Personally I find Plato one of the *least* reliable guides to political theory. His family was part of a wealthy class who opposed democracy in Athens and supplied one of the Thirty Tyrants (Critias). The fact that Plato admired Critias doesn't surprise me. The Thirty were a Spartan puppet government who limited citizenship to 3,000 and had a nice little reign of terror going. As for views on child rearing...
Returning to democracy for a moment. The problem with the "first past the post" system used in Britain & the US is that it is possible to have the party that receives the most votes lose depending on their location(gerrymander anyone?).
There are a number of other systems:
A list system where you vote for the party list and seats are allocated in order. (Most of Europe).
A list & constituency system where the list tops up the number of seats(Germany)
Multiseat constituencies (The Republic of Ireland).
Pick people at random from the list of citizens (Ancient Athens a.k.a. democracy - oh the horror).
or if you really are wedded to an office holder system rank candidates in order of preference and redistribute the second preference votes of the lowest placed candidate until someone gets a majority (which I believe is used somewhere - but I can't remember where).
I'll concede the point - the effect's much the same.
But that's hard-coding. Soft-coding like transport policy, that's different.
Yes - but transport policy has to act within physical restraints. No policy which increases the vehicle traffic through the City will work as the street plan cannot cope. The public transport system is old, hasn't had the investment it needs and also in places hits its physical limit. No policy which doesn't increase the physical capacity of public transport will work and building new railways takes time. Let's hope that broadband gets its act together and we can all work from home.
Fair point - I agree the main problem is investment (over decades rather than years) but much of the increase in rail use has been in the last few years. The lead time for new rolling stock is of a similar timescale. So even if you put the money in you're still not going to get the benefit. Either way we're up a creek without a paddle.
Yes but - being the obvious answer. I travel to work on three train lines. The main line was built in the late 1800's (although it was just got new rolling stock), the Docklands Light Railway in the 1980's using existing track and the Central Line an underground line in deep tunnles which were cut *by hand* over a century ago. It takes about an hour and costs 2272 pounds a year. The main problems are that the number of people travelling has increased dramatically and the system hasn't had time to adapt. In the City of London (the 1 square mile self-governing central business district) the street plan is medieaval. There was an attempt in the late 1660s to re-roganise following the Great Fire, but people started rebuilding before the planners got their act together. As you move out the street plan then becomes Victorian, then Edwardian with the very outer suburbs laid out in the 1930s.
...this little allegory actually happened. Although it was a whinging machine operator moaning that fitters were better paid than he was rather than a manager getting the bill BUT -
Time: About 20 years ago Location:Ford Tractor Factory (Basildon, Essex,England) The man with the hammer: my Dad.
Returning to the main point easy to use tools are needed. My kids (ages 15,11 & 4) all have Linux desktops now and I'd rather not be dragged out of my chair to sort the them out *too* often.
"In England at the time the Bishops sat in the House of Lords" - they still do
"the Monarch was 'supreme govenor' of the Church of England" - she still is
"The pilgrim fathers were mainly non-conformists" - yes but other colonies (Maryland?) were set up by Catholics and even amoungst the non-conformists there were disagreements. My understanding of your 1st amendment was to allow all the various Christian sects to co-exist.
But we do have: Common Law, Royal Perogative, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the Parliment Acts, the Act of Westminster etc. etc. Basically our constitution is less cathedral and more bizzarre.
I think the main difference is that Ozzies travel more. It was mentioned in a news report last year that there were 300,000 Australians & New Zealanders here in London, which let's face it is the opposite side of the world. That's a fair proportion of their population. Furthermore, most are young and on 1-2 year working holiday visas, or have British citizenship, so over a .
In fact I think it would be fair to say that the British are more insular than the Ozzies and we don't anywhere near as far to travel.
"This is a great example of what really rich people can get done if they have some style"
True - although in this case the really rich people where basically Quango's* giving out public funds (including the Millenium Commission which gave out money from the UK national lottery). The logos on the bottom left of the project's homepage links to its major funders.
*Quango="Quasi-automous non-governmental organisation" (translators note: a very silly name for an unelected body, commission or board.)
Yes it is, but mostly spoken English not written. Possibly the best translation would be toaster/TV. The bloke who said it comes from the latin for "with" is probably right- but it's usually used where something is dual use.
I'd doubt it given the queues for Harry Potter at my local cinema. PLUS my daughter's school is running trips to see it.
My wife and I are short-term foster carers with 3 kids of our own, and fluctuating population of teenagers. As of today we have a 7 living at home - one 16 , two 15, one 14, one 13, one 10 and one 3. What is interesting is that all of the kids want to see both films but the teenagers are keener on seeing LOTR and the little ones keener on seeing HP.
