Because, if you're like the 99% of other people in Britain and pay your license, it's not an issue. I have a license, and pay by direct debit, so just a bit is paid every month.
It's worth every penny, that's for sure. Say what you want about the BBC, but there's no-one else better.
Err... we have 2mb cable, and no phone line what so ever. We all use mobile phones in our house, which our cable provider (blueyonder) don't mind at all:)
Your argument kind of fell apart towards the end. The court would have to prove that protests expressly incite violence. Seeing as most protests aren't violent, it's a moot point.
Oh, and free speech is guaranteed by two courts - the british ones, and the european, so America will lose free speech before we do!:-P
I think that's a slight over-reaction. The police are looking at something that can pose a danger to normal people, and addressing it suitably. No good can come from a site telling you how to eat someone's arse on a baguette.
You can tell, because they haven't mentioned terrorism:-P
What crack are you smoking? Britain defined freedom as everyone knows it. Starting back in 1215, with the Magna Carta. Read up on it. That's right, nearly 600 years before the US constitution, the original document was formed.
Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.
I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.
People who say things like "Harry Potter/GTA/Something incited my kid to kill our hamster" are clutching at straws - that's not the issue, and they know it. If, however, Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters, why it's good fun to do so, and asked us to follow in his footsteps, that would be incitement. That's what needs addressing. It's one thing to claim something incites, but unless it expressly does, it's a matter of opinion.
He's not speaking as a Palestinian, but as a Muslim, and an Arab. The Palestinians are also (mainly) Muslims and Arabs. On that level, he is Palestinian. He's defending his brothers, who are being killed by the US government.
Saving some muslims from ethnic cleansing doesn't stop you from being guilty of killing hundreds of thousands over the years. If that were the case, a murderer has but to save a life to be fully exonerated.
Al Qaida doesn't hate free society at all. Again, you're using one example to define their principles. By your logic, America hates freedom because there's a prison somewhere in the US. As you can see, it's clearly not the case. And anyway, it was the Taliban who built Afghanistan, not Al Qaida.
Please, read some more before you debate. You've just got a few bare facts and none of the substance.
You missed out the $1bn+ in [military] aid the US gives Israel every year. Don't think the US is just at the sidelines offering support - it's in the thick of it, giving guns, tanks and bulldozers to the bad guys.
The US should feel so guilty about all of that, yet it's seen as some sort of fantastic National monument.
I know the Anti-Defamation League in the US does a lot of good work, but they seem to have a habit of condemning anything that puts judaism or israel in a negative light (kind of like how staunch "patriots" do the same with anything that does the same to America).
When you have large groups of people blindly following an ideal, without using their own minds, trouble starts.
No, intervention in foreign matters is essential for every single country in the world. It has to be done correctly, though. That's the kicker. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", as they say. If the US got involved sensibly with other nations, there'd be no problem. It seems, however, that the US's idea of international politics and aid involves helicopters and cruise missiles. That's where everything goes wrong.
Look at Europe - nothing but countries involved in other countries' dealings, but no-one's getting blown up there.
You mention crime in the UK and cameras... they're not there only to prevent crime, but more to catch perpetrators on film so they can be brought to justice later on. That means they don't create a drop in crime, but a rise in prosecutions. It's a subtle difference.
I agree that not all conflicts can be solved by talking. This one can, however.
The US has systematically pissed off the muslim world for decades, and now their chickens have come home to roost. Instead of admitting the US's shoddy foreign policies and greed for oil have lead them to this, they react like a scalded child, and lash out at the perceived aggressor.
Just because it's difficult to solve a problem with words doesn't mean it's not right to do so.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
If Bush stops going on about god every 5 minutes and pulled the US troops out of the middle east (and stopped giving Israel $1bn every year), Al Qaida would have less to argue about. It's very easy to stop this conflict - it's called talking. Your inability to see that is both immature and frightening.
