The other half did require some violence (with bodies littering the streets), and in one case the use of guns to kill the Communist Dictator who refused to step down.
Sure, there were casualties. But fact remains that the revolutionaries did not have guns, and they succeeded.
Hell, the overthrowing of Communist regime in the Baltic States is called "The Singing Revolution" for a reason.
D or R makes no difference. The ballot box is ineffective
Surely you have other parties besides those two? If the populace is so apathetic that they are not bothered to vote, or they vote for the same scumbags over and over again because "we have no alternative" (even though you do), then you deserve a crappy government.
If you want to see what happens to an unarmed populace, all you need to do is look at Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The unarmed enemies were rounded-up and jailed easily (or shot if they resisted).
Well, to be precise: The Weimar Government (that preceded Nazis) banned gun-ownership because it was afraid of armed revolution from the Nazis or any other extremeist groups that operated in the country at that time. And guess what: their efforts succeeded. There was no revolution, the oppressive regime came to power through legimate democratic process.
And to provide counterpoint: Communist governments in the central and eastern Europe were overthrown by unarmed populace.
And what if they were armed? When USSR occupied and annexed Estonia and other Baltic States, there was armed rebellion against them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers) and it didn't really achieve anything.
And let me repeat: I'm not saying that guns should be banned.
Guns create problems for government leaders and slow down their ability to be tyrants
What about democratically elected political leaders that were assasinated by crazed people? Was JFK a "tyrant"?
The difference is that the U.S. has a philosophy of self-reliance at the individual level. We did not feel the need to have government services provide security measures.
Oh yes you do. Or are you claiming that you have no police at all? Are you claiming that you do not expect the military to protect USA from external threats?
You can quote me numbers till high-heaven about crime rates (and by the way, the overall crime rate in the U.S. is dropping as carry permits are on the rise...hmmm)
I made no claims about relation of crime with gun-ownership, apart from the comment about personal space being violated.
If you are comfortable and happy to live within the margin of not being affected by crime, good for you, but I feel more comfortable knowing that a criminal will not be successful when I am around because I do have a carry permit and do carry.
I'm comfortable because I have no need to carry guns. For some reason I'm not surround by crime, and for some reasons criminals are not breaking down my door.
Like I said: is situation in USA really so bad that you need armed populace just so they can protect themselves from hordes of criminals?
Boy, that post went right over your head. The point the OP was trying to make was that if only the military has guns, how is the citizenry supposed to displace the administration in the event that said administration becomes overly oppressive or abusive?
Well, we could always ask the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East-Germany, Russia, Poland, Romania....
I think you assume that everyone in the US owns guns because of some sort of derailed-train tradition with no reasoning behind it besides "my Dad owned guns..."
You are quite mistaken. I assume no such thing.
The fact is that many people responsibly own firearms for both sporting uses and self defense. Guns are absolutely misused at times, but the irresponsibility of some few is not in any way an acceptable reason to strip me of my right to have firearms and use them for whatever legal purpose I desire.
IIRC, I made no calls towards banning guns. What I did is to dispute the claim that you need guns in order to "oppose the government" or in order to "protect yourself".
Well, to be precise, maybe you do need guns to protect yourself in USA. But if that is the case, then I can't but think that things are really bad in USA. I know for sure that I do not need a gun to protect myself over here.
I think you will also find a considerable body of research and opinions that contest the idea that banning all guns would even result in an any decline in violent crime.
I made no claims on that issue. I did say that maybe prevalence of guns is one reason people's personal space is being violated so much. And it might be. Over here guns are used very rarely by criminals, and my personal space is not violated.
I have no intent to convert you or the many posters in this thread who seem to share your perspective into gun lovers, but I would greatly appreciate even a moment of consideration before emotionally founded kneejerk responses that accuse all Americans of being uncivilized morons who need a strong government to take away anything they might hurt themselves with. Thanks
I'm not the one making that claim. We were told that we need guns to "oppose the government" and "protect ourselves". And that if we don't have guns, we are "sheeple" and we are "submitting to the government".
And like I said, it seems to me that the gun-owners are "submitting to the government" just like those who do not own guns are.
So let me re-iterate: Nowhere was I calling for banning guns. I was merely disputing the claims that guns are needed for protection and opposition to the government. The former does not apply if crime is not a problem, and the latter is utter BS.
I support responsible firearm ownership. I target shoot. I don't make the mistake of thinking I could take on a government with a couple of long guns and my personal ammo stash.
Exactly. I grew up in a household with guns. I was introduced to guns at an early age. And although I don't own any guns, I do enjoy shooting skeet and trap whenever possible. And I have been thinking about getting a small-caliber handgun to do target-practice. But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.
And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery. And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed. If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve. If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.
And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.
Sure. And the reasons OP presented were protection from violence and resistance to the government.
Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around.
So you need armed populace in order to have functional government? Um, OK.
Similarly, people are the victims of violent crime and government oppression every day.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that I feel the need to carry guns with me. I have never ever faced a situation where I would have needed a gun. Hell, I have never been in a situation where I have to defend my person or my property through use of force. Does that mean that I'm "missing out" on something?