The trouble with this argument is the issue of nationhood. When several of the States (on a dodgy issue it must be said) tried to leave the US war broke out. Prior to your Civil War the USA was referred to in the plural, afterwards in the singular. As far as I remember General Lee fought for the South not from conviction, but because he considered himself a Virginian rather than an American.
In Britain the situation is even more complex - as a multi-nation state the current trend is to the independence of (or at least devolution of power to) the nations that make it up.
Britain's general apathy regarding Europe in general and the euro in particular makes more sense if you consider we're an island - it's feasible for someone in Masstrict (spelt wrong I know) to shop in 4 different countries - all within an hour or so's reach - for us it's a major expedition costing several hundred pounds. A common currency makes more sense if you can use it on regular basis.
(unless some major Churches are subsidized by the state, but I don't know if that's the case in the UK)
Ok - there not actually subsidised but the legal position of the Church varies as to where you live in the UK.
In England there isn't a legal separation between Church & State. In fact, the bishops are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It was because the founding fathers of the US didn't agree with the Church of England (=Episcopalian) line on a load of issues (and more to the point with each other) you got the first amendment. Some Church of England (C of E) bishops sit in the House of Lords ex officio. Recently senior leaders of other religions have been given peerages, but these are in theory personal. I believe blasphemy is still a criminal offence in England, specifically taking the piss out of the beliefs of the C of E.
In Scotland the Queen is a member of the (Calvinist) Church of Scotland's governing body, not its head.
In Wales the Church was disestablished (i.e. separated from the State).
In Northern Ireland there is no formal link between Church & State (and given the religious make up of the province thank whoever for that), but religious discrimination is illegal. There are moves to extend this to the rest of the UK.
I've no idea of the position in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Overall the legal position is toleration of all faiths not equality, with the other big news that the C of E includes less than 50% of the population for the first time.
Weird political & religious structures - we've got 'em.
I hate to admit it but true. The priority for dentistry here is as a branch of medicine, rather than cosmetics. The upshot is that most dentists are "dental surgeons" and send patients to a specialist orthodontist.
Oh sod..our eldest'll suffer that in a couple of years...not good. I had understood that the AS business was being tested with poor results - but this sounds about right. Thanks for the advice. (cue sound of parent swearing under breath...)
...mmm..sort of - although the terminology is slightly different.
The usual system now (there are some regional variations and there've been changes since my day) is age 11-16 secondary school. While there from 14-16 you do GCSEs (an academic qualification) or GNVQs (a vocational qualification) or some of both. At that point you can either leave full time education, or go on to do A-levels (~ 1st year / freshman degree level) or a higher grade of vocational study either at a Further Education College or a "sixth form" attached to the school. At that stage you can go to University to do a (usually) 3 year batchelors degree. This is usually specialist. In the late 80s my chemistry degree included 2 optional courses in the 1st year - I choose physics & chemical eng.
The liberal / do some of everything approach only holds to age 16 - after that you can specialise.
This itself was a change from my day (~20 years back)when I specialised from age 14.
You can get UK immigraiton information at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/. I think the main consideration would be "is your wife a British citizen?". If she is life would be a lot easier.
It means:
(1) Not having to spend time clearing up (your own or other peoples land) after battles.
(2) Not having to spend time clearing up after training exercises.
(3) Injuring/killing the people your trying to injure/kill rather than your own troops.
(4) Less lawsuits (see 3)
(5) Less time answering tedious questions in Parliament / on television about points 1-4.
Agreed. However the Magna Carta (which was issued, cancelled and reissued) and the Bill of Rights were Acts of Parliament. We also have the Parliament Acts and the Statute (or Treaty) of Westminster. What I meant was we don't have a single document called "the Constitution", unlike most of the rest of the world. Nor are the rights of people defined as part of the constitution (which was the original point). They are defined in common and statute law and some treaties.
The law might but British constitution doesn't. Britain doesn't actually have a constitution, as such. What we have is a load of different acts of Parliament, some common law and some custom & practice. It's not pretty but it (mostly) works.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I find Plato one of the *least* reliable guides to political theory. His family was part of a wealthy class who opposed democracy in Athens and supplied one of the Thirty Tyrants (Critias). The fact that Plato admired Critias doesn't surprise me. The Thirty were a Spartan puppet government who limited citizenship to 3,000 and had a nice little reign of terror going. As for views on child rearing...
Returning to democracy for a moment. The problem with the "first past the post" system used in Britain & the US is that it is possible to have the party that receives the most votes lose depending on their location(gerrymander anyone?).
