when lots and lots of US troops forcibly evicted foriegn armies from their territory.
During your great war of independence, that formed your nation, where you kicked redcoat butt, most of the British army was busy fighting Napoleon, and could not have cared less about you whiney colonials
WTF?!?! Hello, McFly?!? The Napoleonic Wars were 30 fucking years after the US revolution. And your opinions on accents are so stupid I'm not even going to address them.
Dyolf Knip
--
WTF are you smoking? Canada and Australia couldn't field that many troops today. The US put out 16 million soldiers. For the present day Australia and Canada to do that would require them to enlist a third of their population.
The US contribution, besides money, was a big infusion of fresh troops and equipment when the militaries of the countries who had been in since the beginning were depleted.
Silly me, we just supplied Men, Material, Money, and Munitions on a scale unprecedented for a single nation in all of human history. How on earth could a little thing like that affect a war?
Dyolf Knip
--
Yes, and my they're certainly doing a a good job of it. Just kinda makes you want to drop everything and move to Africa, right?
When was the (mainly african) slave trade banned in the US?
Well gee, Britain must be more free since they banned the practice 180 years ago as opposed to our piddley-ass 135 years.
Dyolf Knip
--
It's an excellent counter-argument. The government set up 'special police units' to patrol bulletin boards and what not. But with usage in China increasing all the time, how long until the watchers and the watchers' watchers and so forth begins to outnumber the rest? I'd say the problem here is the revolution-junkies who expect installing a bunch of fiber lines into China to cause a major overnight change. It's gonna take a while, and we probably won't see any big sudden changes unless the government tries to do something stupid (like outlaw net access).
For some reason, this picture I saw of a Power That Be in China, complete with military uniform, sitting in front of a PC was the funniest damn thing...
Dyolf Knip
--
Dyolf Knip
--
And you say France may be doing that? Geeez...
Dyolf Knip
--
Dyolf Knip
Dyolf Knip
And re: UseNet... Well imagine you had transcripts of conversations that lasted for weeks and involved dozens or hundreds of people. By definition that is going to contain a lot of crap, but then so does your average library. Haven't you ever checked out a book and put it down in disgust after 5 minutes? I know I have.
Dyolf Knip
Anyone else notice that Lars never answered this? Free speech indeed.
Dyolf Knip
Well they could just as easily have been lower. I don't know for sure. You don't know for sure. Nobody on
Dyolf Knip
Well screw them then. If they won't sell it and don't want you get it from an external source, what are you supposed to do? Just sit and twiddle your thumbs and say, "Golly gee, you know I tried to do this nice and legal-like and they just told me to fuck off. I guess I'll cry now."?
That's like Chevy refusing to sell you spare parts for an Impala and then getting an injunction keeping you from scouring junkyards to find it yourself.
If the company's not willing to accept legal tender for a product of theirs which would otherwise earn them none, then I'll look elsewhere. I have no sympathy for their telling me to keep my money.
Dyolf Knip
For my finances, I use Quicken 98, but there were some glitches in the online services. So I promptly went to Intuit's website to get a patch for it. Lo and behold, they did not offer a patch, but rather the entire program, as well as all previous versions. And Quicken 98 was barely 2 years old!
If financial programs can be made freeware after only 2 years, how can these game companies be pissed about people getting their software, which cannot be gotten anywhere else, 5, 10, or even 15 years after its prime?
Dyolf Knip
I'm curious, exactly what site did he link to that has the real DeCSS software available? Cuz it sure as hell isn't OpenDVD.org. Granted, they might link to sites with it, but are we now prosecuting for 2-level deep linking?
The student had to sign an agreement to only use his website for academic purposes
Very true. Of course, if they decide to use this to excuse their actions, they will be forced to do the same to every other page at Oxford, and just image how well that will go over.
And yes, it is about Freedom of Speech. If anything I say has to be approved by a committee before it is deemed acceptable, I have just lost that freedom, plain and simple.
A good analogy for this situation is this: Cops get a tip from a foriegn agency that I am producing counterfeit money at my home, so, after obtaining a warrant so it's all nice and legal, they rush over to my house, where they find a bunch of twenties lying on the table. Guilty as charged! They promptly drag me off to the slammer, a situation which can only be reversed if I go through the proper channels, of course. But what they had never bothered to check was whether or not there was actually any funny money at my residence. Turns out I had just gotten those bills from the bank and were thus quite real. But even when this is made very public, they refuse to let me out.
Now who in their right mind would say these guys did the right thing?
Dyolf Knip
Yes, they did, and rather than spending 30 seconds to make sure that they actually needed to cease-and-desist what it is the MPAA claimed, they have spend a large amount of time and money, started what is likely going to be a big PR smack-down for them, set a precedent for British institutions folding under American pressure, and made themselves look like idiots to anyone who knows what DeCSS is. Yep, they certainly did all right in my book, yessiree.
Why should Oxford care about DeCSS?
Because the MPAA is demanding that they take action because of it!
Anyone remember when we had the 1st Amendment
A better question would be, where on earth did you get the idea that the UK had a 1st Ammendment?
What would really have been funny would be if the MPAA made a typo when they sent it so that the wrong page got pulled. Oxford apparently didn't bother to check it, so how would they know?
I can just see the headline...
"Jane Doe's Studies in 15th Century Lit. Webpage Pulled for DeCSS Violations!"
Dyolf Knip
Dyolf Knip
Exactly. To some, it's simply another weapon that just happens to be a few notches up on the lethality level and is to be used as such. To others, it's this awful, fear-inspiring representation of Shiva and bears no resemblance to earlier weaponry.
Interestingly enough, I can't decide which is a healthier attitude, since the latter group is likely going to be terrified of anything Nuclear (power plants, spaceship drives, research, etc).
Dyolf Knip
"Birds and trees to absorb radiation"?????!!!!
Since when is that a good thing? People have a tendency to absorb it too, you know!
In space, the radiation simply expands and expands until its no worse than background levels. Space is the perfect place for radiation, and there's way more there already for a few measly nukes to make a difference.
And so what if you blow up a chunck of the moon? Is blowing up many, many, MANY more chunks of Earth OK in comparison?
Dyolf Knip