And, FWIW, I have never faced any "oppression" from the government. And I don't see those gun-owners in USA facing it either, nor do I really see them offering any armed resistance to any perceived "oppression" they face. Unless their form of resistance includes "suicide by cop".
Welcome to life.
Thanks. And it seems that over here in Finland I can live nice, comfortable life without having the need to carry guns. And while our politicians are nothing to write home about, I face no "oppression" from them.
So, is USA such a shithole that you need guns to protect yourself from your neighbours and from the government? Because if I believed the gun-owners, that is the reality over there. And five seconds later they have said that, they start telling what a great place USA is. Huh?
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments
So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either.
How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.
If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives
Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.
Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.
And what if the ones without guns are the ones being reasonable, while the ones with guns are being unreasonable? Couldn't those guns be used to prop up an oppressive regime, just as well they might be used to bring one down? How many US presidents or other high-ranking politicians have been assassinated, or faced an assassination-attempt?
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them.
Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort. But I'm just an Euro-hippie, so what do I know. It must be like living in the jungle in USA?
We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
Uhh, most true libertarians/fiscal conversatives _DO_ want to cut all those programs. Defense is more borderline, typically defended as a constitutional requirement of the federal government (unlike those others).
Just how much money does USA need for defence? USA is spending more than the rest of the world combined. How much is enough? You could cut the defence-budget in half, and you would still be far and away the most powerful country militarily.
As far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a tax -- I don't expect to see any benefit from it.
Define "benefit". You benefit when that poor unemployed dude down the street can live off from social security, as opposed to resorting to stealing your and your neighbours property.
However, because the Allies wanted the opposite, and achieved three dead Germans for every dead Allied soldier, it took more time, and clearly deserves more praise.
Wikipedia gives both sides more or less equal casualties.
The Finns didn't even offer token resistance to the Nazis, they served side by side with them voluntarily!
Finns fought a war against Stalin, a dictator every bit as bad as Hitler was. After that war, Russians continued their bullying and threats (including shooting down a Finnish passenger-liner). Seeking help from the west was not an option, since Germany occupied Norway. Defence-pact with Sweden was blocked by the Russians. What the hell were se supposed to do? Seriously? And when it became clear that war between Germany and USSR was imminent, wasn't it logical to try to take advantage of that, and reclaim the lost territory?
And Finns were hardly that willing allies. We never handed any jews to the Nazis (in fact, jews served in the Finnish Army), and we refused to take part in the invasion against Leningrad (which basically saved Leningrad, since Leningrads defences on the Finnish Front were nonexistant) and we didn't try to cut the Murmansk railroad.
I know a fair amount about the Winter War, my own family is part Finnish, and let me say I don't blame the Finns for 'making a pact with the devil' as it were to save their nation from the Soviets during the Continuation War. I don't blame them at all, but to then hold them up as an example of how Europeans offered more than token resistance to Germany is absurd. Literally nonsense.
Instead of singling out Germany, how about resistance to tyranny in general? USSR was just as much a tyranny as Germany was. Or does opposition to Stalin not matter at all, only opposition to Nazis matters?
Nazis didn't try to invade Finland, so we didn't have a war with them. In 1944 Nazis did start hostilities against Finland, and we fought then fair and square, eventually driving them out of the country.
France was not 'exhausted' any more than Germany was. Perhaps you forgot they were fighting the same war?
France suffered more casualties that Germany (or UK) did and most of the fihting too place in French soil
Keep in mind that Soviet Union couldn't even invade Finland even thou they tried twice
Finland ceded 10% of its territory to the USSR in the aftermath of the Winter War. It is only a loss for USSR if you consider their objectives to be a complete occupation on Finland, which is debatable. In any case, "couldn't even invade Finland" is quite an understatement.
Well, the Russians were planning to hold a victory parade in Helsinki before the end of the year, and their troops were given strict orders not to cross the border between Finland and Sweden. So yes, I'd say that total occupation was in the cards.
And yes, USSR could have invaded whole of Finland both during Winter War and in Continuation War. To claim otherwise would be absurd. But it would have cost them way more than they were willing to pay. And, as it happens, Finland was the only country who fought in the Axis side that was NOT occupied after the war.
Eastern front casualties through the whole of 1944 amounted to less than 3 million. Less than a quarter is two thirds to you, huh? Granted, in terms of total casualties only, regardless of fielded numbers, half occurred on the Eastern front, the balance are divided between the rest of Europe and Africa.
Huh? Looking at Wikipedia, I see figures like this:
German casualties in Eastern Front: 2.742.909 German casualties in Western Front: 339,957
So, Almost 90% of Germany's casualties took place in the East.
The Russians did a fair amount, but not more.
Well that's a load of bullshit. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Russians did more? The fact that they were fighting the Germans longer before USA got involved should tell you something. The fact that majority of Wehrmacht was in the East should tell you something. the fact that most of Germany's losses took place in the East should tell you something.
and a paltry airforce
Paltry? Wikipedia sez: "By the end of the war, Soviet annual aircraft production outstripped that of the German Reich; annual Soviet production rose to 40,241 aircraft in 1944. Some 157,261 aircraft were produced during the Great Patriotic War, of them 125,655 combat types."
Paltry indeed....
Let us see how well your revisionism faces down those facts.
