There's a good reason why they bash Israel - Israel are a bunch of murdering fucking bastards who have continually defied the ruling of the UN (and hence the wider international community) for nearly 40 years.
BOYCOTT ISRAEL - Don't buy their produce, don't do business with them. It worked for South Africa.
We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic.
This meme seems to be cropping up a lot at the moment. Shame you don't understand it. Now will you yanks please shut the fuck up about democracy and freedom (you're not very good at that either).
I'll try to remember that when they threaten to throw me in jail for not paying my taxes that pays for "services" I didn't ask for.
Then if it doesn't tax you too much try remembering that you wouldn't have been thrown in jail if you hadn't used the services (no quotes necessary) you didn't "ask" for! (No TV, no Licence Fee needed)
Almost right. It comes from a bunch of whining liberals spread all across the globe, few of whom have had their daughters raped and strangled with their own pantyhose.
So you'll be one of those whining fascists we keep hearing about these days. What a cupid stunt.
Re:The solution is to move money over from welfare
on
Order in the e-Court!
·
· Score: 1
Quite simply, what a load a shit! Forget barbarians at the gates, you want them inside! Over here in corrupt old Europe we believe that a civilised society comes from no guns, a strong welfare state and generally not trying to rip each other off. We have our problems but nothing like yours in America. Compare our crime rates, way safer over here. Compare our poverty levels, way lower.
Re:Death penalty must go + suicide is murder as we
on
Order in the e-Court!
·
· Score: 1
He doesn't own his own life? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
Huh? Of course he doesn't own his life. If he did he could sell it to somebody else. Contrary to the widely held view, there are many things that can't be owned: your children, land in many countries (you can steward it but not own it), ideas...
In fact, the biggest advantage of hydrogen over electricity is that currently, our storage capacity for electricity is zero.
Not true. We've been using pumped storage reservoirs for quite a long time - water is pumped up when demand is low and released through hydro-electric turbines when needed. The facility in Wales provides an essential buffer to the national grid without which we'd waste Gigawatts. The efficiency is not even at all bad either.
What is perhaps most difficult for us to understand is how many Europeans on slashdot can insult the US for things like the Patriot act (giving up a little freedom for security? DASTARDLY!) when the exact same thing is happening in Europe.
I didn't insult the US over the Patriot act. But what does piss us off is when the US (often on behalf of its big corporations) uses its influence to get similar measures imposed over here. After all, the only reason we're getting biometric passports is because the US has given us until the end of this year to introduce them or it will not admit our citizens to your country!
Not that we don't have politicos happy to have an excuse...
And what does your sig mean? "US Freedom of Speech - it's their only freedom and they'll make the goddamm most of it!" For one thing that's simply not true (and I'd love to argue the point with you if you're interested) and secondly, what is it in your psyche that makes you feel the need to advertise with some petty attack on America?
Ah, well that was a leftover from a previous debate with one of your compatriots over freedom of speech versus any other freedom with the belief that since we ban some things that are protected in the US we are not a free country. It does seem that this is your overriding freedom (and ISTR it is the only one enshrined in your constitution in the sense of "Congress may make no laws limiting" versus "You have the inalienable right"). Rights vs freedoms are not the same thing. And most of your other rights (particularly that to bear arms) seems mostly hot air - the crims and the govt will always be better armed and better trained than you.
Hitler isn't going to rise from the dead and turn all your children into Neo-Nazis just because a few people collect war memorabilia.
Trouble is that was exactly the fear in Europe through the 60s and 70s in particular. There were a lot of neo-nazi groups in Europe from Britain to Germany. And there were an awful lot of people of my parent's generation who did not want to see that rise again. This is even more acute for the occupied countries. If you've ever seen footage of these groups on the march waving their swastikas and dressed in nazi getup maybe you'll understand.
The balance here is the right of everyone else not to be intimidated versus a few and their right to free expression of hate.
FWIW, I fear ALL governments. The mistake is made by mayn Europeans (as well as American academe which at its core wants to follow European intellectual trends) that ther only government worth fearing is the US government
Who says we don't? I sure as hell don't like the Brit govt. But surely then the US as the only remaining superpower is thus the govt to be hated most! It meddles more in our affairs than ours do in yours...;-)
Yes, but they've done that when they introduced the "Politics" section. Note not the "US Politics" section. Once again the presumption is that only the US politics are worth talking about. Sadly given the way they throw their weight around they may be right. Can I have my vote please?
You may not understand this but we over here are glad that Nazis are proscribed and Nazi paraphenalia is banned. That does NOT limit our freedom of expression anymore than you are not allowed to incite murder. I wish you yanks would understand that.
There are several different things that come under the heading of advertising:
Product placement This is the most common where real world products are used in-game in a positive fashion. This kind of endorsement is not particularly intrusive and if done well is perfectly natural. After all, sometimes the fake products that appear in games and movies are so obvious that the real product gets endorsed despite attempts not to. Unless we're talking about Repo Man here of course...