There are a number of other systems:
A list system where you vote for the party list and seats are allocated in order. (Most of Europe).
A list & constituency system where the list tops up the number of seats(Germany)
Multiseat constituencies (The Republic of Ireland).
Pick people at random from the list of citizens (Ancient Athens a.k.a. democracy - oh the horror).
or if you really are wedded to an office holder system rank candidates in order of preference and redistribute the second preference votes of the lowest placed candidate until someone gets a majority (which I believe is used somewhere - but I can't remember where).
More accurately, property owners said...
I'll concede the point - the effect's much the same.
But that's hard-coding. Soft-coding like transport policy, that's different.
Yes - but transport policy has to act within physical restraints. No policy which increases the vehicle traffic through the City will work as the street plan cannot cope. The public transport system is old, hasn't had the investment it needs and also in places hits its physical limit. No policy which doesn't increase the physical capacity of public transport will work and building new railways takes time. Let's hope that broadband gets its act together and we can all work from home.
Fair point - I agree the main problem is investment (over decades rather than years) but much of the increase in rail use has been in the last few years. The lead time for new rolling stock is of a similar timescale. So even if you put the money in you're still not going to get the benefit. Either way we're up a creek without a paddle.
Yes but - being the obvious answer. I travel to work on three train lines. The main line was built in the late 1800's (although it was just got new rolling stock), the Docklands Light Railway in the 1980's using existing track and the Central Line an underground line in deep tunnles which were cut *by hand* over a century ago. It takes about an hour and costs 2272 pounds a year. The main problems are that the number of people travelling has increased dramatically and the system hasn't had time to adapt. In the City of London (the 1 square mile self-governing central business district) the street plan is medieaval. There was an attempt in the late 1660s to re-roganise following the Great Fire, but people started rebuilding before the planners got their act together. As you move out the street plan then becomes Victorian, then Edwardian with the very outer suburbs laid out in the 1930s.
...this little allegory actually happened. Although it was a whinging machine operator moaning that fitters were better paid than he was rather than a manager getting the bill BUT -
:Ford Tractor Factory (Basildon, Essex,England)
Time: About 20 years ago
Location
The man with the hammer: my Dad.
Returning to the main point easy to use tools are needed. My kids (ages 15,11 & 4) all have Linux desktops now and I'd rather not be dragged out of my chair to sort the them out *too* often.
"In England at the time the Bishops sat in the House of Lords" - they still do
"the Monarch was 'supreme govenor' of the Church of England" - she still is
"The pilgrim fathers were mainly non-conformists" - yes but other colonies (Maryland?) were set up by Catholics and even amoungst the non-conformists there were disagreements. My understanding of your 1st amendment was to allow all the various Christian sects to co-exist.
But we do have: Common Law, Royal Perogative, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the Parliment Acts, the Act of Westminster etc. etc. Basically our constitution is less cathedral and more bizzarre.
I think the guy still has a point.
I think the main difference is that Ozzies travel more. It was mentioned in a news report last year that there were 300,000 Australians & New Zealanders here in London, which let's face it is the opposite side of the world. That's a fair proportion of their population. Furthermore, most are young and on 1-2 year working holiday visas, or have British citizenship, so over a .
In fact I think it would be fair to say that the British are more insular than the Ozzies and we don't anywhere near as far to travel.
If I remember correctly Queen Anne (d.1714) was the last monarch to veto an act of parliament.
"This is a great example of what really rich people can get done if they have some style"
True - although in this case the really rich people where basically Quango's* giving out public funds (including the Millenium Commission which gave out money from the UK national lottery). The logos on the bottom left of the project's homepage links to its major funders.
*Quango="Quasi-automous non-governmental organisation" (translators note: a very silly name for an unelected body, commission or board.)
Shusssssh...aw too late.
btw I passed.
Yes it is, but mostly spoken English not written. Possibly the best translation would be toaster/TV. The bloke who said it comes from the latin for "with" is probably right- but it's usually used where something is dual use.
I'd doubt it given the queues for Harry Potter at my local cinema. PLUS my daughter's school is running trips to see it.
My wife and I are short-term foster carers with 3 kids of our own, and fluctuating population of teenagers. As of today we have a 7 living at home - one 16 , two 15, one 14, one 13, one 10 and one 3. What is interesting is that all of the kids want to see both films but the teenagers are keener on seeing LOTR and the little ones keener on seeing HP.