It's facing just fine. How does YOUR revision face the fact that overwhelming majority of Wehrmacht was fighting in the East, and that they suffered most of their casualties there? How does YOUR revisionism handle the fact that by the time D-day took place, Russian were preparing to drive to Poland?
If you think that 1941-1943 was a one front war for Germany, there would be a lot of veterans of the African campaign who would gladly punch you in the face.
Compared to Eastern Front, fighting in Africa was miniscule in scale. Germany could afford a catastrophic defeat in Africa, and it would not doom their war-effort. Afrika Korps was just a handful of divisions, a drop in the bucket when compared to the vast scale of fighting in the East. Had those divisions been sent to Easter Front, they would not have made one bit of a difference there.
It seems to me that your argument supporting the fact that Allied did just as much as Russians did in defeating Germany boils down to "A lot of Allied soldiers fought and died, claiming that their efforts were of secondary importance when compared to events in the East would be insulting to them, therefore we need to give them equal credit when compared to the Russians!". Well, that might be cute and politically correct, but it doesn't change the facts. Not to mention that there were a lot more Russian soldiers fighting and dying than there were Allied soldiers.
Seriously: it's not the end of the world if you admit the fact that Russians did more than anyone else in defeating Germany.
This whole revisionism that swings the pendulum of near-complete responsibility for toppling Germany from the US to the USSR is just as wrong-headed as the original assumption.
The only revisionism I have seen is the claim that USA is the main force behind the defeat of Germany. Fact is that USSR did most of the work. They were fighting the Germans to the death in massive battles while western allies were fighting minor battles (when compared to Eastern Front, they were minor) in Africa. What about fighting in Italy? It was a secondary front as well, and the Germans managed to quite effectively bog down Allied Operations there.
Oh, what about D-day? By the time it took place, war in the East had been going on for three years, and something like 70-80% of Wehrmacht was busy fighting the Russians. Hell, Russians were about to drive to Poland by the time D-Day took place! Germany would have been utterly defeated with or without D-day.
Do you really think the USSR could have survived a German military undivided by multiple fronts powered by an industry undisturbed by coordinated day and night bombing by the US and Britain?
In short: yes. They survived for years while western allies didn't do much, besides dicking around in North Africa and Italy. For years they were basically facing an undivided Germany. And the massive bombings didn't really achieve much, Germany still beat all their production-records.
You might try telling the families of the crews of the 18,418 US aircraft lost over German-held territory how it was the Russians alone that did much of the damage.
So because Allied lost quite a lot of men fighting the Germans (they didn't, when you put the figures in perspective. Had USA lost as many men as Finland did in Winter War alone, it would have meant casualties of over 1 million men in a war that lasted 105 days) we should tell everyone that "they were just as important at defeating Germany as Russians were!"? What good would lying do?
Yes, the allied soldiers were very brave and fought well, but fact is that by the time they were storming the beaches at Normandy (or Sicily for that matter) Germany was already doomed.
Neither the US *nor* the USSR 'single-handedly' won WWII, nor did one or the other do 'most of the damage'.
"Single handedly" implies that it was easy. It was not, as any Russian would tell you. It took them 4 years and millions of casualties, so it was anything but easy. But they did the most damage to Germany. To claim otherwise is ignorant.
And this is coming from a Finn, who lost a grandfather to the war against USSR.
And, speaking as a Finn, I would suggest that you educate yourself when it comes to offering "only token resistance to save lives". You might start with Winter War. As for Invasion of France... France was utterly exhausted by WW1 (they were the ones who took the brunt of the casualties) and they weren't fit to fight. They capitulated because Germans outmanouvered their army and they were basically doomed. Only thing that saved UK from same fate was the English Channel.
If you look at the iPad, however, you'll see that it's not "ideal" for thumb typing.
Just because we use thumbs with iPhone does not mean that we would be using thumbs with the iPad as well. Rest the device on your lap and type away.
My point, they screwed up the keyboard.
I think you should try it out before labeling it a failure.
My point is not about portability of the device, but rather to people that are saying that this will be your living room media console... it will not be one.
Why not? At least in my household there's more than one person who might want to watch movies or tv-shows. So while my wife is watching "Judging Amy" on the big screen, I could be watching something else on the iPad.
Making a sweeping statement that "it will not be used for this purpose" is quite unfounded.
You really believe that having a row of icons along the bottom of the screen to indicate the running apps to be confusing?
They already have a row of icons at the bottom. And like I said, how would the user put the app in the background and how would they close it?
I think that you guys do not understand just how complex computers can be to non-techies. Take icons for example: If you want to launch an app that has an icon on the desktop, what do you do? You double-click the icon. Well, what if that icon is a quick-launch button in the taskbar or it's in the Dock? Then you only single-click it. Why does the behavior of the icon change? Things like that are totally puzzling to non-techies.
That is just one example, and not directly relevant to the iPad, but I just want to show the complexity in computers that you and I simply do not see, but others do see. I routinely see people double-clicking icons in the taskbar, when single-click would do. Often they end up having several copies of the one app running because of this.
Do you really want to tell me that is less confusing?
So it would be simpler if they closed the app, but it didn't really close, and they kept on getting messages?
