"Pave Low". Sheesh. You can spot right-wing nutcases a mile off.
Instead of posting messages about supposed left-wing undermining of the media, why not fight the "pinko commie marxists" by portraying Republicans in a good manner. Naming yourself after a bomb and slagging off people criticising your standpoint is just plain childish. You sound like someone from the mid-west who sports a buzzcut, and salutes the flag in his lounge every morning before going to work.
I'm not having a go at you, here. I'm saying this with all sincerety. I respect your views and opinions.
Yes, London got an absolute shafting in WWII, but so did many other British towns and cities. Coventry, for example, was almost wiped off the map. As for the RAF being able to defend London, how do you defend against a ballistic missile, falling to earth at over 4,500 miles an hour? Tommy gun?
"By the time the allies started bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe was already a wreck, completely unable to function"
The Luftwaffe were not "completely unable to function" - in fact, they were very effective at shooting people down. Coupled with their use of the "X-Gerate" (sp?) system of overlapping radio beams for guidance, they were one of the most formidable air forces we've ever seen. (The x-gerate system was eventually reduced to useless when the Brits realised they could pick up the signal, pipe it underground and re-transmit from a new location, while jamming the original, causing Nazi bombers to drop their bombs in the sea and land in Ireland).
One thing about the ethics of WWII - the Nazis had at their disposal weapons created specifically for civillian destruction, whereas bombing cities used standard military technology (albeit used in an unethical manner). The V1 & V2 had absolutely no military application (they had to be effectively hard-wired to hit London, so using them in the field or for mobile targets was useless). We were lucky the Germans didn't have time to use the V3 super-cannon (you can thank 617 squadron of Dam Busters fame for that score).
And to top it all off, the guy who was responsible for Germany's vengeance weapons, Werner von Braun, went to head up NASA's space programme (doesn't that make you want to reach for your stars and stripes?)
Yes, Germany shat on Britain. Yes, Britain and the US shat on Germany. The fact remains, however, it was German tanks rolling into Poland that kicked it off for us, not British tanks rolling into Germany. "An eye for an eye" conjures up images of immature retalliation, but in this case, it was kill or be killed. Germany had to be stopped.
"The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state."
I agree with that, with Germany's track record, letting Germany turn into an industrialised superpower immediately after WWII might not be the best option (especially for Poland).
Anyone who's been to Germany, or even talked to a German knows Germany is sorry. Really sorry. They know people attach very harsh feelings to their country (calling the french surrender-monkeys isn't in a similar vein - they surrendered with a remarkable haste, after having the Nazis on the run. Go figure.)
The one thing you hit the nail on the head with is America's foreign policy. To criticise it in middle america (or near any republican for that matter) instantly brands you a "commie marxist lefty pinko", yet it forces completely "un-american" principles upon the people it is in place to help. Ask an American what America is, and they're most likely to mention freedom and bravery. That freedom, however, is only afforded by America to Americans. All that talk of "every man is created equal" really doesn't ride. "Every American is created equal" is more apt, as even simple rights noted throughout time as being essential to human existance are systematically denied to those around the world who need them, on purely capitalist and commercial reasons. Whole wars are started at the behest of boards of directors. Millions of people are ear-marked as collateral damage before the bombers even leave the runway. If that's freedom, someone needs to get a new dictionary.
I know Americans are good people. Their government relies on (the abundant) staunch nationalism present in the US to pull the wool over the eyes of the common American. Slap a flag on a MOAB and it becomes a symbol of national power (to be saluted, no doubt), not just another bit of
The US valued human rights for about 10 years after the creation of the country. Its long love affair with slavery and the death sentence shows the real story. How can a country so hell-bent on freedom for all think it can take lives of people, or force them to work for no money until they drop dead? How can it have under-18s on death row? How can it have more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world? How can McCarthy have done what he did if the US was so determined to protect the convictions of every US citizen?
The real american foundation is hypocrisy. Say what people want to hear, but do what you want. If people believe America is so good that what the government tells them must be the truth, the government can do what it wants. That's been going on for decades.
The only thing America leads the world in is arms trade, and national debt. Oh, and racism. and genocide. and supporting terrorism. need I go on?
How is it a privacy invasion - you're on the public streets.
The key word there - public:
Open to the knowledge or judgment of all
You're not afforded privacy in public. If you were, everyone would have to wear blindfolds when they went outside in case anyone saw anyone/anything else. If you want privacy, stay at home;)
You don't get it, do you... Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they will do it.
