Pretty close; it wasn't mentioned in any of my elementary or high-school textbooks. It was, however, mentioned in college, but not explored in any meaningful way, just the mention that some colonists (it implied that this applied to all the colonies) were "involuntary transportees", i.e. prisoners.
No, you're the one not listening. The media cannot make you look like terrorists if you do not act like terrorists. Don't bomb anything, don't scream or yell, and don't shoot other than timed, coordinated volleys of blanks. And state them to be blanks before firing. Be clean, neat, and well dressed, have spokesmen who do all the talking to the press, and insist on live coverage. That levels the playing field.
Arrange press coverage ahead of time, with world news rather than local media. (Call CNN and SkyNews Service.) This shows the world what you are doing (and therefore, what the government is doing) and also forces the local media to toe the line. Doing anything else only makes them look untrustworthy; most people for some reason trust CNN more than their local news.
The point is that you tried everything short of armed rebellion. Very well, try armed rebellion, and let it be known, make it a primary point of your statements, that the reason you are trying armed rebellion is that it is your last and only recourse.
The only problems are finding a large enough group of people to make it work (you would literally need thousands, and the more the better) and convincing evidence of even more popular support. And, of course, that you silly fools already gave up your guns.
1) It sounds and looks to me like Shirro is also an Ozzie. (He refers to Autralian media as "lying to us, and the time of his post tallies closely with peak time for EST of Australia.
2. I don't think boycotts against our primary industrys (I'm an Ozzie) will do much, except fuck up our export industries. It won't create a political uproar.
I think that was the entire point. Sending email to a government official does little good when you aren't a constituent, and they need to understand that outside people are upset by this law. Fucking up the export industries with boycotts and other protests will get the message across quickly, directly, and (hopefully) without causing much damage before the government sees the handwriting on the wall and gives in.
When they took away the guns, that was the time for protest. Armed, if necesary. You say there was a huge public outcry - well, that's when armed rebellion is called for. They won't use the army on you if it's the majority of the population, or even a large minority. The only time an armed rebellion will not work in an "open" society is when the people rebelling are a very small group - e.g. Waco, TX, USA, or the Montana Freemen. Organized protests of people marching on the capital with weapons would meet with a very different response - and if you had enough people, and marched in orderly fashion, the government would not dare do anything but back down.
Arrest you? How?
Turn out the Army? Sure, as a roadblock. With cameras galore. Simply go around - the army won't shoot, if they did it would be news the world over, and you'd have won, the troops involved would be vilified, and the government would fall.
Do not simply grab your guns and a hat and turn out to shoot cops, soldiers and politicians. Organize things. Make sure you have designated leaders for each group, and each leader knows each other and who's in overall charge. Keep together, keep it neat, and don't damage any property or trespass on any private property without permission. Keep to main roads to attract more attention. March to the capital, to the parliament building itself, and demand redress. It's dramatic if you can arrange volleys (preferably blanks) into the air. Surround the building and refuse to move or allow anyone in or out until your issues are redressed. Have a spokesman, and be sure to invite the press, world as well as local. Use them instead of fighting them.
Let's go colonize the moon. Frontiers are traditionally free because no one has the time or resources to waste bugging anyone else; they're too busy staying alive. Well, there's no frontier here on Earth. The solution is obvious.
Let's get off this germ-infested ball of mud.
No, you can't use that as your sig - that's my email sig. But you can have my old one - Happiness is Earth in the rear-view mirror.
Shit, I thought you wanted to AVOID protectionist government, and you want to put Ralph Nader in charge? I think I'm gonna puke...
I can't find a single flipping candidate I like. They're all a bunch of bastards that want to limit something or another. Bush wants to restrict religous freedoms, freedom of speech, and so on, while opening up businesses. Gore - well, what can we say about Gore. And those are the only real choices.
The UserFriendly Dust Puppy for President - aw, crap, he's Canadian. Can't be President. Uh... Hemos for President!
Humm... Have our government try and pass a law which will be overturned anyway or kill 12 kids a day in the name of "freedom"? How long until the gun becomes part of the school classroom?