Sponsorship of tournaments is common these days in the sports world but the sport benefits from this with the sponsor's money. So a sponsored game should at least be cheaper or have some cool features that would have had to be dropped without the sponsorship (imagine a set of sponsored skins and arenas for Unreal). But if the sponsorship is shallow and just an excuse to get the sponsor's name out and more money for the publisher, the punter should probably go elsewhere.
Adverts are something else altogether. These have a message. They have to be intrusive to a much greater degree or they don't work. Ads on billboards in game are sort of acceptable as they are a model of the real world. But what about interstitial ads between levels of the game (tried and hated)? Or what if you had to put up with a jingle every time you 'drank' a can of cola just to raise your HP?
Personally I believe that games funded by adverts should have this fact made clearly visible on the packaging so the consumer can make a rational decision. Do I want ads whilst playing a game - or not?
It's a shame too, a great country in so many ways - but a country that doesn't recognise freedom of speech cannot be condoned.
That'll be the USA then. But seriously, France does have freedom of speech - just different to yours. You aren't allowed to criticise your President in front of him. The French aren't allowed to promote Nazism. Why is it so hard for you Americans to understand this?
Don't you have rights of access?? This tactic is impossible in England. Once again, I'm glad that for all the talk of democracy and freedom, I'm NOT American.
Terrorism didn't start on 9/11/01 - the IRA (Irish Republican Army) had been killing innocent British people for 20 years previously, but nobody in the US cared then, did they? And terrorism was around long before that...
Actually quite a few Americans cared about the IRA bombings - they paid for them (NORAID), provided safe hideouts, shipped arms etc. The IRA would not have been able to maintain its campaign without US help.
And oddly enough we couldn't get the US Govt to do anything about it...
And hey, if you hate the French so much (and before it gets mentioned I was born of poor British, Irish and Scottish stock in NC and reside in WI now), right after you get done giving them the statue of liberty back and thanking them for helping out against the Brits and being the only other democracy back when we were and producing some of the best minds (and best food) of most of the second millennium AD, not to mention the french kiss, after you're done with all that, why don't you be a *real* bigot and go start killing them?
Oi! Toerag! We were a bleeding democracy before your colony seceeded just so's your rich gits could hold onto their slaves, maintain bondage and not pay taxes. So shut it, awright?;-)
(Your colony's official complaint was that we didn't give representation to the colonies in Parliament - kinda hard if we weren't already a democracy.)
what separates alchemy is its lack of scientific method.
Rubbish. Alchemy is one of the main practices that gave rise to the scientific method. Bacon codified what had been done by alchemists for centuries. Newton sure as hell was scientific in his pursuit of alchemy. It's just that much of the philosophical basis of alchemy was too entangled with magic and religion.
Fuzzy protections are easier to change and more open to whimsical interpretation.
While this is true it is also true that fuzzy protections are more amenable to case-by-case interpretation by the courts with regard to common jurisprudence (you have to remember English law is very case driven in practice with some very important but abstract principles behind it). The trouble with cast iron rules is they can be ruthlessly applied to situations the legislature did not envisage (or even opposed to the intention of Parliament). It all depends on how much you trust your day in court.
Naturally, Constitutionally protected freedoms are much stronger and more durable, though I'm baffled by your invocation of religion in this context.
Religous in the sense of a non-rational belief that the Constitution is immaculate, almost divine. I've encountered a lot of mindless faith in the US Constitution that I don't believe is justified. For example, you say "Naturally,..." - I just don't believe those freedoms are any stronger than the freedoms we have - just defined in our fuzzy way. (If I wanted to be rude I'd remind you that we abolished slavery first, provided full emancipation first and last had a civil war 200 years before you did.)
Finally I'm not arguing that we're better (or worse) than you - just that there are other ways to handle these things and the US Constitution ain't the final word on jurisprudence
A flippant dismissal of the Constitution belies the import of this instrument. Like many Americans, I take a certain self-righteous pride in our Constitution and believe it to be the best document of its type, though many are modeled after it. It bestows broad, immutable freedoms with simple statements and establishes robust mechanisms for maintaining good government over long periods of time or through dramatic changes.
I don't see my comment as flippant. "Self-righteous" is right (or bloody arrogant as we would put it) - your constitution is a good solution but not unique.
What I was trying to explain is that the English tradition has its advantages over the US tradition as well as vice versa. Our constitution is in several documents: the Magna Carta, the earliest of such even if not as lucid as the US Constitution, it provides many of the same protections - particularly Habeas Corpus; the Act of Settlement and the other foundations of the Third Parliament. Many of the main Acts of the 19th and 20th Century have constitutional status. OK the voting system is different - our check is the House of Lords which (at least in principle) provide a learned review of legislation particularly the major Acts. As with the US things go wrong but we have remedies.
