Strictly speaking, if you want to put a numeric identifier on it, Australia would be in the second world although the term "New World" is generallay used.
Er.. No, second world was the east European communist block. Australia, has never been in the soviet sphere of influence as far as I know.
That's because there is a political movement in the US to restore the old definitions of the words.
In both a democracy and a republic, power is vested in the people. In a democracy, the people wield power directly, by secret ballot. In a republic, the people elect representitives, thereby exercising power indirectly.
I understand that the modern dictionary definition is not the same as it once was. The English language has lost the concept of republican government.
You appear to have failed basic civics refer to the GP for a refresher. Saying that "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" makes as much sense as me (a Brit) saying "we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional monarchy": i.e none at all. The two are orthogonal not opposing, The USA is a democratic republic, China is a totalitarian republic (note, it's still a republic despite power not being in the hands of the people). The UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy, it used to be a totalitarian absolute monarchy, for a while it was a democratic republic then became a totalitarian one, so we called for our monarch back.
If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic.
Allowing the majority to rule leads to the tyranny of the masses. Say, the majority rules that Black, Indians, or Jews, should be persecuted that doesn't mean they should be.
So how do you propose choosing a government other than by democratic election? (i.e. the way that all representative democracies, including the USA, throughout the world do it)
I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
If someone wants to dictate to me how my government will be of I certainly will tell them to move to another country to their liking.
I thought that the whole purpose of political parties was to decide what type of government you will have. Do you think people should be banned from joining the Socialist and Communist parties in the USA? I'm not American, but I would suggest that the right to freedom of assembly is as fundamental as any other. I may disagree with the platforms of various communist and fascist parties, but I would defend to the death their right to exist.
Falcon
Thanks for correcting him; I keep running into that argument here on slashdot. For reasons I fail to comprehend, a lot of Americans here have a kneejerek "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" reaction. Besides which, the USA has far more referenda (referendums?) in the form of "Ballot initiatives" than many other representative democracies, so it has elements of direct democracy embedded in civic society as well. This is in opposition to somwehere such as here in the UK where we only get a referendum if the structure of our government is being changed (e.g entry into the EU, or devolution of power to Scotland and Wales).
I live in the UK, and whenever I've thought about emigrating, it's been to somewhere like Canada, Holland, Sweeden or New Zealand. Never thought about moving to the USA. The reason? Your government taxes and spends just as much money as all the others but in the countries I mentioned some of it gets back to the population in the form of things like socialised health care and good infrastructure. In the USA the money seems to all go to the military and to corporations.
If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
There are many socialist representative democracies over here in Europe (Indeed the Socialists are the second biggest grouping in the European parliament), why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic. I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
*By this I mean that my fellow Brits think I'm a rabid libertarian because I support liberalising our gun laws and drug laws, but as I continue to support the NHS, Americans label me "Socialist" or "Communist".
Next time think your idea through before you post it here. Which country is going to take you? Oh, perhaps you meant be a refugee in another country? No? Please... People are stuck with their government, nothing you can do about it.
I'm not the OP but I live here in the UK; as part of the EU there are almost thirty other countries obliged to take me in if I so choose to move to one (plus a whole load of commonwealth countries that wouldn't take a whole load of work to emigrate to).
I disagree with my government on many things, I don't move countries over it, I campaign against and protest those policies from within this country.
I am still using my 1994 CD-ROM version of the World Book encyclopedia because it sounded a lot more official than the names of the people writing wiki. I mean if I need to know the main industries of Sudan, I don't want to hear it from CaPtAinSwampA$$, I want it from a big faceless corporation I can trust.
Really? For info like that I go to the CIA World Factbook as I trust that over Wikipedia, and it's not 15 years out of date.
Realistically, I think they are worried about audio book sales. I know lots of commuters that churn through a lot of audio books. The read-aloud feature of the Kindle might make a dent in those sales.
I don't think they are on very good legal ground - we shall see.
Heh, I've never bought an audio book. There's far too much available in the Public domain or under a creative commons licence.
we don't have any 'creation museums' or such things, but individually - I say it happens.
I'm afraid we do: http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/
I live in a city just down the road, and I've been really tempted to go down there just to see how dumb people can be.
If you believe in Evolution, you can't believe in God...
Not everyone who believes in God is Christian; not all other religions have the problem you describe, indeed some religious texts can be interpreted to support it: http://www.ramarajyam.org/AvatarsEvolution1.html
I'm guessing that the political news in the BBC gets a Tory friendly treatment
Tories tend to accuse it of being left leaning, Labour supporters tend to accuse it of being full of Tories. Personally I think that if they're pissing both groups off they must be doing something right.
Some branches of the UK Government still do develop software and publish it with very permissive licenses. For example, JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee) has sponsored a number of projects to produce open source software in higher education.
I work in FE, JISC is almost certainly the most IT aware body I've had the pleasure of dealing with. If only the rest of government was as 'enlightened'. For example, they are helping provide a pilot scheme giving free access to ebooks for FE colleges in the next month or two. This comes at a time when the college library has been looking for an easy way to supply ebooks to students. What's going on there an efficient body that supplies services as the need arises? It's a bloody miracle!