As for the guns in the classroom - don't blame the guns. Don't blame the movies. Don't blame the music or the games. Don't blame Canada. (Sorry, just saw the movie.) Blame yourself.
My parents were firm, some would say strict. They spanked me when I needed it, grounded me for more minor infractions, and in general, they were parents. Name one case of a kid snapping and killing other kids where the parents were involved with their children and knew what was going on in their lives.
Oh, and I'll answer a quote with a quote. The full text - which I recommend you read, and actually think about, is here.
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
-Patrick Henry, of Virginia (May 29, 1736 - June 6, 1799)
1. Although the previous respondent was incorrect on point, he was correct in principle. The citizenry of the US are supposed to control the National Guard and other "militia" (the term used to mean a sort of citizen-army, police force type organization, like the British Home Guard in WWII) throught their local governments. The reason why towns and counties used to provide complete units was supposed to be so that they could execute local control. That way, any revolt would have a nucleus of armed troops who were also citizens to assist in the revolution. Which is where the South got their army in the Civil War - or the War of Northern Agression, if you're from the American South. The Founding Fathers planned on revolution - they understood what we have forgotten, that no strong central government stays pure for long. So they set things up so that if things got so bad they required a rebellion, the citizens would have, if not an advantage, then at least a chance.
2. If things got so bad that armed rebellion was necesary, it wouldn't be military forces marching into battle against farmers. It would be a war of assassination, bombings, and guerrilla warfare. Sound somehow evil and just plain wrong? Of course - the government wouldn't like it much. But that's exactly how the US won independence, with hit-and-run raids on British units, murdering troops who were quartered in colonial homes, and firing on marching troops from cover. Only on a very rare few occasions did troops fight troops, and those were usually either one-sided British victories, or occurred late in the war, with French weapons and training supplied to the colonials.
This is why the first right to be taken away is the right to bear arms. Once you lose that, the rest follows easily.
trikerider - I would like to apologize for my apparently fellow US citizen. Sometimes I long for Heinlein's government - elitist oligarchy with touches of libertarianism. I believe at least once he also advocated a voting system for "improving the breed" - go into the voting booth, find that the computer has generated a new intelligence-test type question for you. Answer correctly, and the screen changes to show the ballot. Answer incorrectly, and the voting booth opens - empty.;)
Well, the Republicans try to do this with every Congress, and the Democrats scream bloody murder every Congress. It never passes both houses, even if it did the states would never ratify it, and everyone knows this going in. Which doesn't make it any less annoying.
And how is it the first attempt? The second, fourth, fifth, and first amendments have been under attack again and again for a long time.
You are the perfect example of why this shit keeps happening in the USA. Everyone hates the idea, no one wants it to happen, and yet at the same time everyone's too busy laughing at the TV to pay attention. Until the perfect-teeth brainless talking heads come on at 11 to use their "serious" tones to read off from the teleprompter about some issue they think we should find important, and we all scream about it for awhile. The politicians move on it - got to show the voters they're Doing Something(tm) - and do something completely asinine and useless, but it has a catchy title and is something to throw out in perfect news-bite sized statements. And then we all go back to watching TV.
I think I'll move to Canada. Better yet, I think I'll go colonize Mars, NASA is beginning to piss me off with this robot shit. Who's with me?
The issue is not "are guns good or bad," the issue is "are personal freedoms good or bad." You are saying you prefer to give up your own rights, your freedoms, and your own right to determine your own fate, for what some might call safety and order.
Taking the guns away from the schoolkids will not keep them from killing each other. Being better parents will. And I don't mean by governmental fiat, either. Spend more time with your kids, pay attention to what they're doing, and treat them more like a human who will someday be an adult and less like a criminal, and you'll have less violence in schools. I guarantee it.
They don't usually put this kind of thing on the sports or comics pages...
I apologize if I'm being unfair - possibly I am, perhaps your news organizations simply aren't covering it. But from what I see around me, it's long odds you simply skipped over as "boring."
Of course, it also means much the same thing as FUBAR, depending on the situation. Which still fits the Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt definition - but there're times when it's better to just say "F*cked Up Data," particularly if the FUD may just be a perpetuated mistake.
