I get kids ask all the time "when are we gonna use this..."
Probably next time they surf the net - the core of history is proper handling of sources. You get people muttering all the time about kids not knowing how to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet, no one ever thinks to ask the history department to help.
I am more optimistic than you. I don't see the current erosion of civil liberties as more than a knee-jerk reaction (it is happening in the UK too, although possibly to a lesser extent).
The UK has been here before - check out this disambiguation page on wikepedia - the reaction to the "troubles" in Northern Ireland led to a number of people being falsely imprisoned, as well as other evils that go with reducing civil liberties in the name of security (when I was growing up you weren't allowed to broadcast the voice of Gerry Adams, any interviews with him had his words dubbed by a commentator!).
However I don't think it is the classical slippery slope. At the end of the day I just don't think a British government could enforce its will against a determined resistance by the people, and I don't think guns are important in that. You cannot govern a country of people who don't want to be governed by you, and who are sophisticated enough to co-ordinate amongst themselves to stop you. I can't see how the US could be any different - if tens of millions of people traveled to Washington to protest, coupled with a general strike and maybe picketing of oil refineries and ports, then the government is going to fall. More likely of course, people would just wait for the next election, and vote for someone who saw the oppertunity in giving them what they wanted.
I suppose I just think that democracy is stable - you can move away from it for a while, but in the end the equilibrium reasserts itself. Not saying that freedoms don't have to be defended, just that I'm pretty confident that defence will be succesful in any mature democracy.
People still died in the eastern block, you know. They would still have died, but wouldn't it have been nice if they could have take a few of the oppressors with them?
If you are talking about the actual revolution, then no I honestly don't think it would be - if there was anything that could have saved those governments, it would be being able to rally their loyal support against an armed opposition, and then being in a political position to use real armed force against the democracy movement.
The government controls the army. Unless the army deserts it, they can always win against any armed internal militants (or at least turn the conflict into a prolonged civil war which doesn't benefit anyone except those clinging to power). If the army deserts it then small arms in the hands of the poulation is largly irrelevant.
That's basically my argument, I think the concept of an armed population preserving their freedoms is a mirage.
Just on the subject of police, one of the great things about an unarmed society is an unarmed police force. By and large the British police do not carry guns. To be honest this is less the case than it once was (gun crime has been rising for a long time), and maybe we'll lose it at some point. But I've grown up (as did my parents and grandparents) in a country where the police do not carry firearms. I think that's worth something (worth, in fact, not having the right to own a gun without a good reason).
Sorry if I'm giving the impression of misunderstanding your position - you were quite clear in your initial post where you stood on the issue. I guess I'm just trying to start an argument, and your the only person who showed up. Sorry.
That said:) it's not you personally I have a problem with owning a gun. I was more thinking of my next door neighbours (and their kids!), I feel a lot more safe with them not owning a gun. "The Government" generally vets its employees to a level that I'm not worried about them shooting me because they got drunk.
Guns are dangerous, and I'm simply not convinced by the argument they are a guranteeor of liberty - how many guns did the old eastern block need to get their freedom? Would it have been better for Poland if they had had an armed insurrection rather than a massed, unarmed, popular uprising?
It's weird how that is such a common view in the US, wheras here in Britain the vast majority of people would think you were mad - it just seems so obvious that something so dangerous should be (at the very least) strongly regulated.
I've actually debated the issue with a number of articulate (and polite) NRA members, and I do realise there are good arguments that can be advanced. It's just that that Franklin quote seemed to be used at the heart of the 'liberty' argument* in favour of gun ownership, and I'm curious to know what will replace it in light of America's reaction to 9/11.
*as opposed to the 'criminals have guns and I have the right to defend myself' one (which maybe makes sense in a country with very high gun-ownership).
Me, I don't own one either. But it scares me that other people try to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to have one all the same.
Hey, thanks for reminding me about the gun issue!
I've got to find a gun nut and start an argument with him - I'm just curious what 200 year old literature they're going to quote me instead of "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
The graphic artisits and application-specific power users will not settle for emulation of their favorite applications. Thus they have to keep G5 on the desktop till all the applications like Photoshop and Maya have swithced over.. But that class of folks wont be using Laptops as their main machine.
Might piss off the audio guys though.. a lot of them are "application-specific power users" of high-end PowerBooks, even if they use desktops as well.
It depends. If you can't buy Quark x.y or whatever for a new Mac that will produce exactly the same output as an old one then it will be a significant issue to a lot of designer-type people.
And will you be able to get a free x86 version of a major PowerPC app you already own? If not the software upgrade costs will be a significant factor, especially for small shops.