That's an interesting statement considering the US still executes people for crimes in some states.
Which is seen as barbaric by most western countries...
Neither can you take an idea off someone
You can take an idea off someone - it's called convincing them otherwise. Show them the lies in their minds are just that - lies - and their beliefs wither away. They cease to subscribe to whatever crazyness they did before. You are left with one fully-functioning, alive human being, and your morals are intact. It's an inability to prove your point articulately and effectively which leads to violence.
Seriously, killing people to stop them killing people is the most ridiculous idea ever. Any victory would be hollow, proving the protagonists' ideals to be hollow also. Oh, wait...
I think he's talking about distributed computing, not clustering. With distributed computing, the bandwidth isn't an issue (as packets of work are sent to each computer for processing, as opposed to participating in a problem in real-time).
It'd work a treat, I'm sure. Thing is, who'd pay for it? (serious question - I'm interested in knowing)
Any idiot can kill someone - it takes brains and dedication to talk someone over.
If the US is fighting for democracy and justice, it has to play by the rules, otherwise its demonstrating a massive love for hypocrisy. Killing people because some people were killed is only going to make things worse. By your logic, there would be peace in the middle east by now.
Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right. Your argument is very immature, and short-sighted.
This "war on terrorism" is more than people fighting people, but ideas fighting ideas. You can't shoot an idea.
That's what I'm talking about. It seems every time you post something that could possibly be talking about a negative side of the US (especially the military) - some joker mods you down or off-topic.
Stop saluting, put the flag down, turn off Fox and get your own brain back. The US military isn't as great as the US media and hollywood portrays it. They have no regard for human life or peace, yet America thinks they can't do a thing wrong.
Need I mention the fiasco in Iraq? US soldiers killing US/allied soldiers? Grenade attacks? Spooked troops shooting their comrades? Patriot attacks on friendly aircraft? Attack helicopters shooting blocks of appartments? US flags being waved everywhere? US soldiers killing Iraqi police? The list goes on. Wake up! Think about it for 2 seconds... if they're so good, why do they keep screwing up all the time?
With all the technological advantages the US has over other countries, why are its troops still so awful? I don't think you'll find a higher rate of "friendly fire" in any other army anywhere in the world. Their lack of training becomes painfully apparent every time they're shown on TV, and in every interview.
Give a redneck an M1 Abrams, and he's still a redneck. Why doesn't the US gov't realise that?
That's a pretty poor excuse. What if those bands are perfectly legal to broadcast on in other countries? Do you expect them to make new hardware for every place they sell?
It's a bit OTT to expect companies to release drivers for every bit of hardware their kit can be used with... I mean, if you choose an obscure device, expect to not have stuff work with it.
"Why won't nVidia release drivers for my skateboard? I taped my FX5600 to it, but I still can't get a picture!"
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth every penny, that's for sure. Say what you want about the BBC, but there's no-one else better.
Err... we have 2mb cable, and no phone line what so ever. We all use mobile phones in our house, which our cable provider (blueyonder) don't mind at all :)
Oh, and free speech is guaranteed by two courts - the british ones, and the european, so America will lose free speech before we do! :-P
You can tell, because they haven't mentioned terrorism :-P
Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.
I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.
People who say things like "Harry Potter/GTA/Something incited my kid to kill our hamster" are clutching at straws - that's not the issue, and they know it. If, however, Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters, why it's good fun to do so, and asked us to follow in his footsteps, that would be incitement. That's what needs addressing. It's one thing to claim something incites, but unless it expressly does, it's a matter of opinion.
Saving some muslims from ethnic cleansing doesn't stop you from being guilty of killing hundreds of thousands over the years. If that were the case, a murderer has but to save a life to be fully exonerated.
Al Qaida doesn't hate free society at all. Again, you're using one example to define their principles. By your logic, America hates freedom because there's a prison somewhere in the US. As you can see, it's clearly not the case. And anyway, it was the Taliban who built Afghanistan, not Al Qaida.