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to incompetence." - Some Dead Guy;)
Looks to me like someone should be able to examine his own large intestine.
Tell me, have you ever made a mistake? That's all this was. I would never have suspected that an institution such as Harvard would destroy the data that way. Take down the site - certainly. But I would have expected that at most they would remove the site and order him to go elsewhere - but that they would provide him with the content, particularly if they were his backup tapes.
As a matter of fact, according to another site, Harvard is giving him a copy of all the content. Which is what I would have expected in the first place. I think someone overstepped their bounds in their zeal to correct an actionable problem, and that has now been partially corrected.
I would certainly give him a job. And server room as part of his compensation.
Heh. That was amusing.;) And scary, all at the same time...
Of course, they're probably filled with a warm glow of accomplishment at how many people are viewing their "message," since they're probably being slashdotted. Oh, wait, I forgot - computers are evil works of technology and are things to be used, not learned about. They won't check their logs.
Kids don't need to be watching people copulating online...That's not the way to learn about sex.
These are two separate quotes you (I presume, they were both ACs who sounded the same) made in this thread. I'll discuss them together.
Tell me, where should a child learn about sex? Behind the barn with that kid Jimmy down the street who stole his dad's Playboy? I've read several of your comments, and I don't see any solutions, just aimless whining about problems. I'd rather teach my kid that there's nothing wrong with sex per se, and hope that they're somewhat "normal," in that they could be gay, straight, bi, or a nun/priest, so long as they weren't a rapist or into anything truly harmful.
Parents can't monitor their children 24-7. Society has a responsibility to pick up the slack.
It takes a village, huh? Bullshit. Childhood is a part of life, and life means living. Childhood is not a prison with safety-padded bars. You teach your child as much as you can, but you have to teach them to explore and to learn on their own.
I broke my arm as a child, doing something I shouldn't have. Had my parents warned me not to? Certainly. Did I do it anyway, first chance I got? Damn straight. My own son is the same way, he just broke his leg doing something just as stupid. And he's being punished for it - by being in a cast for six weeks, being in considerable pain, and having to explain very fully and explicitly what he was trying to do and why. Did I know he would try it? Yup. I hadn't planned on him breaking his leg of course, and I was as scared as any parent when he did it - but you know, I wouldn't change what I did regardless. I see classmates of my son who don't have the sense God gave a mongoose because their parents shield them from everything. By contrast my son is a stubborn, intelligent, willful boy who won't take anyone's word for it "just because;" he'll try it himself. That doesn't mean he'll run out in front of a truck because he won't listen when I tell him that would be a bad idea; he can work out for himself that he'd be killed.
I'd say it's better to teach my children to be brave, smart, curious, and careful. Explore where you can, but look before you leap. Don't take anyone's word for it that something's wrong - but don't dismiss things out of hand, either. It all boils down to one thing - Go anywhere, do anything, try any experience. After you've considered the possibilities and judged the risks.
If my child is playing in the street - he won't be, he's got more sense, without 24/7 monitoring - and you walk by, certainly I hope you'll tell him to get out of the street, and I hope you'll tell me about it. But don't tell me how I raise my son.
Parents should be the ones raising their children. Period. Don't "empower" me, don't monitor me or my children, and you can take your "morals" (a nice, kind word for self-rightous interference in matters that don't concern you) and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. And if you're not sure where that is, there are a lot of internet sites happy to show you a close-up view.
A few misguided individuals aren't indicative of the entire group.
Ah, but a few individuals are indicative of the entire group, when those individuals are the leadership of the group.
Why are Republicans in favor of the Ten Commandments being hung in all public schools? Because the Religious Right asked them to. Less than 5% of the group, but they hold enough key positions to be very influential. Mayor Giuliani or whatever the hell his name is is being groomed as a presidential candidate in 2004 or 2008, hence his Senate race in 2000. That's another very influential position. Only a few people, sure, but they're enough to swing the entire party to a certain position if they choose.
Not that I'm defending Clinton or anything, but that was a compromise to get the Republican-controlled Congress to agree with it. The Republicans wanted a more "Let's ask, and if they won't tell, we'll burn it out of 'em" approach.