Yes and it is. I think someone out there has a quote from it as a sig
The trouble with this argument is the issue of nationhood. When several of the States (on a dodgy issue it must be said) tried to leave the US war broke out. Prior to your Civil War the USA was referred to in the plural, afterwards in the singular. As far as I remember General Lee fought for the South not from conviction, but because he considered himself a Virginian rather than an American.
In Britain the situation is even more complex - as a multi-nation state the current trend is to the independence of (or at least devolution of power to) the nations that make it up.
Britain's general apathy regarding Europe in general and the euro in particular makes more sense if you consider we're an island - it's feasible for someone in Masstrict (spelt wrong I know) to shop in 4 different countries - all within an hour or so's reach - for us it's a major expedition costing several hundred pounds. A common currency makes more sense if you can use it on regular basis.
(unless some major Churches are subsidized by the state, but I don't know if that's the case in the UK)
Ok - there not actually subsidised but the legal position of the Church varies as to where you live in the UK.
In England there isn't a legal separation between Church & State. In fact, the bishops are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It was because the founding fathers of the US didn't agree with the Church of England (=Episcopalian) line on a load of issues (and more to the point with each other) you got the first amendment. Some Church of England (C of E) bishops sit in the House of Lords ex officio. Recently senior leaders of other religions have been given peerages, but these are in theory personal. I believe blasphemy is still a criminal offence in England, specifically taking the piss out of the beliefs of the C of E.
In Scotland the Queen is a member of the (Calvinist) Church of Scotland's governing body, not its head.
In Wales the Church was disestablished (i.e. separated from the State).
In Northern Ireland there is no formal link between Church & State (and given the religious make up of the province thank whoever for that), but religious discrimination is illegal. There are moves to extend this to the rest of the UK.
I've no idea of the position in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Overall the legal position is toleration of all faiths not equality, with the other big news that the C of E includes less than 50% of the population for the first time.
Weird political & religious structures - we've got 'em.
I hate to admit it but true. The priority for dentistry here is as a branch of medicine, rather than cosmetics. The upshot is that most dentists are "dental surgeons" and send patients to a specialist orthodontist.
Oh sod..our eldest'll suffer that in a couple of years...not good. I had understood that the AS business was being tested with poor results - but this sounds about right. Thanks for the advice. (cue sound of parent swearing under breath...)
...mmm..sort of - although the terminology is slightly different.
The usual system now (there are some regional variations and there've been changes since my day) is age 11-16 secondary school. While there from 14-16 you do GCSEs (an academic qualification) or GNVQs (a vocational qualification) or some of both. At that point you can either leave full time education, or go on to do A-levels (~ 1st year / freshman degree level) or a higher grade of vocational study either at a Further Education College or a "sixth form" attached to the school. At that stage you can go to University to do a (usually) 3 year batchelors degree. This is usually specialist. In the late 80s my chemistry degree included 2 optional courses in the 1st year - I choose physics & chemical eng.
The liberal / do some of everything approach only holds to age 16 - after that you can specialise.
This itself was a change from my day (~20 years back)when I specialised from age 14.
You can get UK immigraiton information at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/. I think the main consideration would be "is your wife a British citizen?". If she is life would be a lot easier.
Hope it helps.
It means:
(1) Not having to spend time clearing up (your own or other peoples land) after battles.
(2) Not having to spend time clearing up after training exercises.
(3) Injuring/killing the people your trying to injure/kill rather than your own troops.
(4) Less lawsuits (see 3)
(5) Less time answering tedious questions in Parliament / on television about points 1-4.
...why Simon Travaglia (http://bofh.ntk.net/Who.html) writes the BOFH (www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/index.html).
(1) Computer games increase co-ordination and reaction time (practice, practice, practice)
(2) Gamers tend to be brighter (less intelligent kids tend to just sit in front of the telly)
(3) Gamers have friends (and witter on about games boring the hell out of the rest of us)
(4) It's anti-social to do nothing but sit in your room playing games
Not that earth shattering - unless you're trying to get your mum to buy you a playstation.
BTW rents are high in Britain, and "Dyke" is Greg Dyke - boss of the BBC.
Agreed. However the Magna Carta (which was issued, cancelled and reissued) and the Bill of Rights were Acts of Parliament. We also have the Parliament Acts and the Statute (or Treaty) of Westminster. What I meant was we don't have a single document called "the Constitution", unlike most of the rest of the world. Nor are the rights of people defined as part of the constitution (which was the original point). They are defined in common and statute law and some treaties.
The law might but British constitution doesn't. Britain doesn't actually have a constitution, as such. What we have is a load of different acts of Parliament, some common law and some custom & practice. It's not pretty but it (mostly) works.