I wasn't "laying drunkenly" under a truck, I was just crouched, waiting for a car to pass. Not drooling, singing loudly, or swearing at frightened passers-by. I only had a little to drink, and wasn't sloshed.
False imprisonment and false arrest it most definitely was. I was not given a reason for my arrest, which is required by law. I was not told my accompanying them was mandatory (it isn't unless you've been arrested,) and I wasn't doing anything unlawful.
There are certain standards by which the police in my country have to abide, in order that they remain within the law. They did none of these things.
I know I don't have it anywhere near as bad as the average Mexican might have it with his "law" enforcement officials, but fuck me, that's not really an excuse, is it?
I love it that the US Govt. is trying to say that if France etc. use the veto, they'll go ahead anyway and them using the veto will undermine the UN.
The US is the most vociferous user of the veto and has used it 46 times.
The next highest is France with..... 19 times.
The veto's fine it seems, unless it goes against them when they really, really, really want something (and Rumsfeld's threatening a temper tantrum or something if he doesn't get his way.)
First, it was an articulated truck.
Second, I could not have been even remotely construed to have been trying to steal it.
Third, I wasn't arrested, I was effectively kidnapped, and assaulted. My rights were not read to me, I was also not given a reason for "arrest."
Fourth, I am under no obligation to identify myself, and whether I do or not, is hardly justification to be threatened, intimidated, and physically assaulted.
Fifth, all of what I've just said is included in the post you replied to.
Sixth, co-operating with what? "Tell us your name or we'll take you to the station and do an internal search for drugs," etc.
You can co-operate with that sort of thing if you want, and you are most welcome to the world of shit you'll have created for yourself, in your eagerness to be treated without common courtesy or respect.
You don't have to be black to be picked on by the police..... but it helps.
You frequently just have to be young, and male.
Here in the UK, I was picked up one night by the police. I was a little drunk and a little depressed. I walked down the local industrial estate (open to the public, public thouroughfare and all that) and saw a car coming.
I thought it was security and I didn't want to be hassled, I just wanted to find somewhere to sit, alone, and sigh. So I hid under the truck standing beside me, and waited until the car had passed.
Next thing I know, three pairs of police boots surround me and one of them says, "Are you tampering with that vehicle, Sir?"
I come out, and then am bundled into their police van, intimidated with threats of violence for the duration of the journey unless I tell them who I am (in the mood I'm in they can go fsck themselves) and I remain silent.
They take me to the police station an d order me out of the van, wherupon I say I'm leaving unless they arrest me. And while this PIG is manhandling me into the police station, and I repeat my demand that he either arrest me, or let me go, he says, "Right, you're fucking under arrest."
In the police station I'm told to empty my pockets, they take an ID card from me and phone my father, who, dipshit that he is, on the way home, tells me not to make a fuss about it. Dipshit that I am, I listen to him and don't do anything about the false imprisonment, physical and verbal assault, threats and intimidation and false arrest.
That's in the UK in a nice middle-class area of a small country town, and I'm a nice middle-class-looking white male.
Being young and male is enough to get treated like shit by the pigs.
Do people really prefer the "all you can eat" approach?
I know there's no way in hell I'd sign up for a subscription music package. I'm selective in my music tastes & sometimes I won't want to buy any music, and I wouldn't want to pay for the privellege.
AOL has master screennames, and if there're parents with kids, master accounts can set restrictions on net usage. It wouldn't be too difficult to set up a maximum quota system ("Ok, Johnny, you've got £2.50, for music downloads") or require a parent to authenticate a child's purchase.
Something like that would seem to take care of the "unexpected bill" phenomenon.
"If they want it to work, it needs to be a flat rate, like $9.95 per month (in addition to your AOL membership) for all the unencumbered MP3s you can download."
I respectfully disagree.
It seems to me that since AOL bills it's customers every month, via credit-card, they have a wonderful way to get around the problem of micro-payments.