That said, we do have religious schools however that can teach kids a belief in god outside of specific religious education classes, working IT support in schools once some years ago at a religious school I was rather sickened to hear the teacher make the kids pray to god before they were allowed to go home,
I was born and brought up a hindu, my local primary school was C of E. My parents were given the option to opt out of all the religious stuff (church every week, prayers in assembly etc.) but didn't. At the end of my education there I had a rounded view of religions other than my own, and have probably been to more church services than some people who get married in them. I'm still hindu but now with more of an atheistic outlook. Not all church schools are bad. I'd send my kids to the same school if I ever get the option.
It's times like this that I wish local government was more autonomous, I'd love to see a system where local tax accounted for the number of positive and negative public amenities nearby. Thus if someone wants to live near the local school and hospital, but doesn't want wind turbines or prisons anywhere near they would pay higher local tax (council tax) and people who lived near the prison and further from the school would pay less.
Council tax already works likes this; if your house is worth more (i.e. in a "desirable" location, near amenities, transport links etc.) then you get put in a higher band and pay more.
but the other stuff like ToDos is appalling, and nothing like the outliner/task oriented ToDo functionality that I would prefer. Indeed everyone I know ignores the ToDo bar in Outlook because it is so inadequate.
The Todo functionality is great at what it does, I use it all the time; however, I use it as a ToDo list, you seem to be asking for a project management tool. MS has other software for that. Why would they give it to you free as part of Outlook?
Nope, it's your legally aquired product; you can do what the hell you like with it. I strip the DRM from BBC iPlayer downloads all the time; the DMCA dosn't apply in here in the UK so I don't think I'm breaking the law anyway.
Indeed, but I was replying to the question "Why wouldn't he just pirate the games?", not "Why wouldn't he just break the copyright protection". IMO the latter (what you are suggesting) is perfetly ethical; and I've done it on BBC iPlayer dowloads to stop them expireing. It's my product, I paid for it and can do what I like with it. However, I don't then go and share those legal downloads with all and sundry, I keep them for soley personal use.
Slashdot Mirror
Strictly speaking, if you want to put a numeric identifier on it, Australia would be in the second world although the term "New World" is generallay used.
Er.. No, second world was the east European communist block. Australia, has never been in the soviet sphere of influence as far as I know.
That's because there is a political movement in the US to restore the old definitions of the words.
In both a democracy and a republic, power is vested in the people. In a democracy, the people wield power directly, by secret ballot. In a republic, the people elect representitives, thereby exercising power indirectly.
I understand that the modern dictionary definition is not the same as it once was. The English language has lost the concept of republican government.
You appear to have failed basic civics refer to the GP for a refresher. Saying that "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" makes as much sense as me (a Brit) saying "we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional monarchy": i.e none at all. The two are orthogonal not opposing, The USA is a democratic republic, China is a totalitarian republic (note, it's still a republic despite power not being in the hands of the people). The UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy, it used to be a totalitarian absolute monarchy, for a while it was a democratic republic then became a totalitarian one, so we called for our monarch back.
If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic.
Allowing the majority to rule leads to the tyranny of the masses. Say, the majority rules that Black, Indians, or Jews, should be persecuted that doesn't mean they should be.
So how do you propose choosing a government other than by democratic election? (i.e. the way that all representative democracies, including the USA, throughout the world do it)
I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
If someone wants to dictate to me how my government will be of I certainly will tell them to move to another country to their liking.
I thought that the whole purpose of political parties was to decide what type of government you will have. Do you think people should be banned from joining the Socialist and Communist parties in the USA? I'm not American, but I would suggest that the right to freedom of assembly is as fundamental as any other. I may disagree with the platforms of various communist and fascist parties, but I would defend to the death their right to exist. Falcon
Thanks for correcting him; I keep running into that argument here on slashdot. For reasons I fail to comprehend, a lot of Americans here have a kneejerek "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" reaction. Besides which, the USA has far more referenda (referendums?) in the form of "Ballot initiatives" than many other representative democracies, so it has elements of direct democracy embedded in civic society as well. This is in opposition to somwehere such as here in the UK where we only get a referendum if the structure of our government is being changed (e.g entry into the EU, or devolution of power to Scotland and Wales).
like everybody else,
I live in the UK, and whenever I've thought about emigrating, it's been to somewhere like Canada, Holland, Sweeden or New Zealand. Never thought about moving to the USA. The reason? Your government taxes and spends just as much money as all the others but in the countries I mentioned some of it gets back to the population in the form of things like socialised health care and good infrastructure. In the USA the money seems to all go to the military and to corporations.
If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
There are many socialist representative democracies over here in Europe (Indeed the Socialists are the second biggest grouping in the European parliament), why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic. I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
*By this I mean that my fellow Brits think I'm a rabid libertarian because I support liberalising our gun laws and drug laws, but as I continue to support the NHS, Americans label me "Socialist" or "Communist".
Next time think your idea through before you post it here. Which country is going to take you? Oh, perhaps you meant be a refugee in another country? No? Please... People are stuck with their government, nothing you can do about it.