The U.S. constitution seems to be in stark contrast to the direction the EU is headed in developing its constitution, and while I'm sure that statement could start yet another long discussion, it'll have to wait for another day.
Don't get me started - the EU constitution is horrendous. I'd much rather be signing up to a US style constitution - one I can read and digest in a few hours max. I may have to vote against it even though I'm pro-EU.
It seems in vogue to make fun of civil liberties in America and claim corporate domininance in this field, but my perception is just the opposite. Speech seems much better protected here than in Britain and most of Europe where there exists much lower standards for proving libel (which chills speach), fewer protections for parody against claims of trademark and copyright by corporations and incredibly broad restriction on hate speech, the definition of which is left to politicians who are currently in power.
I disagree. You make black and white distinctions. We're fuzzier. In the end I believe I have more freedom of speech here in England than you do in the US - particularly given your current fear and paranoia abused by Bush to silence criticism in a way that I haven't heard of since McCarthyism or the USSR.
Libel actions can only act against individuals here not corporations (which they could if they had the rights of individuals - McDonalds tried and lost). They're relatively rare and we don't tend to award multimillion dollar damages.
We sure as fuck take the piss out of trademarks and copyrighted items more than anywhere else - take a look at some of the comedy from the BBC over the last 20 years. Actually some of them you won't see because the BBC can't export them for fear of litigation in the US.
Finally, surely freedom of the press is prescribed specifically in both our nation's law books.
I'd rather the freedom be prescribed in the Constitution, which is the case when media corporations are afforded first ammendment rights.
I don't understand the distinction - both are by legal means. We just use different instruments. Or are you making a religious appeal to the Glory of the Constitution?
You have complete control over what media sources you consume and a plethora of options. It's when the government insists on 'balancing' your choices that you end up with things like four government-run TV stations and nothing else. Your frustration seems not that Murdoch controls the information you get, it's that so many people choose to get their information from Murdoch.
Again you are making meaningless distinctions. What is the difference between four government run TV stations and four Murdoch owned TV stations? Either way: no choice, no freedom.
Finally I'm not arguing that we're better (or worse) than you - just that there are other ways to handle these things and the US Constitution ain't the final word on jurisprudence.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a good reason why they bash Israel - Israel are a bunch of murdering fucking bastards who have continually defied the ruling of the UN (and hence the wider international community) for nearly 40 years. BOYCOTT ISRAEL - Don't buy their produce, don't do business with them. It worked for South Africa.
Huh? What kind of moronic statement is that?
This meme seems to be cropping up a lot at the moment. Shame you don't understand it. Now will you yanks please shut the fuck up about democracy and freedom (you're not very good at that either).
It is? Where's your proof?
What do you prefer to it: protectionism or socialism?
Socialism of course! I like the welfare safety net. I just wish it was as comprehensive as more civilised countries like Sweden and Norway.
And we used to take the piss out of the Russians for having holes in their maps?
Then if it doesn't tax you too much try remembering that you wouldn't have been thrown in jail if you hadn't used the services (no quotes necessary) you didn't "ask" for! (No TV, no Licence Fee needed)
So you'll be one of those whining fascists we keep hearing about these days. What a cupid stunt.
Quite simply, what a load a shit! Forget barbarians at the gates, you want them inside! Over here in corrupt old Europe we believe that a civilised society comes from no guns, a strong welfare state and generally not trying to rip each other off. We have our problems but nothing like yours in America. Compare our crime rates, way safer over here. Compare our poverty levels, way lower.
Huh? Of course he doesn't own his life. If he did he could sell it to somebody else. Contrary to the widely held view, there are many things that can't be owned: your children, land in many countries (you can steward it but not own it), ideas...
We certainly do - we invented it!
Not true. We've been using pumped storage reservoirs for quite a long time - water is pumped up when demand is low and released through hydro-electric turbines when needed. The facility in Wales provides an essential buffer to the national grid without which we'd waste Gigawatts. The efficiency is not even at all bad either.
England.
I didn't insult the US over the Patriot act. But what does piss us off is when the US (often on behalf of its big corporations) uses its influence to get similar measures imposed over here. After all, the only reason we're getting biometric passports is because the US has given us until the end of this year to introduce them or it will not admit our citizens to your country! Not that we don't have politicos happy to have an excuse...
And what does your sig mean? "US Freedom of Speech - it's their only freedom and they'll make the goddamm most of it!" For one thing that's simply not true (and I'd love to argue the point with you if you're interested) and secondly, what is it in your psyche that makes you feel the need to advertise with some petty attack on America?