I actually run routinely in to multitasking-problems when it comes to phones. People walk to me and tell me that their phone is slow and it complains that it's low on memory. I check what apps they have running, and I see that they have ten apps or so running in the background. The users have no clue what's going on. "I clicked the red button and the app went away, but it kept on running in the background?!?!". No, they have to click "options", and from there they need to select "close", otherwise the app keeps on running...
Mind you, these are real-life examples. And these users are no idiots.
I have a final question for you, when Apple finally do release multitasking for the iPad (and they will have to) are you going to be telling everyone how brilliant it is?
If they could enable it in a foolproof way, I would think it's a nifty feature, but not a must-have feature. Nice addition, sure, but I wouldn't be telling everyone how it's the best thing since sliced bread. I haven't really missed it in my iPod touch, and I don't really see why I would miss it in the iPad.
You mean for every capability of the iPod touch, the iPad has ten?
No, I mean that the screen enables them to do things that would simply not be possible on the iPhone. Don't be an ass.
Which, for the most part, is the same.
That software is designed for a lot bigger screen than the one found in the iPhone, so not, it will not be the same.
The ones who've used one are Apple employees and paid shills.
Oh that's clever. Is you have used the device, then you can't comment on it, since you are obviously biased... That's truly bulletproof reasoning!
I've used an iPhone, I know what an iPad will be like.
You might know the basic idea (accelerometer, home-button, gestures etc.), but it will still be a considerably different experience when compared to the iPhone.
iPad is order of magnitude more capable than the touch is
Please don't use words or phrases unless you know what they mean. Just because you hear smart people say OoM when talking about big numbers does not mean OoM means "a lot."
I do know what "order of magnitude" means. Order of magnitude is ten times better. And I would say that (for example) iWork running on the iPad is about order of magnitude better than iWork running on the iPhone would be.
So there's iWork and then there's iWork, but I understood you the first time.
iWork will not work on an iPhone / iPod Touch because a) the screen isn't big enough (which validates the "it's a big iPod Touch!" argument)
No it doesn't, quite the opposite. The key point here is that "what can you do with it?". If it were just a "big iPod touch", it would mean that you could do no more or less with it than you could with an iPod. It would be just iPod touch, just bigger. But since the fact is that you can do more (a lot more) with it, then it's NOT just "big iPod touch".
or more realistically b) Apple will use their App Store restrictions to ensure that you can't run iWork on an iPod Touch.
OK, please explain how the iWork they demoed on the iPad would work on the iPhone? I'm waiting.... If you can't tell me, then I assume that you are just full of shit.
That being said, I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. I mean, seriously, you used the word "seriously" like three times in as many questions.
That's because I'm honestly amazed how some people think that the iPad is "nothing but a big iPod touch".... It just boggles the mind!
You're speaking as if multitasking is something completely alien, complex and intrusive, which it isn't.
No, it isn't. It has been used in computers for decades. But fact is that many people find computers to be too complicated.
You're speaking as if Apple first and foremost had the user in mind when making every design decision, which they hadn't.
You are making sweeping assumptions with no evidence. You just assume that Apple went out of their way to screw the user, because that idea fits your worldview.
You're speaking as if forsaking things you expect is for your own good, which it isn't, but which is, on the other hand, the talk of a religious cultist.
The cultist-talk is getting really old, really fast, and only drooling retards resort to it.
Fact is that people in/. are most likely NOT the target-market for the iPad. their parents might be. Their kids might be. But not them. And fact is that many people find computers to be confusing and complicated. And what Apple wanted to do was to remove that complexity.
We do not know how successful iPod Touch is. Because it's success is being rolled-up into iPods or iPhone category.
If you cared to look, you could find out how iPod touch is selling. We know the sales-numbers of iPhones, and we know the number of devices sold that run the iPhone-OS, so it's not that hard to calculate the number of sold iPod touches.
Like what?
*sigh*, like anything that needs a bigger screen? Like iWork that they demoed? Or are you saying that we might just as well be running 10" screens, as opposed to 24" screens, and it would not make one bit of difference?
Working with documents? If you need to type more than a few lines of text, the touchscreen keyboard is unusable.
That remains to be seen. Many people whined about the touchscreen-keyboard on the iPhone, but there are lots of people who are very good at using it.
(Ever wonder why there are bumps on letters J and F on your keyboard?)
To help touch-typists place their fingers. Not all are touch-typists, however.
If you have a new HDTV, than most likely the TV can display your photos and play a lot of video formats. Mine plays videos from youtube, Philips 9000 series. And on 42" TV there is no need for "pinch to zoom".
So all you need to do is to carry your HDTV with you wherever you fo....
Slashdot Mirror
The other half did require some violence (with bodies littering the streets), and in one case the use of guns to kill the Communist Dictator who refused to step down.
Sure, there were casualties. But fact remains that the revolutionaries did not have guns, and they succeeded.
Hell, the overthrowing of Communist regime in the Baltic States is called "The Singing Revolution" for a reason.
D or R makes no difference. The ballot box is ineffective
Surely you have other parties besides those two? If the populace is so apathetic that they are not bothered to vote, or they vote for the same scumbags over and over again because "we have no alternative" (even though you do), then you deserve a crappy government.