They charge downloaded MP3's at 50p per-track, or whatever, with no subscription costs, and at the end of the month, add up all the 50p downloads, and stick it on the AOL credit-card charge.
£15.99 plus 12 MP3s @ 45p each = £15.99 + £5.40 = £21.39.
You get a detailed online bill, in your account details somewhere, with each track and cost, and you can buy a track as you feel like it, you don't have to pay any stupid subscription service, and the scheme is feasible since it doesn't incur the prohibitive credit-card payment the card company charges for using it's services, that would apply to small amounts: one big charge, inclusive of all micropayments.
What am I missing? It seems so simple, I've got to be missing something.
I agree. I also think Minidisks would be the perfect replacement for floppy disks, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been pushed.
People seem to be touting USB key-fobs as floppy replacements, but an additional factor that the floppy has to all those you've mentioned, right size, protective shell, etc. is that they're cheap.
I can slip one in an envelope and send it to a friend. I can give it away with relatively little cost to myself. Not true of USB Key-Fobs.
MiniDisks would seem the perfect replacement for floppies, I'd have thought.
The point of contact would not have happend to your twelve-year-old self in the timeline leading to the you that initially contacts your 12 year old self. That very contact would create alternate branches, none of which would have a causal link to the future self which contacts the past self. So that chain of causality is untouched.
Of course, since we're all one in the absolute anyway, none of this really matters.
Nah, the universe is fractal in nature, every choice branching off into multiple realities, ad infinitum.
The you at age 12 would still exist, as one single event of a miltiple of you before you contacted yourself, none of which would be contacted.
If you did take your own advice (and...would you? I mean I'd tell myself to go fuck myself, personally) then, the you after the point just before you contacted yourself would be wiped out, quite possibly, but the you before you were contacted would still exist, and without the you from the future of that line in time, to pass the fututre message, you wouldn't do it.
In other words, you'd wipe out everything in one possible universe from the point of contact if you did commit suicide, but not before it, and it would still continue from the point where your message fails to appear as if nothing had happened, which of course is true unless you make the same decisions exactly as you did the first time round from that point onward, in that timeline, leading to you contacting yourself in the past, which is not guaranteed not least of which because of a universal cognisance of the event which took place leaving a dissonance in it's wake, spreading backward and outward, so that at least at some point you'd not comply, realising the stupidity of your behaviour and eventually boring yourself/ves of the repetition of the fundementally self-destructive non-beneficial act and get on with doing something more positive instead, tike putting the telly on or something.
Your point seems too obvious to have been overlooked by any lawyer worth his salt.
It defies reason to think that this point could have been missed.
Anyone come up with a reason this doesn't apply?
My argument implies, at the least, good intentions, doesn't it.
I plead temporary insanity m'lud.
I don't know what I was thinking saying that. Maybe my optimism was in the ascendency. I mean here in the UK, the government has shown it's hand, and it's one ugly, controlling, Big Brother hand.
The Post Office gets to see what websites I visit??? Huh?
Er... what opinion? I didn't express one, other than that due to what I heard from a pretty reputable source, it might be worth looking into whether there is such a flaw in the US constitution.
You can dismiss my post without question or another thought, if you like. Print it out an use it as toilet paper.
I simply pass on what I heard.
As for reading the US constitution, I think I'll pass, and you can duly decide to consequently dismiss any utterances I make on the subject in the future as a result. Feel free.:)
Since, if it's true, it's going to have a much more immediate effect on your life than mine, maybe it's you who should take another look.
The Constitution of the USA
I'll wait for the news on the BBC or/., or wherever, if someone does find out if it's true. Besides I'm far too busy trying to work out what Mulholland Drive is all about, to even think of starting on the US Constitution.;)
"Who owns the copyright on "Redhead Sticking a Cucumber up her Ass?"
Er... that would be me, and I tell you what, it's been more fucking trouble than it's worth.