And anyway, what's wrong with charging people for how much they drive? It seems more fair to me - charging salesmen who spend their working lives on the road more than grannies who drive once a month... what's wrong with that?
What data? They're not tying cars to number plates or anything - the only data they have is that a car was on the road at that time. They can't tie it to you, they can't do anything like that.
In Britain, we have the data protection act, which stands up for our electronic privacy, ensuring that companies/organisations only have in their posession electronic information they need, and nothing else. It also spells out what they can and can not do with it. If you break it, you're royally screwed.
You see, in the UK you can do that, and then request from whoever owns the camera that they send you the footage (for a small administration fee). That's the law over here, and people have done what you've suggested before;) Mark Thomas springs to mind.
Why do you assume it's to control people? Cameras on the streets are used by police and local authorities to track criminals (shoplifters, muggers, car thieves, etc.) when they know they're up to no good. The cameras are there for the people. The cameras watch over you, and if anything untoward happens, it's caught on film.
Cameras also let criminals walk around thinking they're not being watched. This means when they're running away from the scene of a crime they lower their guard. This allows the police to follow them for 30 minutes and swoop, without the criminals even knowing.
If you're scared of the cameras over here, you've obviously done something wrong.
Or, we could all put our tin hats down for a minute and realise it's to monitor traffic levels to help with congestion (in case you didn't know, england/scotland/wales are all on a tiny little island, crawling with what are affectionately known as "island monkeys").
Why are you jumping to the conclusion they're trying to track individual cars or people?
It's not spying - it's monitoring the levels of traffic on the road, not mapping out everyone's route.
There's a big difference between knowing a car is next to a lamp post and knowing it's your car, and you just came from McDonalds (after buying 6 mcnuggets and a big mac).
Anyway, being in public means you are not automatically entitled to privacy. That's what public means. sheesh.
No - the US gov't would say it's a "counterterrorism device", scare everyone into thinking they actually need it, put US flags on it, and every american would end up saluting every street light they passed, thanking god for Rev. Bush in the white house, looking over his little sheep as they sleep.
But the difference is, our government isn't using it to screw us over. The brits are not using it to get raids on dissenters' houses or cars (a la PATRIOT act). It's not being installed to "combat terrorism" or any such bullshit. We're not having our books tracked (why on EARTH would that be necessary - that's something that definitely doesn't need to be shared, and is a million times worse than this scheme - land of the free my ass). The US government is nothing more than a shady corrupt organisation, scared shitless of anyone who doesn't like how it works. That's why they're bringing in all this PATRIOT nonsense - keep everyone in tow, and they can do what they want.
And as for the cameras thing, if you're in public, how exactly is that private?? What right do you have to stop people looking at you in the street? Absolutely none. That's why it's called public. get it? I like the cameras anyway. I know if I'm ever attacked, I can go get tapes of it. Or, I can just call in the data protection act, and get hours of footage of me walking around:)
The US government is miles and miles and MILES ahead of every other nation in the world - when it comes to screwing over their own people. That, my friend, is a fact.
No, it is a scientist. You tell it what to do, not how.
It's like telling that calculator of yours "Answer question 5 on my mid-term". It won't do it. The roboscientist, however, has the ability to determine what it has to do to fulfull the request. Your caluclator can't do anything but perform simple mathematical equations that you put in it, directly. There's the big difference.
Commuters sit on those trains for about 5 hours a day (2.5 each way), 5 days a week. I'm sure having 25 hours of MRI every week isn't the best thing for you:)
That's the thing - your point about the swastika applies to the demon. It's instantly recognisable as a biblical icon of evil. It doesn't matter if it has a cutesy face and a wry smile, it's still a demon. Just like putting a smiley in the middle of a swastika doesn't make it any less of a swastika.
The very fact that it can cause offence is something marketing people try and stay away from (especially in computing - in fashion it's a completely different game). The slightest possibility of a company's brand being associated with the occult or evil forces isn't what people strive for (unless you're Mom's Occult and Evil Force store, in which case help yourself). It is, after all, something that could seriously backfire later on down the road.
Imagine if the Pope wanted to make the Catholic church 100% open-source, but then he saw some literature from BSD, plastered in little devils. He'd need a change of pants. That's exactly the thing people don't want - their business having negative connotations in some circles.