If you want to see what happens to an unarmed populace, all you need to do is look at Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The unarmed enemies were rounded-up and jailed easily (or shot if they resisted).
Well, to be precise: The Weimar Government (that preceded Nazis) banned gun-ownership because it was afraid of armed revolution from the Nazis or any other extremeist groups that operated in the country at that time. And guess what: their efforts succeeded. There was no revolution, the oppressive regime came to power through legimate democratic process.
And to provide counterpoint: Communist governments in the central and eastern Europe were overthrown by unarmed populace.
And what if they were armed? When USSR occupied and annexed Estonia and other Baltic States, there was armed rebellion against them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers) and it didn't really achieve anything.
And let me repeat: I'm not saying that guns should be banned.
Guns create problems for government leaders and slow down their ability to be tyrants
What about democratically elected political leaders that were assasinated by crazed people? Was JFK a "tyrant"?
The difference is that the U.S. has a philosophy of self-reliance at the individual level. We did not feel the need to have government services provide security measures.
Oh yes you do. Or are you claiming that you have no police at all? Are you claiming that you do not expect the military to protect USA from external threats?
You can quote me numbers till high-heaven about crime rates (and by the way, the overall crime rate in the U.S. is dropping as carry permits are on the rise...hmmm)
I made no claims about relation of crime with gun-ownership, apart from the comment about personal space being violated.
If you are comfortable and happy to live within the margin of not being affected by crime, good for you, but I feel more comfortable knowing that a criminal will not be successful when I am around because I do have a carry permit and do carry.
I'm comfortable because I have no need to carry guns. For some reason I'm not surround by crime, and for some reasons criminals are not breaking down my door.
Like I said: is situation in USA really so bad that you need armed populace just so they can protect themselves from hordes of criminals?
Boy, that post went right over your head. The point the OP was trying to make was that if only the military has guns, how is the citizenry supposed to displace the administration in the event that said administration becomes overly oppressive or abusive?
Well, we could always ask the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East-Germany, Russia, Poland, Romania....
I think you assume that everyone in the US owns guns because of some sort of derailed-train tradition with no reasoning behind it besides "my Dad owned guns..."
You are quite mistaken. I assume no such thing.
The fact is that many people responsibly own firearms for both sporting uses and self defense. Guns are absolutely misused at times, but the irresponsibility of some few is not in any way an acceptable reason to strip me of my right to have firearms and use them for whatever legal purpose I desire.
IIRC, I made no calls towards banning guns. What I did is to dispute the claim that you need guns in order to "oppose the government" or in order to "protect yourself".
Well, to be precise, maybe you do need guns to protect yourself in USA. But if that is the case, then I can't but think that things are really bad in USA. I know for sure that I do not need a gun to protect myself over here.
I think you will also find a considerable body of research and opinions that contest the idea that banning all guns would even result in an any decline in violent crime.
I made no claims on that issue. I did say that maybe prevalence of guns is one reason people's personal space is being violated so much. And it might be. Over here guns are used very rarely by criminals, and my personal space is not violated.
I have no intent to convert you or the many posters in this thread who seem to share your perspective into gun lovers, but I would greatly appreciate even a moment of consideration before emotionally founded kneejerk responses that accuse all Americans of being uncivilized morons who need a strong government to take away anything they might hurt themselves with. Thanks
I'm not the one making that claim. We were told that we need guns to "oppose the government" and "protect ourselves". And that if we don't have guns, we are "sheeple" and we are "submitting to the government".
And like I said, it seems to me that the gun-owners are "submitting to the government" just like those who do not own guns are.
So let me re-iterate: Nowhere was I calling for banning guns. I was merely disputing the claims that guns are needed for protection and opposition to the government. The former does not apply if crime is not a problem, and the latter is utter BS.
I support responsible firearm ownership. I target shoot. I don't make the mistake of thinking I could take on a government with a couple of long guns and my personal ammo stash.
Exactly. I grew up in a household with guns. I was introduced to guns at an early age. And although I don't own any guns, I do enjoy shooting skeet and trap whenever possible. And I have been thinking about getting a small-caliber handgun to do target-practice. But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.
And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery. And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed. If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve. If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.
And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.
There's a broad variety of reasons to own guns.
Sure. And the reasons OP presented were protection from violence and resistance to the government.
Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around.
So you need armed populace in order to have functional government? Um, OK.
Similarly, people are the victims of violent crime and government oppression every day.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that I feel the need to carry guns with me. I have never ever faced a situation where I would have needed a gun. Hell, I have never been in a situation where I have to defend my person or my property through use of force. Does that mean that I'm "missing out" on something?
And, FWIW, I have never faced any "oppression" from the government. And I don't see those gun-owners in USA facing it either, nor do I really see them offering any armed resistance to any perceived "oppression" they face. Unless their form of resistance includes "suicide by cop".
Welcome to life.
Thanks. And it seems that over here in Finland I can live nice, comfortable life without having the need to carry guns. And while our politicians are nothing to write home about, I face no "oppression" from them.
So, is USA such a shithole that you need guns to protect yourself from your neighbours and from the government? Because if I believed the gun-owners, that is the reality over there. And five seconds later they have said that, they start telling what a great place USA is. Huh?