I think there was actually something about "out of respect for this room, please.." etc. I can't really recall, but I can remember it left me deeply worried about the owners stability..
That reminds me of a holiday cottage I once rented in Wales. There was a note on the dining room door which said: "Please wear long trousers, not shorts, in this room."
I've been slightly nervous of the Welsh ever since..
There are two types of BT engineer. Those with grey hair (who are fantastic, and could probably get 1Mbit down two tin cans and a piece of string), and the younger ones (who it sounds like you have had the pleasure of dealing with).
There must be good, young, telephone engineers in this country. Does anyone know where they work?
I feel no reason to refrain from preaching to a European, since that s all they do to us
I obviously misunderstood your intentions. I thought you were actually trying to convince someone of your point of view. If you were just trying to vent some spleen against uppity Europeans you're doing fine as you are.
No, but the tone of your original post was unlikely to convince a European - preaching like that from an American makes non-Americans remember your foreign policy failings, rather than concentrate on our own (which I assume was the intention of your post).
....until the U.S. stops supporting democracy and the spread of democracy and joins with fat and happy Europeans who happily suck up to tyrants and miscreants for oil. It seems many of you would trade the misery of the Arab world for your own warm beds.
The huge sea change in US policy post 9/11 makes this statement somewhat fair today, but the US has been a leading appeaser of Arab dictatorships for decades, which makes your holyer than thou attitude somewhat ridiculous.
No, but it beats the hell out of it in general - without them... I actually checked - you do get a vaguely computer related hit on the first page when you use the quotes.
Personally, I find their reporting to be the very essence of "objectivism", as all good journalism should be.
While I'd mainly agree, you have to admit there must be such a thing as a British world view, or British bias. The BBC, by it's nature is going to be guilty of this. For that reason only getting your news from the BBC can't be a good idea.
From grandparent's list, I'd particularly recomend the Daily Star of Lebonon as a fantastic middle east English language paper (decent RSS feeds too). It's one of the reasons I love Google News - I find such great news sites through it.
Slashdot Mirror
A good example of this is the 'drawing an elephant' example given in this IBM document: pdf
I get kids ask all the time "when are we gonna use this..."
Probably next time they surf the net - the core of history is proper handling of sources. You get people muttering all the time about kids not knowing how to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet, no one ever thinks to ask the history department to help.
time to delve into .htaccess then, see if that spider can survive on a diet of 403s...
Windows is only free if your time is worth nothing...
I am more optimistic than you. I don't see the current erosion of civil liberties as more than a knee-jerk reaction (it is happening in the UK too, although possibly to a lesser extent).
The UK has been here before - check out this disambiguation page on wikepedia - the reaction to the "troubles" in Northern Ireland led to a number of people being falsely imprisoned, as well as other evils that go with reducing civil liberties in the name of security (when I was growing up you weren't allowed to broadcast the voice of Gerry Adams, any interviews with him had his words dubbed by a commentator!).
However I don't think it is the classical slippery slope. At the end of the day I just don't think a British government could enforce its will against a determined resistance by the people, and I don't think guns are important in that. You cannot govern a country of people who don't want to be governed by you, and who are sophisticated enough to co-ordinate amongst themselves to stop you. I can't see how the US could be any different - if tens of millions of people traveled to Washington to protest, coupled with a general strike and maybe picketing of oil refineries and ports, then the government is going to fall. More likely of course, people would just wait for the next election, and vote for someone who saw the oppertunity in giving them what they wanted.
I suppose I just think that democracy is stable - you can move away from it for a while, but in the end the equilibrium reasserts itself. Not saying that freedoms don't have to be defended, just that I'm pretty confident that defence will be succesful in any mature democracy.
People still died in the eastern block, you know. They would still have died, but wouldn't it have been nice if they could have take a few of the oppressors with them?
If you are talking about the actual revolution, then no I honestly don't think it would be - if there was anything that could have saved those governments, it would be being able to rally their loyal support against an armed opposition, and then being in a political position to use real armed force against the democracy movement.
The government controls the army. Unless the army deserts it, they can always win against any armed internal militants (or at least turn the conflict into a prolonged civil war which doesn't benefit anyone except those clinging to power). If the army deserts it then small arms in the hands of the poulation is largly irrelevant.
That's basically my argument, I think the concept of an armed population preserving their freedoms is a mirage.
Just on the subject of police, one of the great things about an unarmed society is an unarmed police force. By and large the British police do not carry guns. To be honest this is less the case than it once was (gun crime has been rising for a long time), and maybe we'll lose it at some point. But I've grown up (as did my parents and grandparents) in a country where the police do not carry firearms. I think that's worth something (worth, in fact, not having the right to own a gun without a good reason).