Tell me, do actually believe this? Why? Have you never in your life considered that there might be more than one side to the story? Or done any research? Hell, this is the age of cheap and easy research, use your machine for more than Quake, alright?
One more time.
I agree, all the pieces were in place in 1986. What got the ball rolling was Microsoft's marketing techniques to convince users that IBM PCs (and the clones thereof) were the way to go. Along the way, they convinced IBM of the same.
Verify it anyway you like, Mr. AC. The Wall Street Journal contains all the clues, with the benefit of hindsight. Or are you going to clame they're on Microsoft's payroll, too?
I thought I had made myself clear. I guess clarity depends on the eyesight of the beholder.
Here we go again... if we convince even one misguided soul it's worth it...
"Microsoft did NOT build an 'OS for everyone'. They bought a CP/M clone from some poor schmuck..." ad nauseum.
Yes, I know, I saw the movie.
Please. I beg you. To bastardize a phrase I'm sure you know, Read The Fucking Thread. I have never, not just here but anywhere, stated that Microsoft ever actually created a single product that lived up to its billing. I never hinted that Microsoft created the Internet. (I joked about it, but it was clearly a joke.) I never even said the PC was a perfect machine for novice users. I believe I said it was a better machine for hobbyists and tinkerers, and it was. Damn things were always giving you an excuse to pull of the case and replace, remove, or glare balefully at the parts of the interior. I should know, I did it.
What I did say, what I continue to say, and what I will repeat until someone gives me a valid freaking argument about it, is that they had an excellent marketing department.
That's it. They had an excellent marketing department, and because of that they managed to pass off their products as "the OS for everyone" (Microsoft marketing slogan) and convinced all those non-computer users that there was only one type of system to buy. Does anyone here dispute that simple statement with an argument not involving proof of their immaturity and stupidity?
For those of you still paying attention, let's go over this AC's (surprise!) comments, shall we?
In 1988, the PC was no machine for a novice end user. Don't try to kid us. We simply know better. Supported or not, a cheap kludge klone plus DOS3 was a pox on the end user you claim that is Microsoft's benefactor.
One word - cheap. That was my whole argument, and you aren't arguing with it. So tell me, what's the problem? DOS 3.x was a bad series. Worse than bad. DOS 5.0 wasn't too bad, and 6.x was actually pretty useable. None of that was relevant, because the damn things were cheap. And I love the cute spelling of klone. You don't have a handle 'cause "3l33t" was already taken, right?
Even after 1995, the PC still wasn't a real replacement for a Mac or a console. That's why a great deal of us bothered to put up with Linux.
Depends on the job. For drafting, you couldn't beat a high-priced workstation. But you could come close enough with a Wintel box running AutoCAD or Microstation. Slower, less stable, and not as precise, but it was one hell of a lot cheaper. And still irrelevant to the thread.
And just because NCSA or Netscape weren't spamming us to kingdom come, it doesn't mean that they weren't distributing the technology far and wide. It's just sick and demented that you would even think this a suitable type of argument. Microsoft didn't even start to really address the web until Netscape had already carved out a market.
It's just sick and demented that you're so narrow-minded your notepads are an inch wide. This discussion/thread/Sunday School picnic does not give one discarded monkey foreskin about tech users. We're talking about the entry of Joe Blow into the market. And I don't recall hearing one thing, not one, about Netscape or NCSA until after entering the market. Before the user had bought his shiny new box and started using it, the responses were closer to "Microsoft? Sure, everyone knows who Microsoft is. They make Windows, the business software. Apple? They made those kids' machines, didn't they? Are they still around? Netscape? What the hell's a Netscape? NCSA? What's the North Carolina Schools Association got to do with me?"
Your attempts to trivialize the entire rest of the market that existed and was delivering machines suitable for 'the rest of us' is simply not going to be left unchallenged.
OK, you lost me. I'm sorry, I just flat can't make heads or tails of just what point you're trying to make here. Do you have one? I don't recall saying anything about "the rest of us" that marked us - and I mean us - as trivial. Irrelevant, yes. Are you saying you want to be with the sheep and cattle who fell for Microsoft's marketing ploys? Alright, presto, you're a sheep. Congratulations, try to live up to your new status. Say it with me, "Baaa, Microcrap sux, baaaaa, I have no ability to form an intelligent statement, baaaaa, flame is my only form of expression, baaaaa...."