Seeing as how some Christians are already up in arms about 'nixes (apparently, the 666 permission gets to them the most - go figure), keeping the demon around might not help things. After all, 'nixes want to be accepted, not vilified.
Of course, but comparatively speaking, being flung along a buttload of magnets while sitting on an even larger magnet is a hell of a lot worse than sitting on your couch.
And, fyi, it wouldn't matter where I moved in the universe, electromagnetism is everywhere.
No, you just give it something and say "do this" and it does it. That's the beauty of robots - you don't have to convince them to do something - you just tell them.
Seriously, they have to shield it, otherwise commuters would die. Being bathed in electromagnetic radiation for 5 hours every day is not nice on your body.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of posting messages about supposed left-wing undermining of the media, why not fight the "pinko commie marxists" by portraying Republicans in a good manner. Naming yourself after a bomb and slagging off people criticising your standpoint is just plain childish. You sound like someone from the mid-west who sports a buzzcut, and salutes the flag in his lounge every morning before going to work.
You're not helping your cause.
Yes, London got an absolute shafting in WWII, but so did many other British towns and cities. Coventry, for example, was almost wiped off the map. As for the RAF being able to defend London, how do you defend against a ballistic missile, falling to earth at over 4,500 miles an hour? Tommy gun?
"By the time the allies started bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe was already a wreck, completely unable to function"
The Luftwaffe were not "completely unable to function" - in fact, they were very effective at shooting people down. Coupled with their use of the "X-Gerate" (sp?) system of overlapping radio beams for guidance, they were one of the most formidable air forces we've ever seen. (The x-gerate system was eventually reduced to useless when the Brits realised they could pick up the signal, pipe it underground and re-transmit from a new location, while jamming the original, causing Nazi bombers to drop their bombs in the sea and land in Ireland).
One thing about the ethics of WWII - the Nazis had at their disposal weapons created specifically for civillian destruction, whereas bombing cities used standard military technology (albeit used in an unethical manner). The V1 & V2 had absolutely no military application (they had to be effectively hard-wired to hit London, so using them in the field or for mobile targets was useless). We were lucky the Germans didn't have time to use the V3 super-cannon (you can thank 617 squadron of Dam Busters fame for that score).
And to top it all off, the guy who was responsible for Germany's vengeance weapons, Werner von Braun, went to head up NASA's space programme (doesn't that make you want to reach for your stars and stripes?)
Yes, Germany shat on Britain. Yes, Britain and the US shat on Germany. The fact remains, however, it was German tanks rolling into Poland that kicked it off for us, not British tanks rolling into Germany. "An eye for an eye" conjures up images of immature retalliation, but in this case, it was kill or be killed. Germany had to be stopped.
"The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state."
I agree with that, with Germany's track record, letting Germany turn into an industrialised superpower immediately after WWII might not be the best option (especially for Poland).
Anyone who's been to Germany, or even talked to a German knows Germany is sorry. Really sorry. They know people attach very harsh feelings to their country (calling the french surrender-monkeys isn't in a similar vein - they surrendered with a remarkable haste, after having the Nazis on the run. Go figure.)
The one thing you hit the nail on the head with is America's foreign policy. To criticise it in middle america (or near any republican for that matter) instantly brands you a "commie marxist lefty pinko", yet it forces completely "un-american" principles upon the people it is in place to help. Ask an American what America is, and they're most likely to mention freedom and bravery. That freedom, however, is only afforded by America to Americans. All that talk of "every man is created equal" really doesn't ride. "Every American is created equal" is more apt, as even simple rights noted throughout time as being essential to human existance are systematically denied to those around the world who need them, on purely capitalist and commercial reasons. Whole wars are started at the behest of boards of directors. Millions of people are ear-marked as collateral damage before the bombers even leave the runway. If that's freedom, someone needs to get a new dictionary.
I know Americans are good people. Their government relies on (the abundant) staunch nationalism present in the US to pull the wool over the eyes of the common American. Slap a flag on a MOAB and it becomes a symbol of national power (to be saluted, no doubt), not just another bit of
The US valued human rights for about 10 years after the creation of the country. Its long love affair with slavery and the death sentence shows the real story. How can a country so hell-bent on freedom for all think it can take lives of people, or force them to work for no money until they drop dead? How can it have under-18s on death row? How can it have more people in prison per capita than any other country in the world? How can McCarthy have done what he did if the US was so determined to protect the convictions of every US citizen?