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments
So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either.
How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.
If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives
Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.
Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.
And what if the ones without guns are the ones being reasonable, while the ones with guns are being unreasonable? Couldn't those guns be used to prop up an oppressive regime, just as well they might be used to bring one down? How many US presidents or other high-ranking politicians have been assassinated, or faced an assassination-attempt?
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them.
Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort. But I'm just an Euro-hippie, so what do I know. It must be like living in the jungle in USA?
We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
Uhh, most true libertarians/fiscal conversatives _DO_ want to cut all those programs. Defense is more borderline, typically defended as a constitutional requirement of the federal government (unlike those others).
Just how much money does USA need for defence? USA is spending more than the rest of the world combined. How much is enough? You could cut the defence-budget in half, and you would still be far and away the most powerful country militarily.
As far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a tax -- I don't expect to see any benefit from it.
Define "benefit". You benefit when that poor unemployed dude down the street can live off from social security, as opposed to resorting to stealing your and your neighbours property.
However, because the Allies wanted the opposite, and achieved three dead Germans for every dead Allied soldier, it took more time, and clearly deserves more praise.
Wikipedia gives both sides more or less equal casualties.
The Finns didn't even offer token resistance to the Nazis, they served side by side with them voluntarily!
Finns fought a war against Stalin, a dictator every bit as bad as Hitler was. After that war, Russians continued their bullying and threats (including shooting down a Finnish passenger-liner). Seeking help from the west was not an option, since Germany occupied Norway. Defence-pact with Sweden was blocked by the Russians. What the hell were se supposed to do? Seriously? And when it became clear that war between Germany and USSR was imminent, wasn't it logical to try to take advantage of that, and reclaim the lost territory?
And Finns were hardly that willing allies. We never handed any jews to the Nazis (in fact, jews served in the Finnish Army), and we refused to take part in the invasion against Leningrad (which basically saved Leningrad, since Leningrads defences on the Finnish Front were nonexistant) and we didn't try to cut the Murmansk railroad.
I know a fair amount about the Winter War, my own family is part Finnish, and let me say I don't blame the Finns for 'making a pact with the devil' as it were to save their nation from the Soviets during the Continuation War. I don't blame them at all, but to then hold them up as an example of how Europeans offered more than token resistance to Germany is absurd. Literally nonsense.
Instead of singling out Germany, how about resistance to tyranny in general? USSR was just as much a tyranny as Germany was. Or does opposition to Stalin not matter at all, only opposition to Nazis matters?
Nazis didn't try to invade Finland, so we didn't have a war with them. In 1944 Nazis did start hostilities against Finland, and we fought then fair and square, eventually driving them out of the country.
France was not 'exhausted' any more than Germany was. Perhaps you forgot they were fighting the same war?
France suffered more casualties that Germany (or UK) did and most of the fihting too place in French soil
The French took the noble step of drawing a line in the sand and *choosing* war with Nazi Germany.
They didn't draw a line in the sand. They stood by and did nothing while the Germans raped Poland.
And what did UK do during that time?
Keep in mind that Soviet Union couldn't even invade Finland even thou they tried twice
Finland ceded 10% of its territory to the USSR in the aftermath of the Winter War. It is only a loss for USSR if you consider their objectives to be a complete occupation on Finland, which is debatable. In any case, "couldn't even invade Finland" is quite an understatement.
Well, the Russians were planning to hold a victory parade in Helsinki before the end of the year, and their troops were given strict orders not to cross the border between Finland and Sweden. So yes, I'd say that total occupation was in the cards.
And yes, USSR could have invaded whole of Finland both during Winter War and in Continuation War. To claim otherwise would be absurd. But it would have cost them way more than they were willing to pay. And, as it happens, Finland was the only country who fought in the Axis side that was NOT occupied after the war.
Eastern front casualties through the whole of 1944 amounted to less than 3 million. Less than a quarter is two thirds to you, huh? Granted, in terms of total casualties only, regardless of fielded numbers, half occurred on the Eastern front, the balance are divided between the rest of Europe and Africa.
Huh? Looking at Wikipedia, I see figures like this:
German casualties in Eastern Front: 2.742.909
German casualties in Western Front: 339,957
So, Almost 90% of Germany's casualties took place in the East.
The Russians did a fair amount, but not more.
Well that's a load of bullshit. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Russians did more? The fact that they were fighting the Germans longer before USA got involved should tell you something. The fact that majority of Wehrmacht was in the East should tell you something. the fact that most of Germany's losses took place in the East should tell you something.
and a paltry airforce
Paltry? Wikipedia sez: "By the end of the war, Soviet annual aircraft production outstripped that of the German Reich; annual Soviet production rose to 40,241 aircraft in 1944. Some 157,261 aircraft were produced during the Great Patriotic War, of them 125,655 combat types."
Paltry indeed....
Let us see how well your revisionism faces down those facts.
It's facing just fine. How does YOUR revision face the fact that overwhelming majority of Wehrmacht was fighting in the East, and that they suffered most of their casualties there? How does YOUR revisionism handle the fact that by the time D-day took place, Russian were preparing to drive to Poland?