Not only do I have to contend with rip-off artists like the makers of "Brunette Sticks a Cucumber Up Her Ass," and "Blonde Shoves a Cucumber up Her Ass" (and all the sequels... fifteen at last count,) but I sue the maker of "Redhead Shoves Cucumber up Arse 7" only to find out that it was a large courgette and not a cucumber, and some dipshit had re-named the file.
$10,000 in legal fees down the toilet.
I've mentioned this before on/., but a fellow scientist friend of Einstein, wanted to get American citizenship, like his friend.
He asked Einstein what preparation he should make, and Einstein said that he should probably read the constitution.
He did this for days on end, apparently, papers scattered across his floor, as he looked at and studied the document.
When Einstein came to pick him up and make the journey with him to (wherever it is you go to swear the oath etc.) this scientist said to Einstein, did you know that there's nothing in the constitution to stop America becoming a dictatorship?
Einstein said that, no, he didn't know that.
His friend asked Einstein, do you think I should mention this to the fellow who'll be swearing me in as a US citizen? To which Einstein replied, that no, he should probably not say anything.
So, I haven't read your prized constitution, but, before you go and rely upon it for your well-being, you might all want to have another wee glance at it again.:o/
I think Atheism is just a belief, rather than a religion (a religion being at least the belief in a higher spiritual state.)
What does an Athiest believe in apart from that "God does not exist."
There's got to be more to a religion other than "I don't believe in cups," or other such simple thoughts.
Now, Humanism could perhaps be called a religion, since it has at least, ethical considerations and the like. Atheism it seems to me, however, is just a one trick pony, and that doth not a religion make, in my mind, anyway.
" Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!"
It's called panic.
It's also called over-reaction; unthinking-over-reaction.
It's the result of an unsophistocated mind (the present bunch of politicians) with an adolescent emotional state, being exposed to an alarming event: wild thrashing about; bombastic, over-reaction; "Attack! Attack! Attack!" mentality.
It's not the behaviour of a mature mind; a thoughtful soul, or a being with a well-developed emotional state.
They say, it's when the shit hits the fan, that you find out what you're made of, and America has found out (well, those who are paying attention, anyway) that their politicians are a bunch of foolish, ignorant, loud-mouthed-empty-headded, adolescents, with a case of egomania/megalomania, that has suddenly arisen from it's (somewhat more) dormant "natural" state, and that basically they don't really know what the fuck to do.... so they're doing anything their undeveloped, tiny little minds can think of.
In other words, without really thinking things through.
"While it does stop some fair use (depending on the technology), I think calling it "anti-piracy technology" is completely appropriate. That is what it is designed for, and the major task it accomplishes. Saying it isn't descriptive enough is like saying the alarm system on a car shouldn't be called an "anti-theft device" because it also stops the rightful owner of breaking in when he loses his keys. Nit-picking at terminology isn't going to help the actual battle."
You're right of course.
Then again, I have to say I'm pretty unhappy with that nutcracker I bought that was shaped like a sledgehammer.... all it leaves is a little walnut-shaped stain.:(
In Glasgow, Scotland, an anti-war protest has been banned.
In London, England, an anti-war protest was banned because it would ruin the grass in Hyde Park!!!
It has subsequently been allowed after much protest (and some ridicule.)
These bastards (read supposedly democratic politicians) are using our power for their own selfish, personal ends.
Democracy, in it's real sense, has ceased to exist in the UK and the US for some time now.
The "Watershed" is an English euphemysm for toilet. Here in the UK, we are culturally obliged to defecate only after the Queen has done so. Our ruler takes her dump at 8:45pm, and therefore, allowing for blockages, we may only partake of the pinching of the loaf, at 9pm.
Post-watershed, therefore means, "after the Queen has pooped," or "after 9pm," when we can at last excrete; emit our waste; send the chocolate canoe down the porcaline rapids, etc.
In later years it has also come to mean the time when they put all the more "adult" stuff on the telly.:)
I'm currently trying out Opera, and I have to say I've found it more buggy than IE6.