Ah, well that was a leftover from a previous debate with one of your compatriots over freedom of speech versus any other freedom with the belief that since we ban some things that are protected in the US we are not a free country. It does seem that this is your overriding freedom (and ISTR it is the only one enshrined in your constitution in the sense of "Congress may make no laws limiting" versus "You have the inalienable right"). Rights vs freedoms are not the same thing. And most of your other rights (particularly that to bear arms) seems mostly hot air - the crims and the govt will always be better armed and better trained than you.
Trouble is that was exactly the fear in Europe through the 60s and 70s in particular. There were a lot of neo-nazi groups in Europe from Britain to Germany. And there were an awful lot of people of my parent's generation who did not want to see that rise again. This is even more acute for the occupied countries. If you've ever seen footage of these groups on the march waving their swastikas and dressed in nazi getup maybe you'll understand.
The balance here is the right of everyone else not to be intimidated versus a few and their right to free expression of hate.
Who says we don't? I sure as hell don't like the Brit govt. But surely then the US as the only remaining superpower is thus the govt to be hated most! It meddles more in our affairs than ours do in yours... ;-)
Yes, but they've done that when they introduced the "Politics" section. Note not the "US Politics" section. Once again the presumption is that only the US politics are worth talking about. Sadly given the way they throw their weight around they may be right. Can I have my vote please?
You may not understand this but we over here are glad that Nazis are proscribed and Nazi paraphenalia is banned. That does NOT limit our freedom of expression anymore than you are not allowed to incite murder. I wish you yanks would understand that.
- Product placement This is the most common where real world products are used in-game in a positive fashion. This kind of endorsement is not particularly intrusive and if done well is perfectly natural. After all, sometimes the fake products that appear in games and movies are so obvious that the real product gets endorsed despite attempts not to. Unless we're talking about Repo Man here of course...
Personally I believe that games funded by adverts should have this fact made clearly visible on the packaging so the consumer can make a rational decision. Do I want ads whilst playing a game - or not?Sponsorship of tournaments is common these days in the sports world but the sport benefits from this with the sponsor's money. So a sponsored game should at least be cheaper or have some cool features that would have had to be dropped without the sponsorship (imagine a set of sponsored skins and arenas for Unreal). But if the sponsorship is shallow and just an excuse to get the sponsor's name out and more money for the publisher, the punter should probably go elsewhere.
Adverts are something else altogether. These have a message. They have to be intrusive to a much greater degree or they don't work. Ads on billboards in game are sort of acceptable as they are a model of the real world. But what about interstitial ads between levels of the game (tried and hated)? Or what if you had to put up with a jingle every time you 'drank' a can of cola just to raise your HP?
Don't you have rights of access?? This tactic is impossible in England. Once again, I'm glad that for all the talk of democracy and freedom, I'm NOT American.
Sorry, who's the rogue state again?
Oi! Toerag! We were a bleeding democracy before your colony seceeded just so's your rich gits could hold onto their slaves, maintain bondage and not pay taxes. So shut it, awright? ;-)
(Your colony's official complaint was that we didn't give representation to the colonies in Parliament - kinda hard if we weren't already a democracy.)
what separates alchemy is its lack of scientific method. Rubbish. Alchemy is one of the main practices that gave rise to the scientific method. Bacon codified what had been done by alchemists for centuries. Newton sure as hell was scientific in his pursuit of alchemy. It's just that much of the philosophical basis of alchemy was too entangled with magic and religion.
What I was trying to explain is that the English tradition has its advantages over the US tradition as well as vice versa. Our constitution is in several documents: the Magna Carta, the earliest of such even if not as lucid as the US Constitution, it provides many of the same protections - particularly Habeas Corpus; the Act of Settlement and the other foundations of the Third Parliament. Many of the main Acts of the 19th and 20th Century have constitutional status. OK the voting system is different - our check is the House of Lords which (at least in principle) provide a learned review of legislation particularly the major Acts. As with the US things go wrong but we have remedies.
Don't get me started - the EU constitution is horrendous. I'd much rather be signing up to a US style constitution - one I can read and digest in a few hours max. I may have to vote against it even though I'm pro-EU.Libel actions can only act against individuals here not corporations (which they could if they had the rights of individuals - McDonalds tried and lost). They're relatively rare and we don't tend to award multimillion dollar damages.
We sure as fuck take the piss out of trademarks and copyrighted items more than anywhere else - take a look at some of the comedy from the BBC over the last 20 years. Actually some of them you won't see because the BBC can't export them for fear of litigation in the US.
I don't understand the distinction - both are by legal means. We just use different instruments. Or are you making a religious appeal to the Glory of the Constitution? Again you are making meaningless distinctions. What is the difference between four government run TV stations and four Murdoch owned TV stations? Either way: no choice, no freedom.Finally I'm not arguing that we're better (or worse) than you - just that there are other ways to handle these things and the US Constitution ain't the final word on jurisprudence.