Many of us (myself included) LIVED different.
OK - pipe dreams do not count as reality, got it?
BTW, logging onto a BBS with a Usenet or Fido feed in 1988 was FAR simpler than attempting to configure a pre-PCI WinDOS PC.
WTF does a Fidonet or Usenet feed have to do with Joe Blow the guy down the street? Dialing a bbs with Terminal in Windows 3.1 was a snap. See those keys off on the right? Punch the right 7 to 11 of them in sequence (here in the US) and you were halfway there. And that's all there was in 1988, so far as the average home user was concerned. Most didn't know or care about that.
DOS is not an OS 'everyone can use' by any stretch of the imagination.
Covered that, let me see, four times already in this thread. With one exception... it was an OS 'everyone can use' in the imaginations of Microsoft's marketing department. Which is exactly the point.
Enough. I grow weary of fools. If you have a valid argument, post it. Otherwise, shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
Arrange press coverage ahead of time, with world news rather than local media. (Call CNN and SkyNews Service.) This shows the world what you are doing (and therefore, what the government is doing) and also forces the local media to toe the line. Doing anything else only makes them look untrustworthy; most people for some reason trust CNN more than their local news.
The point is that you tried everything short of armed rebellion. Very well, try armed rebellion, and let it be known, make it a primary point of your statements, that the reason you are trying armed rebellion is that it is your last and only recourse.
The only problems are finding a large enough group of people to make it work (you would literally need thousands, and the more the better) and convincing evidence of even more popular support. And, of course, that you silly fools already gave up your guns.
2. I don't think boycotts against our primary industrys (I'm an Ozzie) will do much, except fuck up our export industries. It won't create a political uproar.
I think that was the entire point. Sending email to a government official does little good when you aren't a constituent, and they need to understand that outside people are upset by this law. Fucking up the export industries with boycotts and other protests will get the message across quickly, directly, and (hopefully) without causing much damage before the government sees the handwriting on the wall and gives in.
Arrest you? How?
Turn out the Army? Sure, as a roadblock. With cameras galore. Simply go around - the army won't shoot, if they did it would be news the world over, and you'd have won, the troops involved would be vilified, and the government would fall.
Do not simply grab your guns and a hat and turn out to shoot cops, soldiers and politicians. Organize things. Make sure you have designated leaders for each group, and each leader knows each other and who's in overall charge. Keep together, keep it neat, and don't damage any property or trespass on any private property without permission. Keep to main roads to attract more attention. March to the capital, to the parliament building itself, and demand redress. It's dramatic if you can arrange volleys (preferably blanks) into the air. Surround the building and refuse to move or allow anyone in or out until your issues are redressed. Have a spokesman, and be sure to invite the press, world as well as local. Use them instead of fighting them.
Now, of course, it's too late.
Hmmm... isn't THAT ironic - not that I disagree, mind, it's just that you posted as an AC...
Let's go colonize the moon. Frontiers are traditionally free because no one has the time or resources to waste bugging anyone else; they're too busy staying alive. Well, there's no frontier here on Earth. The solution is obvious.
Let's get off this germ-infested ball of mud.
No, you can't use that as your sig - that's my email sig. But you can have my old one - Happiness is Earth in the rear-view mirror.
I can't find a single flipping candidate I like. They're all a bunch of bastards that want to limit something or another. Bush wants to restrict religous freedoms, freedom of speech, and so on, while opening up businesses. Gore - well, what can we say about Gore. And those are the only real choices.
The UserFriendly Dust Puppy for President - aw, crap, he's Canadian. Can't be President. Uh... Hemos for President!
As for the guns in the classroom - don't blame the guns. Don't blame the movies. Don't blame the music or the games. Don't blame Canada. (Sorry, just saw the movie.) Blame yourself.
My parents were firm, some would say strict. They spanked me when I needed it, grounded me for more minor infractions, and in general, they were parents. Name one case of a kid snapping and killing other kids where the parents were involved with their children and knew what was going on in their lives.