Please, read some more before you debate. You've just got a few bare facts and none of the substance.
You need an occupying force to threaten liberty.
The US should feel so guilty about all of that, yet it's seen as some sort of fantastic National monument.
I know the Anti-Defamation League in the US does a lot of good work, but they seem to have a habit of condemning anything that puts judaism or israel in a negative light (kind of like how staunch "patriots" do the same with anything that does the same to America).
When you have large groups of people blindly following an ideal, without using their own minds, trouble starts.
Look at Europe - nothing but countries involved in other countries' dealings, but no-one's getting blown up there.
Well, wasn't the Washington Sniper branded a terrorist in the courts? Doesn't he count?
You mention crime in the UK and cameras... they're not there only to prevent crime, but more to catch perpetrators on film so they can be brought to justice later on. That means they don't create a drop in crime, but a rise in prosecutions. It's a subtle difference.
I agree that not all conflicts can be solved by talking. This one can, however.
The US has systematically pissed off the muslim world for decades, and now their chickens have come home to roost. Instead of admitting the US's shoddy foreign policies and greed for oil have lead them to this, they react like a scalded child, and lash out at the perceived aggressor.
Just because it's difficult to solve a problem with words doesn't mean it's not right to do so.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.
If Bush stops going on about god every 5 minutes and pulled the US troops out of the middle east (and stopped giving Israel $1bn every year), Al Qaida would have less to argue about. It's very easy to stop this conflict - it's called talking. Your inability to see that is both immature and frightening.
Which is seen as barbaric by most western countries...
Neither can you take an idea off someone
You can take an idea off someone - it's called convincing them otherwise. Show them the lies in their minds are just that - lies - and their beliefs wither away. They cease to subscribe to whatever crazyness they did before. You are left with one fully-functioning, alive human being, and your morals are intact. It's an inability to prove your point articulately and effectively which leads to violence.
I can't wait for more tech support to be farmed out to teams who actually help, as opposed to those who say they do, but are watching their call log.
Seriously, killing people to stop them killing people is the most ridiculous idea ever. Any victory would be hollow, proving the protagonists' ideals to be hollow also. Oh, wait...
And the US troops who are doing the figting have what, exactly? They're doing no better.
It'd work a treat, I'm sure. Thing is, who'd pay for it? (serious question - I'm interested in knowing)
If the US is fighting for democracy and justice, it has to play by the rules, otherwise its demonstrating a massive love for hypocrisy. Killing people because some people were killed is only going to make things worse. By your logic, there would be peace in the middle east by now.
Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right. Your argument is very immature, and short-sighted.
This "war on terrorism" is more than people fighting people, but ideas fighting ideas. You can't shoot an idea.
Stop saluting, put the flag down, turn off Fox and get your own brain back. The US military isn't as great as the US media and hollywood portrays it. They have no regard for human life or peace, yet America thinks they can't do a thing wrong.
Need I mention the fiasco in Iraq? US soldiers killing US/allied soldiers? Grenade attacks? Spooked troops shooting their comrades? Patriot attacks on friendly aircraft? Attack helicopters shooting blocks of appartments? US flags being waved everywhere? US soldiers killing Iraqi police? The list goes on. Wake up! Think about it for 2 seconds... if they're so good, why do they keep screwing up all the time?
Give a redneck an M1 Abrams, and he's still a redneck. Why doesn't the US gov't realise that?
Seriously, what happened? Wireless is great!
People use wireless so you can walk around your house downloading stuff, without having to find the nearest jack or run cables down the stairs.
Cables are fine, but when you want to move something, they suck.
That's a pretty poor excuse. What if those bands are perfectly legal to broadcast on in other countries? Do you expect them to make new hardware for every place they sell?
"Why won't nVidia release drivers for my skateboard? I taped my FX5600 to it, but I still can't get a picture!"