I'm not the OP but I live here in the UK; as part of the EU there are almost thirty other countries obliged to take me in if I so choose to move to one (plus a whole load of commonwealth countries that wouldn't take a whole load of work to emigrate to).
I disagree with my government on many things, I don't move countries over it, I campaign against and protest those policies from within this country.
Sorry to piggyback on the FP, but for those of us at work with TFA blocked, here's the BBC's take: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7895026.stm
I am still using my 1994 CD-ROM version of the World Book encyclopedia because it sounded a lot more official than the names of the people writing wiki. I mean if I need to know the main industries of Sudan, I don't want to hear it from CaPtAinSwampA$$, I want it from a big faceless corporation I can trust.
Really? For info like that I go to the CIA World Factbook as I trust that over Wikipedia, and it's not 15 years out of date.
Realistically, I think they are worried about audio book sales. I know lots of commuters that churn through a lot of audio books. The read-aloud feature of the Kindle might make a dent in those sales.
I don't think they are on very good legal ground - we shall see.
Heh, I've never bought an audio book. There's far too much available in the Public domain or under a creative commons licence.
Or more appropriately, Dracula. Out of copyright and freely available as an e-book.
Just play the Free audio book.
we don't have any 'creation museums' or such things, but individually - I say it happens.
I'm afraid we do: http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/ I live in a city just down the road, and I've been really tempted to go down there just to see how dumb people can be.
If you believe in Evolution, you can't believe in God...
Not everyone who believes in God is Christian; not all other religions have the problem you describe, indeed some religious texts can be interpreted to support it: http://www.ramarajyam.org/AvatarsEvolution1.html
Then surely you've misread the article. They are arguing against OSS saying that it is insecure and slow to be patched.
No, this company "Fortify" is arguing against Tory party policy which seems to be pro FOSS at the moment.
I'm guessing that the political news in the BBC gets a Tory friendly treatment
Tories tend to accuse it of being left leaning, Labour supporters tend to accuse it of being full of Tories. Personally I think that if they're pissing both groups off they must be doing something right.
Some branches of the UK Government still do develop software and publish it with very permissive licenses. For example, JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee) has sponsored a number of projects to produce open source software in higher education.
I work in FE, JISC is almost certainly the most IT aware body I've had the pleasure of dealing with. If only the rest of government was as 'enlightened'. For example, they are helping provide a pilot scheme giving free access to ebooks for FE colleges in the next month or two. This comes at a time when the college library has been looking for an easy way to supply ebooks to students. What's going on there an efficient body that supplies services as the need arises? It's a bloody miracle!
That said, we do have religious schools however that can teach kids a belief in god outside of specific religious education classes, working IT support in schools once some years ago at a religious school I was rather sickened to hear the teacher make the kids pray to god before they were allowed to go home,
I was born and brought up a hindu, my local primary school was C of E. My parents were given the option to opt out of all the religious stuff (church every week, prayers in assembly etc.) but didn't. At the end of my education there I had a rounded view of religions other than my own, and have probably been to more church services than some people who get married in them. I'm still hindu but now with more of an atheistic outlook. Not all church schools are bad. I'd send my kids to the same school if I ever get the option.
I suppose putting the attack dogs for anti-competitive businesses in the DOJ is better than putting tax evaders in charge of the IRS...
Surely putting someone who knows all the tax loopholes at the top of the taxation system is a good move ;p
I thought soldiers had a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Certainly the Nuremburg defense is no defense at all, should it come to a courts marshal.
It's times like this that I wish local government was more autonomous, I'd love to see a system where local tax accounted for the number of positive and negative public amenities nearby. Thus if someone wants to live near the local school and hospital, but doesn't want wind turbines or prisons anywhere near they would pay higher local tax (council tax) and people who lived near the prison and further from the school would pay less.
Council tax already works likes this; if your house is worth more (i.e. in a "desirable" location, near amenities, transport links etc.) then you get put in a higher band and pay more.
And to cap it off, Wikipedia makes no reference to Thomas Harriot at all. Truly one of the grey suits of British science.
Then What's this? Apparently he did a whole bunch of other cool things as well.
Nanny State
1) When did Google become part of the State? 2)If you don't like Google warning you that a site could be dangerous then don't use Google.
but the other stuff like ToDos is appalling, and nothing like the outliner/task oriented ToDo functionality that I would prefer. Indeed everyone I know ignores the ToDo bar in Outlook because it is so inadequate.
The Todo functionality is great at what it does, I use it all the time; however, I use it as a ToDo list, you seem to be asking for a project management tool. MS has other software for that. Why would they give it to you free as part of Outlook?
Nope, it's your legally aquired product; you can do what the hell you like with it. I strip the DRM from BBC iPlayer downloads all the time; the DMCA dosn't apply in here in the UK so I don't think I'm breaking the law anyway.
Indeed, but I was replying to the question "Why wouldn't he just pirate the games?", not "Why wouldn't he just break the copyright protection". IMO the latter (what you are suggesting) is perfetly ethical; and I've done it on BBC iPlayer dowloads to stop them expireing. It's my product, I paid for it and can do what I like with it. However, I don't then go and share those legal downloads with all and sundry, I keep them for soley personal use.