Oh, and I'll answer a quote with a quote. The full text - which I recommend you read, and actually think about, is here.
1. Although the previous respondent was incorrect on point, he was correct in principle. The citizenry of the US are supposed to control the National Guard and other "militia" (the term used to mean a sort of citizen-army, police force type organization, like the British Home Guard in WWII) throught their local governments. The reason why towns and counties used to provide complete units was supposed to be so that they could execute local control. That way, any revolt would have a nucleus of armed troops who were also citizens to assist in the revolution. Which is where the South got their army in the Civil War - or the War of Northern Agression, if you're from the American South. The Founding Fathers planned on revolution - they understood what we have forgotten, that no strong central government stays pure for long. So they set things up so that if things got so bad they required a rebellion, the citizens would have, if not an advantage, then at least a chance.
2. If things got so bad that armed rebellion was necesary, it wouldn't be military forces marching into battle against farmers. It would be a war of assassination, bombings, and guerrilla warfare. Sound somehow evil and just plain wrong? Of course - the government wouldn't like it much. But that's exactly how the US won independence, with hit-and-run raids on British units, murdering troops who were quartered in colonial homes, and firing on marching troops from cover. Only on a very rare few occasions did troops fight troops, and those were usually either one-sided British victories, or occurred late in the war, with French weapons and training supplied to the colonials.
This is why the first right to be taken away is the right to bear arms. Once you lose that, the rest follows easily.
trikerider - I would like to apologize for my apparently fellow US citizen. Sometimes I long for Heinlein's government - elitist oligarchy with touches of libertarianism. I believe at least once he also advocated a voting system for "improving the breed" - go into the voting booth, find that the computer has generated a new intelligence-test type question for you. Answer correctly, and the screen changes to show the ballot. Answer incorrectly, and the voting booth opens - empty. ;)
And how is it the first attempt? The second, fourth, fifth, and first amendments have been under attack again and again for a long time.
You are the perfect example of why this shit keeps happening in the USA. Everyone hates the idea, no one wants it to happen, and yet at the same time everyone's too busy laughing at the TV to pay attention. Until the perfect-teeth brainless talking heads come on at 11 to use their "serious" tones to read off from the teleprompter about some issue they think we should find important, and we all scream about it for awhile. The politicians move on it - got to show the voters they're Doing Something(tm) - and do something completely asinine and useless, but it has a catchy title and is something to throw out in perfect news-bite sized statements. And then we all go back to watching TV.
I think I'll move to Canada. Better yet, I think I'll go colonize Mars, NASA is beginning to piss me off with this robot shit. Who's with me?
The issue is not "are guns good or bad," the issue is "are personal freedoms good or bad." You are saying you prefer to give up your own rights, your freedoms, and your own right to determine your own fate, for what some might call safety and order.
Taking the guns away from the schoolkids will not keep them from killing each other. Being better parents will. And I don't mean by governmental fiat, either. Spend more time with your kids, pay attention to what they're doing, and treat them more like a human who will someday be an adult and less like a criminal, and you'll have less violence in schools. I guarantee it.
I apologize if I'm being unfair - possibly I am, perhaps your news organizations simply aren't covering it. But from what I see around me, it's long odds you simply skipped over as "boring."
That's OK, we don't really have anymore either. We just like to pretend we do.
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to incompetence." - Some Dead Guy ;)
Tell me, have you ever made a mistake? That's all this was. I would never have suspected that an institution such as Harvard would destroy the data that way. Take down the site - certainly. But I would have expected that at most they would remove the site and order him to go elsewhere - but that they would provide him with the content, particularly if they were his backup tapes.
As a matter of fact, according to another site, Harvard is giving him a copy of all the content. Which is what I would have expected in the first place. I think someone overstepped their bounds in their zeal to correct an actionable problem, and that has now been partially corrected.
I would certainly give him a job. And server room as part of his compensation.
Of course, they're probably filled with a warm glow of accomplishment at how many people are viewing their "message," since they're probably being slashdotted. Oh, wait, I forgot - computers are evil works of technology and are things to be used, not learned about. They won't check their logs.