If you think that 1941-1943 was a one front war for Germany, there would be a lot of veterans of the African campaign who would gladly punch you in the face.
Compared to Eastern Front, fighting in Africa was miniscule in scale. Germany could afford a catastrophic defeat in Africa, and it would not doom their war-effort. Afrika Korps was just a handful of divisions, a drop in the bucket when compared to the vast scale of fighting in the East. Had those divisions been sent to Easter Front, they would not have made one bit of a difference there.
It seems to me that your argument supporting the fact that Allied did just as much as Russians did in defeating Germany boils down to "A lot of Allied soldiers fought and died, claiming that their efforts were of secondary importance when compared to events in the East would be insulting to them, therefore we need to give them equal credit when compared to the Russians!". Well, that might be cute and politically correct, but it doesn't change the facts. Not to mention that there were a lot more Russian soldiers fighting and dying than there were Allied soldiers.
Seriously: it's not the end of the world if you admit the fact that Russians did more than anyone else in defeating Germany.
This whole revisionism that swings the pendulum of near-complete responsibility for toppling Germany from the US to the USSR is just as wrong-headed as the original assumption.
The only revisionism I have seen is the claim that USA is the main force behind the defeat of Germany. Fact is that USSR did most of the work. They were fighting the Germans to the death in massive battles while western allies were fighting minor battles (when compared to Eastern Front, they were minor) in Africa. What about fighting in Italy? It was a secondary front as well, and the Germans managed to quite effectively bog down Allied Operations there.
Oh, what about D-day? By the time it took place, war in the East had been going on for three years, and something like 70-80% of Wehrmacht was busy fighting the Russians. Hell, Russians were about to drive to Poland by the time D-Day took place! Germany would have been utterly defeated with or without D-day.
Do you really think the USSR could have survived a German military undivided by multiple fronts powered by an industry undisturbed by coordinated day and night bombing by the US and Britain?
In short: yes. They survived for years while western allies didn't do much, besides dicking around in North Africa and Italy. For years they were basically facing an undivided Germany. And the massive bombings didn't really achieve much, Germany still beat all their production-records.
You might try telling the families of the crews of the 18,418 US aircraft lost over German-held territory how it was the Russians alone that did much of the damage.
So because Allied lost quite a lot of men fighting the Germans (they didn't, when you put the figures in perspective. Had USA lost as many men as Finland did in Winter War alone, it would have meant casualties of over 1 million men in a war that lasted 105 days) we should tell everyone that "they were just as important at defeating Germany as Russians were!"? What good would lying do?
Yes, the allied soldiers were very brave and fought well, but fact is that by the time they were storming the beaches at Normandy (or Sicily for that matter) Germany was already doomed.
Neither the US *nor* the USSR 'single-handedly' won WWII, nor did one or the other do 'most of the damage'.
"Single handedly" implies that it was easy. It was not, as any Russian would tell you. It took them 4 years and millions of casualties, so it was anything but easy. But they did the most damage to Germany. To claim otherwise is ignorant.
And this is coming from a Finn, who lost a grandfather to the war against USSR.
And, speaking as a Finn, I would suggest that you educate yourself when it comes to offering "only token resistance to save lives". You might start with Winter War. As for Invasion of France... France was utterly exhausted by WW1 (they were the ones who took the brunt of the casualties) and they weren't fit to fight. They capitulated because Germans outmanouvered their army and they were basically doomed. Only thing that saved UK from same fate was the English Channel.
If you look at the iPad, however, you'll see that it's not "ideal" for thumb typing.
Just because we use thumbs with iPhone does not mean that we would be using thumbs with the iPad as well. Rest the device on your lap and type away.
My point, they screwed up the keyboard.
I think you should try it out before labeling it a failure.
My point is not about portability of the device, but rather to people that are saying that this will be your living room media console... it will not be one.
Why not? At least in my household there's more than one person who might want to watch movies or tv-shows. So while my wife is watching "Judging Amy" on the big screen, I could be watching something else on the iPad.
Making a sweeping statement that "it will not be used for this purpose" is quite unfounded.
You really believe that having a row of icons along the bottom of the screen to indicate the running apps to be confusing?
They already have a row of icons at the bottom. And like I said, how would the user put the app in the background and how would they close it?
I think that you guys do not understand just how complex computers can be to non-techies. Take icons for example: If you want to launch an app that has an icon on the desktop, what do you do? You double-click the icon. Well, what if that icon is a quick-launch button in the taskbar or it's in the Dock? Then you only single-click it. Why does the behavior of the icon change? Things like that are totally puzzling to non-techies.
That is just one example, and not directly relevant to the iPad, but I just want to show the complexity in computers that you and I simply do not see, but others do see. I routinely see people double-clicking icons in the taskbar, when single-click would do. Often they end up having several copies of the one app running because of this.
Do you really want to tell me that is less confusing?
So it would be simpler if they closed the app, but it didn't really close, and they kept on getting messages?
I actually run routinely in to multitasking-problems when it comes to phones. People walk to me and tell me that their phone is slow and it complains that it's low on memory. I check what apps they have running, and I see that they have ten apps or so running in the background. The users have no clue what's going on. "I clicked the red button and the app went away, but it kept on running in the background?!?!". No, they have to click "options", and from there they need to select "close", otherwise the app keeps on running...