The real american foundation is hypocrisy. Say what people want to hear, but do what you want. If people believe America is so good that what the government tells them must be the truth, the government can do what it wants. That's been going on for decades.
The only thing America leads the world in is arms trade, and national debt. Oh, and racism. and genocide. and supporting terrorism. need I go on?
The key word there - public:
Open to the knowledge or judgment of all
You're not afforded privacy in public. If you were, everyone would have to wear blindfolds when they went outside in case anyone saw anyone/anything else. If you want privacy, stay at home ;)
And anyway, what's wrong with charging people for how much they drive? It seems more fair to me - charging salesmen who spend their working lives on the road more than grannies who drive once a month... what's wrong with that?
Nice imagination ;)
According to your logic, seeing as most places have CCTV, they must be working :)
In Britain, we have the data protection act, which stands up for our electronic privacy, ensuring that companies/organisations only have in their posession electronic information they need, and nothing else. It also spells out what they can and can not do with it. If you break it, you're royally screwed.
Seriously, you seem a tad paranoid.
You see, in the UK you can do that, and then request from whoever owns the camera that they send you the footage (for a small administration fee). That's the law over here, and people have done what you've suggested before ;) Mark Thomas springs to mind.
Cameras also let criminals walk around thinking they're not being watched. This means when they're running away from the scene of a crime they lower their guard. This allows the police to follow them for 30 minutes and swoop, without the criminals even knowing.
If you're scared of the cameras over here, you've obviously done something wrong.
How can you argue they're bad?
Why are you jumping to the conclusion they're trying to track individual cars or people?
There's a big difference between knowing a car is next to a lamp post and knowing it's your car, and you just came from McDonalds (after buying 6 mcnuggets and a big mac).
Anyway, being in public means you are not automatically entitled to privacy. That's what public means. sheesh.
Paranoid?
The days of the american rebel are long gone.
And as for the cameras thing, if you're in public, how exactly is that private?? What right do you have to stop people looking at you in the street? Absolutely none. That's why it's called public. get it? I like the cameras anyway. I know if I'm ever attacked, I can go get tapes of it. Or, I can just call in the data protection act, and get hours of footage of me walking around :)
The US government is miles and miles and MILES ahead of every other nation in the world - when it comes to screwing over their own people. That, my friend, is a fact.
Looks like we get to keep our 1984 card... ;)
It's like telling that calculator of yours "Answer question 5 on my mid-term". It won't do it. The roboscientist, however, has the ability to determine what it has to do to fulfull the request. Your caluclator can't do anything but perform simple mathematical equations that you put in it, directly. There's the big difference.
Commuters sit on those trains for about 5 hours a day (2.5 each way), 5 days a week. I'm sure having 25 hours of MRI every week isn't the best thing for you :)
I'm well aware of the swastika's history and its use in various religions around the world. That was never in question. ;)
The very fact that it can cause offence is something marketing people try and stay away from (especially in computing - in fashion it's a completely different game). The slightest possibility of a company's brand being associated with the occult or evil forces isn't what people strive for (unless you're Mom's Occult and Evil Force store, in which case help yourself). It is, after all, something that could seriously backfire later on down the road.
Imagine if the Pope wanted to make the Catholic church 100% open-source, but then he saw some literature from BSD, plastered in little devils. He'd need a change of pants. That's exactly the thing people don't want - their business having negative connotations in some circles.
Seeing as how some Christians are already up in arms about 'nixes (apparently, the 666 permission gets to them the most - go figure), keeping the demon around might not help things. After all, 'nixes want to be accepted, not vilified.
And, fyi, it wouldn't matter where I moved in the universe, electromagnetism is everywhere.
No, you just give it something and say "do this" and it does it. That's the beauty of robots - you don't have to convince them to do something - you just tell them.
Seriously, they have to shield it, otherwise commuters would die. Being bathed in electromagnetic radiation for 5 hours every day is not nice on your body.
For any sort of organisation to have a logo which could cause offense isn't a good start.
After all, with your logic, a swastika is just a bunch of lines... how could that offend anyone?
They're not lying, so what's the problem?
touchy touchy ;)
USB (even 2) is nowhere near as fast as firewire - it shouldn't even be considered as similar.
And your proof it's trying to take over the world is....?