These are two separate quotes you (I presume, they were both ACs who sounded the same) made in this thread. I'll discuss them together.
Tell me, where should a child learn about sex? Behind the barn with that kid Jimmy down the street who stole his dad's Playboy? I've read several of your comments, and I don't see any solutions, just aimless whining about problems. I'd rather teach my kid that there's nothing wrong with sex per se, and hope that they're somewhat "normal," in that they could be gay, straight, bi, or a nun/priest, so long as they weren't a rapist or into anything truly harmful.
Parents can't monitor their children 24-7. Society has a responsibility to pick up the slack.
It takes a village, huh? Bullshit. Childhood is a part of life, and life means living. Childhood is not a prison with safety-padded bars. You teach your child as much as you can, but you have to teach them to explore and to learn on their own.
I broke my arm as a child, doing something I shouldn't have. Had my parents warned me not to? Certainly. Did I do it anyway, first chance I got? Damn straight. My own son is the same way, he just broke his leg doing something just as stupid. And he's being punished for it - by being in a cast for six weeks, being in considerable pain, and having to explain very fully and explicitly what he was trying to do and why. Did I know he would try it? Yup. I hadn't planned on him breaking his leg of course, and I was as scared as any parent when he did it - but you know, I wouldn't change what I did regardless. I see classmates of my son who don't have the sense God gave a mongoose because their parents shield them from everything. By contrast my son is a stubborn, intelligent, willful boy who won't take anyone's word for it "just because;" he'll try it himself. That doesn't mean he'll run out in front of a truck because he won't listen when I tell him that would be a bad idea; he can work out for himself that he'd be killed.
I'd say it's better to teach my children to be brave, smart, curious, and careful. Explore where you can, but look before you leap. Don't take anyone's word for it that something's wrong - but don't dismiss things out of hand, either. It all boils down to one thing - Go anywhere, do anything, try any experience. After you've considered the possibilities and judged the risks.
If my child is playing in the street - he won't be, he's got more sense, without 24/7 monitoring - and you walk by, certainly I hope you'll tell him to get out of the street, and I hope you'll tell me about it. But don't tell me how I raise my son.
Parents should be the ones raising their children. Period. Don't "empower" me, don't monitor me or my children, and you can take your "morals" (a nice, kind word for self-rightous interference in matters that don't concern you) and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. And if you're not sure where that is, there are a lot of internet sites happy to show you a close-up view.
Ah, but a few individuals are indicative of the entire group, when those individuals are the leadership of the group.
Why are Republicans in favor of the Ten Commandments being hung in all public schools? Because the Religious Right asked them to. Less than 5% of the group, but they hold enough key positions to be very influential. Mayor Giuliani or whatever the hell his name is is being groomed as a presidential candidate in 2004 or 2008, hence his Senate race in 2000. That's another very influential position. Only a few people, sure, but they're enough to swing the entire party to a certain position if they choose.
As opposed to letting children run wild and cause damage while shrugging and saying "boys will be boys?" Damn straight.
Tell me, do actually believe this? Why? Have you never in your life considered that there might be more than one side to the story? Or done any research? Hell, this is the age of cheap and easy research, use your machine for more than Quake, alright?
One more time.
I agree, all the pieces were in place in 1986. What got the ball rolling was Microsoft's marketing techniques to convince users that IBM PCs (and the clones thereof) were the way to go. Along the way, they convinced IBM of the same.
Verify it anyway you like, Mr. AC. The Wall Street Journal contains all the clues, with the benefit of hindsight. Or are you going to clame they're on Microsoft's payroll, too?
Here we go again... if we convince even one misguided soul it's worth it...
"Microsoft did NOT build an 'OS for everyone'. They bought a CP/M clone from some poor schmuck..." ad nauseum.
Yes, I know, I saw the movie.
Please. I beg you. To bastardize a phrase I'm sure you know, Read The Fucking Thread. I have never, not just here but anywhere, stated that Microsoft ever actually created a single product that lived up to its billing. I never hinted that Microsoft created the Internet. (I joked about it, but it was clearly a joke.) I never even said the PC was a perfect machine for novice users. I believe I said it was a better machine for hobbyists and tinkerers, and it was. Damn things were always giving you an excuse to pull of the case and replace, remove, or glare balefully at the parts of the interior. I should know, I did it.