Mind you, these are real-life examples. And these users are no idiots.
I have a final question for you, when Apple finally do release multitasking for the iPad (and they will have to) are you going to be telling everyone how brilliant it is?
If they could enable it in a foolproof way, I would think it's a nifty feature, but not a must-have feature. Nice addition, sure, but I wouldn't be telling everyone how it's the best thing since sliced bread. I haven't really missed it in my iPod touch, and I don't really see why I would miss it in the iPad.
You mean for every capability of the iPod touch, the iPad has ten?
No, I mean that the screen enables them to do things that would simply not be possible on the iPhone. Don't be an ass.
Which, for the most part, is the same.
That software is designed for a lot bigger screen than the one found in the iPhone, so not, it will not be the same.
The ones who've used one are Apple employees and paid shills.
Oh that's clever. Is you have used the device, then you can't comment on it, since you are obviously biased... That's truly bulletproof reasoning!
I've used an iPhone, I know what an iPad will be like.
You might know the basic idea (accelerometer, home-button, gestures etc.), but it will still be a considerably different experience when compared to the iPhone.
Please don't use words or phrases unless you know what they mean. Just because you hear smart people say OoM when talking about big numbers does not mean OoM means "a lot."
I do know what "order of magnitude" means. Order of magnitude is ten times better. And I would say that (for example) iWork running on the iPad is about order of magnitude better than iWork running on the iPhone would be.
So there's iWork and then there's iWork, but I understood you the first time.
iWork will not work on an iPhone / iPod Touch because a) the screen isn't big enough (which validates the "it's a big iPod Touch!" argument)
No it doesn't, quite the opposite. The key point here is that "what can you do with it?". If it were just a "big iPod touch", it would mean that you could do no more or less with it than you could with an iPod. It would be just iPod touch, just bigger. But since the fact is that you can do more (a lot more) with it, then it's NOT just "big iPod touch".
or more realistically b) Apple will use their App Store restrictions to ensure that you can't run iWork on an iPod Touch.
OK, please explain how the iWork they demoed on the iPad would work on the iPhone? I'm waiting.... If you can't tell me, then I assume that you are just full of shit.
That being said, I think you are taking things a bit too seriously. I mean, seriously, you used the word "seriously" like three times in as many questions.
That's because I'm honestly amazed how some people think that the iPad is "nothing but a big iPod touch".... It just boggles the mind!
No, I don't assume that "Apple went out of their way to screw the user", I assume they designed this gizmo to make money, not for charity.
Whereas other companies design their gizmos for charity, and not for profit?
As it happens, it's designed to lock people to the iTunes platform.
What does iTunes have to do with multitasking?
I assume -- correctly -- that this is a commercial decision, as neither technical nor UI explanations hold water.
I think they do hold water. I said that multitasking would make the system more complicated. That is a fact, and you cant refute that.
You pretend it's the only way to make for a good user experience. It's not
I have made no such claims. What I have said is that multitasking would make the system more complicated. And that is a fact.
So you make up an ideal iPad customer who doesn't exist and make up excuses. You're an apologist and a corporate fanboy.
Just because I disagree with you, does not make me a "fanboy" or "apologist".
You're speaking as if multitasking is something completely alien, complex and intrusive, which it isn't.
No, it isn't. It has been used in computers for decades. But fact is that many people find computers to be too complicated.
You're speaking as if Apple first and foremost had the user in mind when making every design decision, which they hadn't.
You are making sweeping assumptions with no evidence. You just assume that Apple went out of their way to screw the user, because that idea fits your worldview.
You're speaking as if forsaking things you expect is for your own good, which it isn't, but which is, on the other hand, the talk of a religious cultist.
The cultist-talk is getting really old, really fast, and only drooling retards resort to it.
Fact is that people in /. are most likely NOT the target-market for the iPad. their parents might be. Their kids might be. But not them. And fact is that many people find computers to be confusing and complicated. And what Apple wanted to do was to remove that complexity.
Don't like that? Buy a netbook and be happy.
Enlighten us! Reader of Steve's mind.
We do not know how successful iPod Touch is. Because it's success is being rolled-up into iPods or iPhone category.
If you cared to look, you could find out how iPod touch is selling. We know the sales-numbers of iPhones, and we know the number of devices sold that run the iPhone-OS, so it's not that hard to calculate the number of sold iPod touches.
Like what?
*sigh*, like anything that needs a bigger screen? Like iWork that they demoed? Or are you saying that we might just as well be running 10" screens, as opposed to 24" screens, and it would not make one bit of difference?
Working with documents? If you need to type more than a few lines of text, the touchscreen keyboard is unusable.
That remains to be seen. Many people whined about the touchscreen-keyboard on the iPhone, but there are lots of people who are very good at using it.
(Ever wonder why there are bumps on letters J and F on your keyboard?)
To help touch-typists place their fingers. Not all are touch-typists, however.
If you have a new HDTV, than most likely the TV can display your photos and play a lot of video formats. Mine plays videos from youtube, Philips 9000 series. And on 42" TV there is no need for "pinch to zoom".
So all you need to do is to carry your HDTV with you wherever you fo....