Sorry if I'm giving the impression of misunderstanding your position - you were quite clear in your initial post where you stood on the issue. I guess I'm just trying to start an argument, and your the only person who showed up. Sorry.
:) it's not you personally I have a problem with owning a gun. I was more thinking of my next door neighbours (and their kids!), I feel a lot more safe with them not owning a gun. "The Government" generally vets its employees to a level that I'm not worried about them shooting me because they got drunk.
That said
Guns are dangerous, and I'm simply not convinced by the argument they are a guranteeor of liberty - how many guns did the old eastern block need to get their freedom? Would it have been better for Poland if they had had an armed insurrection rather than a massed, unarmed, popular uprising?
It's weird how that is such a common view in the US, wheras here in Britain the vast majority of people would think you were mad - it just seems so obvious that something so dangerous should be (at the very least) strongly regulated.
I've actually debated the issue with a number of articulate (and polite) NRA members, and I do realise there are good arguments that can be advanced. It's just that that Franklin quote seemed to be used at the heart of the 'liberty' argument* in favour of gun ownership, and I'm curious to know what will replace it in light of America's reaction to 9/11.
*as opposed to the 'criminals have guns and I have the right to defend myself' one (which maybe makes sense in a country with very high gun-ownership).
Me, I don't own one either. But it scares me that other people try to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to have one all the same.
Hey, thanks for reminding me about the gun issue!
I've got to find a gun nut and start an argument with him - I'm just curious what 200 year old literature they're going to quote me instead of "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
The graphic artisits and application-specific power users will not settle for emulation of their favorite applications. Thus they have to keep G5 on the desktop till all the applications like Photoshop and Maya have swithced over.. But that class of folks wont be using Laptops as their main machine.
Might piss off the audio guys though.. a lot of them are "application-specific power users" of high-end PowerBooks, even if they use desktops as well.
It depends. If you can't buy Quark x.y or whatever for a new Mac that will produce exactly the same output as an old one then it will be a significant issue to a lot of designer-type people.
And will you be able to get a free x86 version of a major PowerPC app you already own? If not the software upgrade costs will be a significant factor, especially for small shops.
1:13 - Try Jose Cuervo.
9:42 - Alcohol absorbs thc, you're filtering all the good out o yer weed.
hmm, 8 hours gap. I bet there's at least one poor sod trying to work out if he should drink his bong Tequila...
Aren't inorganic molecules all those not involving carbon?
Not in the UK - you can quote a price of £X + vat, and plenty of people do.
I think there was actually something about "out of respect for this room, please.." etc. I can't really recall, but I can remember it left me deeply worried about the owners stability..
;)
Yes I think it was North Wales
That reminds me of a holiday cottage I once rented in Wales. There was a note on the dining room door which said: "Please wear long trousers, not shorts, in this room."
I've been slightly nervous of the Welsh ever since..
There are two types of BT engineer. Those with grey hair (who are fantastic, and could probably get 1Mbit down two tin cans and a piece of string), and the younger ones (who it sounds like you have had the pleasure of dealing with).
There must be good, young, telephone engineers in this country. Does anyone know where they work?
I feel no reason to refrain from preaching to a European, since that s all they do to us
I obviously misunderstood your intentions. I thought you were actually trying to convince someone of your point of view. If you were just trying to vent some spleen against uppity Europeans you're doing fine as you are.
No, but the tone of your original post was unlikely to convince a European - preaching like that from an American makes non-Americans remember your foreign policy failings, rather than concentrate on our own (which I assume was the intention of your post).
The huge sea change in US policy post 9/11 makes this statement somewhat fair today, but the US has been a leading appeaser of Arab dictatorships for decades, which makes your holyer than thou attitude somewhat ridiculous.
I'd imagine he wrote £
try alt-3, that works on a Mac with a US keyboard layout
No, but it beats the hell out of it in general - without them... I actually checked - you do get a vaguely computer related hit on the first page when you use the quotes.
"it in general". With quatation marks.
He used quotation marks?? I hate to break it to you, but that puts him in the top 10% for computer literacy easilly.
Personally, I find their reporting to be the very essence of "objectivism", as all good journalism should be.
While I'd mainly agree, you have to admit there must be such a thing as a British world view, or British bias. The BBC, by it's nature is going to be guilty of this. For that reason only getting your news from the BBC can't be a good idea.
From grandparent's list, I'd particularly recomend the Daily Star of Lebonon as a fantastic middle east English language paper (decent RSS feeds too). It's one of the reasons I love Google News - I find such great news sites through it.