I love the mouse gestures, but the cookie handling is rubbish, and the page size is buggy; if I load a long/. article, I'm forced to view it at 100% size or lower, as above that, the screen goes all screwy.
And the bookmark folders: if you're trying to move a folder up above another in a line of several folders, it will only let you put the folder INSIDE the above folder. That's a bit messed up.
As it stands, I'm not paying £25 for something this poorly implemented.
Lol. It was just a turn of phrase used to make a point. It wasn't really meant to be looked at too deeply as a deposition of the historical impact of nations conquering nations!
Since you bring it up though, I'll tell you why I don't think the British empire was a Nazi state, take a look at what happened in India.
Sure the British did some bad things there [as well as some good] but when the time came, and the Indian people rebelled, peacefully, the British got the point and it wasn't in their hearts to slaughter them all, bung them in ovens, create lamp-shades out of their skin, or nice book-covers, or generally behave like... well Nazis.
They got out: ultimately, they were human beings and not vicious Nazis with a belief and love for the viciousness of nature; the crushing of the weak.
Ah, but you underestimate the intelligence of people.
A couple of years ago there was a local referrendum for a town which was going to have a new hospital built.
The council who supported the controversial PPP [Public Private Partnership - Privately owned hospital hired by the public effectively] framed the referrendum in such a way.
It was basically "Would you like a lovely new hospital with new machines, excellent healthcare and loads of beds?"
"Or, would you prefer dying in agony, ignored by underpaid overworked trainee doctors on a trolley in a filthy coridoor, in the current hospital?"
Apparently a huge majority wanted to die!
The new hospital was rejected... or rather the privatised hospital was.
Slashdot Mirror
Actualy you haven't cleared anything up.
I wasn't "laying drunkenly" under a truck, I was just crouched, waiting for a car to pass. Not drooling, singing loudly, or swearing at frightened passers-by. I only had a little to drink, and wasn't sloshed.
False imprisonment and false arrest it most definitely was. I was not given a reason for my arrest, which is required by law. I was not told my accompanying them was mandatory (it isn't unless you've been arrested,) and I wasn't doing anything unlawful.
There are certain standards by which the police in my country have to abide, in order that they remain within the law. They did none of these things.
I know I don't have it anywhere near as bad as the average Mexican might have it with his "law" enforcement officials, but fuck me, that's not really an excuse, is it?
I love it that the US Govt. is trying to say that if France etc. use the veto, they'll go ahead anyway and them using the veto will undermine the UN.
The US is the most vociferous user of the veto and has used it 46 times.
The next highest is France with..... 19 times.
The veto's fine it seems, unless it goes against them when they really, really, really want something (and Rumsfeld's threatening a temper tantrum or something if he doesn't get his way.)
First, it was an articulated truck.
Second, I could not have been even remotely construed to have been trying to steal it.
Third, I wasn't arrested, I was effectively kidnapped, and assaulted. My rights were not read to me, I was also not given a reason for "arrest."
Fourth, I am under no obligation to identify myself, and whether I do or not, is hardly justification to be threatened, intimidated, and physically assaulted.
Fifth, all of what I've just said is included in the post you replied to.
Sixth, co-operating with what? "Tell us your name or we'll take you to the station and do an internal search for drugs," etc.
You can co-operate with that sort of thing if you want, and you are most welcome to the world of shit you'll have created for yourself, in your eagerness to be treated without common courtesy or respect.
You don't have to be black to be picked on by the police..... but it helps.
You frequently just have to be young, and male.
Here in the UK, I was picked up one night by the police. I was a little drunk and a little depressed. I walked down the local industrial estate (open to the public, public thouroughfare and all that) and saw a car coming.
I thought it was security and I didn't want to be hassled, I just wanted to find somewhere to sit, alone, and sigh. So I hid under the truck standing beside me, and waited until the car had passed.