What I did say, what I continue to say, and what I will repeat until someone gives me a valid freaking argument about it, is that they had an excellent marketing department.
That's it. They had an excellent marketing department, and because of that they managed to pass off their products as "the OS for everyone" (Microsoft marketing slogan) and convinced all those non-computer users that there was only one type of system to buy. Does anyone here dispute that simple statement with an argument not involving proof of their immaturity and stupidity?
For those of you still paying attention, let's go over this AC's (surprise!) comments, shall we?
In 1988, the PC was no machine for a novice end user. Don't try to kid us. We simply know better. Supported or not, a cheap kludge klone plus DOS3 was a pox on the end user you claim that is Microsoft's benefactor.
One word - cheap. That was my whole argument, and you aren't arguing with it. So tell me, what's the problem? DOS 3.x was a bad series. Worse than bad. DOS 5.0 wasn't too bad, and 6.x was actually pretty useable. None of that was relevant, because the damn things were cheap.
And I love the cute spelling of klone. You don't have a handle 'cause "3l33t" was already taken, right?
Even after 1995, the PC still wasn't a real replacement for a Mac or a console. That's why a great deal of us bothered to put up with Linux.
Depends on the job. For drafting, you couldn't beat a high-priced workstation. But you could come close enough with a Wintel box running AutoCAD or Microstation. Slower, less stable, and not as precise, but it was one hell of a lot cheaper. And still irrelevant to the thread.
And just because NCSA or Netscape weren't spamming us to kingdom come, it doesn't mean that they weren't distributing the technology far and wide. It's just sick and demented that you would even think this a suitable type of argument. Microsoft didn't even start to really address the web until Netscape had already carved out a market.
It's just sick and demented that you're so narrow-minded your notepads are an inch wide. This discussion/thread/Sunday School picnic does not give one discarded monkey foreskin about tech users. We're talking about the entry of Joe Blow into the market. And I don't recall hearing one thing, not one, about Netscape or NCSA until after entering the market. Before the user had bought his shiny new box and started using it, the responses were closer to "Microsoft? Sure, everyone knows who Microsoft is. They make Windows, the business software. Apple? They made those kids' machines, didn't they? Are they still around? Netscape? What the hell's a Netscape? NCSA? What's the North Carolina Schools Association got to do with me?"
Your attempts to trivialize the entire rest of the market that existed and was delivering machines suitable for 'the rest of us' is simply not going to be left unchallenged.
OK, you lost me. I'm sorry, I just flat can't make heads or tails of just what point you're trying to make here. Do you have one? I don't recall saying anything about "the rest of us" that marked us - and I mean us - as trivial. Irrelevant, yes. Are you saying you want to be with the sheep and cattle who fell for Microsoft's marketing ploys? Alright, presto, you're a sheep. Congratulations, try to live up to your new status. Say it with me, "Baaa, Microcrap sux, baaaaa, I have no ability to form an intelligent statement, baaaaa, flame is my only form of expression, baaaaa...."
Many of us (myself included) LIVED different.
OK - pipe dreams do not count as reality, got it?
BTW, logging onto a BBS with a Usenet or Fido feed in 1988 was FAR simpler than attempting to configure a pre-PCI WinDOS PC.
WTF does a Fidonet or Usenet feed have to do with Joe Blow the guy down the street? Dialing a bbs with Terminal in Windows 3.1 was a snap. See those keys off on the right? Punch the right 7 to 11 of them in sequence (here in the US) and you were halfway there. And that's all there was in 1988, so far as the average home user was concerned. Most didn't know or care about that.
DOS is not an OS 'everyone can use' by any stretch of the imagination.
Covered that, let me see, four times already in this thread. With one exception... it was an OS 'everyone can use' in the imaginations of Microsoft's marketing department. Which is exactly the point.
Enough. I grow weary of fools. If you have a valid argument, post it. Otherwise, shut up.