Next thing I know, three pairs of police boots surround me and one of them says, "Are you tampering with that vehicle, Sir?"
I come out, and then am bundled into their police van, intimidated with threats of violence for the duration of the journey unless I tell them who I am (in the mood I'm in they can go fsck themselves) and I remain silent.
They take me to the police station an d order me out of the van, wherupon I say I'm leaving unless they arrest me. And while this PIG is manhandling me into the police station, and I repeat my demand that he either arrest me, or let me go, he says, "Right, you're fucking under arrest."
In the police station I'm told to empty my pockets, they take an ID card from me and phone my father, who, dipshit that he is, on the way home, tells me not to make a fuss about it. Dipshit that I am, I listen to him and don't do anything about the false imprisonment, physical and verbal assault, threats and intimidation and false arrest.
That's in the UK in a nice middle-class area of a small country town, and I'm a nice middle-class-looking white male.
Being young and male is enough to get treated like shit by the pigs.
Do people really prefer the "all you can eat" approach?
I know there's no way in hell I'd sign up for a subscription music package. I'm selective in my music tastes & sometimes I won't want to buy any music, and I wouldn't want to pay for the privellege.
AOL has master screennames, and if there're parents with kids, master accounts can set restrictions on net usage. It wouldn't be too difficult to set up a maximum quota system ("Ok, Johnny, you've got £2.50, for music downloads") or require a parent to authenticate a child's purchase.
Something like that would seem to take care of the "unexpected bill" phenomenon.
"If they want it to work, it needs to be a flat rate, like $9.95 per month (in addition to your AOL membership) for all the unencumbered MP3s you can download."
I respectfully disagree.
It seems to me that since AOL bills it's customers every month, via credit-card, they have a wonderful way to get around the problem of micro-payments.
They charge downloaded MP3's at 50p per-track, or whatever, with no subscription costs, and at the end of the month, add up all the 50p downloads, and stick it on the AOL credit-card charge.
£15.99 plus 12 MP3s @ 45p each = £15.99 + £5.40 = £21.39.
You get a detailed online bill, in your account details somewhere, with each track and cost, and you can buy a track as you feel like it, you don't have to pay any stupid subscription service, and the scheme is feasible since it doesn't incur the prohibitive credit-card payment the card company charges for using it's services, that would apply to small amounts: one big charge, inclusive of all micropayments.
What am I missing? It seems so simple, I've got to be missing something.
Let's not forget the Pixies' Surfer Rosa.
The CD was not a replacement for the Compact cassette, it was a replacement for the Long Playing vinyl record, over which it has significant benefits.
I agree.
I also think Minidisks would be the perfect replacement for floppy disks, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been pushed.
People seem to be touting USB key-fobs as floppy replacements, but an additional factor that the floppy has to all those you've mentioned, right size, protective shell, etc. is that they're cheap.
I can slip one in an envelope and send it to a friend. I can give it away with relatively little cost to myself. Not true of USB Key-Fobs.
MiniDisks would seem the perfect replacement for floppies, I'd have thought.
You're right (like I know!)
The point of contact would not have happend to your twelve-year-old self in the timeline leading to the you that initially contacts your 12 year old self. That very contact would create alternate branches, none of which would have a causal link to the future self which contacts the past self. So that chain of causality is untouched.
Of course, since we're all one in the absolute anyway, none of this really matters.
Nah, the universe is fractal in nature, every choice branching off into multiple realities, ad infinitum.
The you at age 12 would still exist, as one single event of a miltiple of you before you contacted yourself, none of which would be contacted.
If you did take your own advice (and...would you? I mean I'd tell myself to go fuck myself, personally) then, the you after the point just before you contacted yourself would be wiped out, quite possibly, but the you before you were contacted would still exist, and without the you from the future of that line in time, to pass the fututre message, you wouldn't do it.
In other words, you'd wipe out everything in one possible universe from the point of contact if you did commit suicide, but not before it, and it would still continue from the point where your message fails to appear as if nothing had happened, which of course is true unless you make the same decisions exactly as you did the first time round from that point onward, in that timeline, leading to you contacting yourself in the past, which is not guaranteed not least of which because of a universal cognisance of the event which took place leaving a dissonance in it's wake, spreading backward and outward, so that at least at some point you'd not comply, realising the stupidity of your behaviour and eventually boring yourself/ves of the repetition of the fundementally self-destructive non-beneficial act and get on with doing something more positive instead, tike putting the telly on or something.
Possibly.
Your point seems too obvious to have been overlooked by any lawyer worth his salt.
It defies reason to think that this point could have been missed.
Anyone come up with a reason this doesn't apply?
My argument implies, at the least, good intentions, doesn't it.
I plead temporary insanity m'lud.
I don't know what I was thinking saying that. Maybe my optimism was in the ascendency. I mean here in the UK, the government has shown it's hand, and it's one ugly, controlling, Big Brother hand.
The Post Office gets to see what websites I visit??? Huh?
Yeah, I withdraw my my earlier post.
Thankyou.
Er... what opinion? I didn't express one, other than that due to what I heard from a pretty reputable source, it might be worth looking into whether there is such a flaw in the US constitution.
:)
/., or wherever, if someone does find out if it's true. Besides I'm far too busy trying to work out what Mulholland Drive is all about, to even think of starting on the US Constitution. ;)
You can dismiss my post without question or another thought, if you like. Print it out an use it as toilet paper.
I simply pass on what I heard.
As for reading the US constitution, I think I'll pass, and you can duly decide to consequently dismiss any utterances I make on the subject in the future as a result. Feel free.
Since, if it's true, it's going to have a much more immediate effect on your life than mine, maybe it's you who should take another look.
The Constitution of the USA
I'll wait for the news on the BBC or
Touchy!
"Who owns the copyright on "Redhead Sticking a Cucumber up her Ass?"
Er... that would be me, and I tell you what, it's been more fucking trouble than it's worth.
Not only do I have to contend with rip-off artists like the makers of "Brunette Sticks a Cucumber Up Her Ass," and "Blonde Shoves a Cucumber up Her Ass" (and all the sequels... fifteen at last count,) but I sue the maker of "Redhead Shoves Cucumber up Arse 7" only to find out that it was a large courgette and not a cucumber, and some dipshit had re-named the file.
$10,000 in legal fees down the toilet.
IP is a minefield, I tell ya.
...that you're always going on about.
/., but a fellow scientist friend of Einstein, wanted to get American citizenship, like his friend.
:o/
I've mentioned this before on
He asked Einstein what preparation he should make, and Einstein said that he should probably read the constitution.
He did this for days on end, apparently, papers scattered across his floor, as he looked at and studied the document.
When Einstein came to pick him up and make the journey with him to (wherever it is you go to swear the oath etc.) this scientist said to Einstein, did you know that there's nothing in the constitution to stop America becoming a dictatorship?
Einstein said that, no, he didn't know that.
His friend asked Einstein, do you think I should mention this to the fellow who'll be swearing me in as a US citizen? To which Einstein replied, that no, he should probably not say anything.
So, I haven't read your prized constitution, but, before you go and rely upon it for your well-being, you might all want to have another wee glance at it again.
I have to say I disagree.
I think Atheism is just a belief, rather than a religion (a religion being at least the belief in a higher spiritual state.)
What does an Athiest believe in apart from that "God does not exist."
There's got to be more to a religion other than "I don't believe in cups," or other such simple thoughts.
Now, Humanism could perhaps be called a religion, since it has at least, ethical considerations and the like.
Atheism it seems to me, however, is just a one trick pony, and that doth not a religion make, in my mind, anyway.
" Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!"
It's called panic.
It's also called over-reaction; unthinking-over-reaction.
It's the result of an unsophistocated mind (the present bunch of politicians) with an adolescent emotional state, being exposed to an alarming event: wild thrashing about; bombastic, over-reaction; "Attack! Attack! Attack!" mentality.
It's not the behaviour of a mature mind; a thoughtful soul, or a being with a well-developed emotional state.
They say, it's when the shit hits the fan, that you find out what you're made of, and America has found out (well, those who are paying attention, anyway) that their politicians are a bunch of foolish, ignorant, loud-mouthed-empty-headded, adolescents, with a case of egomania/megalomania, that has suddenly arisen from it's (somewhat more) dormant "natural" state, and that basically they don't really know what the fuck to do.... so they're doing anything their undeveloped, tiny little minds can think of.
In other words, without really thinking things through.
"While it does stop some fair use (depending on the technology), I think calling it "anti-piracy technology" is completely appropriate. That is what it is designed for, and the major task it accomplishes. Saying it isn't descriptive enough is like saying the alarm system on a car shouldn't be called an "anti-theft device" because it also stops the rightful owner of breaking in when he loses his keys. Nit-picking at terminology isn't going to help the actual battle."
:(
You're right of course.
Then again, I have to say I'm pretty unhappy with that nutcracker I bought that was shaped like a sledgehammer.... all it leaves is a little walnut-shaped stain.
In Glasgow, Scotland, an anti-war protest has been banned.
In London, England, an anti-war protest was banned because it would ruin the grass in Hyde Park!!!
It has subsequently been allowed after much protest (and some ridicule.)
These bastards (read supposedly democratic politicians) are using our power for their own selfish, personal ends.
Democracy, in it's real sense, has ceased to exist in the UK and the US for some time now.
The "Watershed" is an English euphemysm for toilet. Here in the UK, we are culturally obliged to defecate only after the Queen has done so. Our ruler takes her dump at 8:45pm, and therefore, allowing for blockages, we may only partake of the pinching of the loaf, at 9pm.
:)
Post-watershed, therefore means, "after the Queen has pooped," or "after 9pm," when we can at last excrete; emit our waste; send the chocolate canoe down the porcaline rapids, etc.
In later years it has also come to mean the time when they put all the more "adult" stuff on the telly.
I'm currently trying out Opera, and I have to say I've found it more buggy than IE6. /. article, I'm forced to view it at 100% size or lower, as above that, the screen goes all screwy.
:)
I love the mouse gestures, but the cookie handling is rubbish, and the page size is buggy; if I load a long
And the bookmark folders: if you're trying to move a folder up above another in a line of several folders, it will only let you put the folder INSIDE the above folder. That's a bit messed up.
As it stands, I'm not paying £25 for something this poorly implemented.
But I love the mouse gestures.
Lol. It was just a turn of phrase used to make a point. It wasn't really meant to be looked at too deeply as a deposition of the historical impact of nations conquering nations!
Since you bring it up though, I'll tell you why I don't think the British empire was a Nazi state, take a look at what happened in India.
Sure the British did some bad things there [as well as some good] but when the time came, and the Indian people rebelled, peacefully, the British got the point and it wasn't in their hearts to slaughter them all, bung them in ovens, create lamp-shades out of their skin, or nice book-covers, or generally behave like... well Nazis.
They got out: ultimately, they were human beings and not vicious Nazis with a belief and love for the viciousness of nature; the crushing of the weak.
One of the most evil in human history indeed!
Ah, but you underestimate the intelligence of people.
A couple of years ago there was a local referrendum for a town which was going to have a new hospital built.
The council who supported the controversial PPP [Public Private Partnership - Privately owned hospital hired by the public effectively] framed the referrendum in such a way.
It was basically "Would you like a lovely new hospital with new machines, excellent healthcare and loads of beds?"
"Or, would you prefer dying in agony, ignored by underpaid overworked trainee doctors on a trolley in a filthy coridoor, in the current hospital?"
Apparently a huge majority wanted to die!
The new hospital was rejected... or rather the privatised hospital was.
I think they saw through the crap.