As expressed in the 1964 revue "Beyond the Fringe": "Of course, they have inherited our two-party system, haven't they? Well, let me see now, they've got the Republican Party, you see, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party. And then there's the Democratic Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party."
Well, the US government itself seems to be taking tack 1. And it has been for a century or so at least.
But seriously for a moment. Don't you think it is reasonable that when they say general welfare, they mean just that, and then enumerate a starting list of powers? It would be pretty stupid to keep the list unchanged over centuries of use!
Let me take a guess here and hazard that you're against universal healthcare. Why, when that is one of those things that is most assuredly, under any possible definition, part of "general welfare", both of the individual members of a nation and the nation as a whole? Yet because it wasn't possible, or simply imagined, in 1789, you must stick out against it? I do apologise if you support universal healthcare in the US.
Actually, the libertarian ideas are quite new in US politics. If you look back to speeches and propaganda of the pre-war era, Americans were very proud of their social welfare system, such as it was. It has grown enormously since then, though still lagging behind Europe, so at least it's clear that America as a whole is for social justice and welfare.
However, the culture of Japan from the beginning of the Meiji Restoration through to the end of the Second World War was virtually unchanged!
Well exactly! You seem to think that I dated Japan's time of prosperity from the Meiji Restoration, but I date it from the Second World War. That's when the country was really transformed.
There was no 'adoption' of anything European, and in fact the nature of Japanese companies is so unique that after the war (even despite deliberate efforts by the occupying US government to dismantle the companies!) when it became obvious that they were outperforming their Western counterparts, it became fashionable for Western businessmen to go to Japan to learn about kaizen!
No adoption! Of course just about every interesting bit of Japanese design was first ripped off from the Europeans. Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I prefer to think in terms of large cases. From Mazda to hifis it became very fashionable for Japanese businessmen to copy good European designs, make them cheaper and sell them to Europe and America.
You say essentially that ripping off creativity will never create a real power. Wow. You don't seem to know your ancient history either. That was the Roman civilization's raison d'etre! They became a world power through jealous mimicry of Greek culture, religion, art, politics, etc. etc.
Bollocks! The Romans ripped off Greek culture, but that's not what made them great. The Romans were made great by concepts the Greeks could not hope to imitate -- rigorous discipline, loyalty (the Macedonians had that) and a wonderful ability for organisation. Democracy or an appreciation for philosophy did not make the Romans great, for they had neither of themselves. Brilliant warfare and splendid administration of conquered territories are what made Rome great.
You also ignore the fact that Japan and China are already 'real powers' with the largest economies in the world after the US. (And considering how much US debt is owned by China, I think the balance of power is more equal than most people are comfortable imagining.)
Japan is a second-rate power, of course. China is impressive because of its population -- in reality, when you look at the individual citizen, it is a very poor country. It wields some power, but it is basically in thrall to its export market. Sure, it holds a lot of US debt, but using that to ruin the US would just ruin itself, so it bides its time. In the meanwhile, the debt happily depreciates. The US is a real winner out of that relationship so far. What China intends to do with it is anybody's guess, of course. Privately, I think nothing will come of it.
You mention the Civil War, and I apologise for forgetting to mention 'between a democratic and non-democratic country'. The Civil War's basic premise, of course, was played out over a much larger scale under a decade later, and though Franco held on, that era thankfully died in the late 70s. Same for Eritrea: the Eritreans certainly didn't live under a democracy. I'm not interested in the obvious refutations of when two non-democracies fight. So please leave rebellions, etc. out of this. Also, if it is coalitions fighting against each other, as in the Napoleonic Wars or WWII, the side with democracies is the one I am referring to. Cleaning up that mess I think you will find I come out right. I pick 1700 because there were no democracies before it except in ancient times.
Oh:
It's also important to remember that the United Kingdom is still not a democracy, but a constitutional monarchy.
I think you ought to research what it means to be a democracy (not to mention what the House of Lords is), as your statement is quite ridiculous.
Yes, I describe the colonisation of India as a system of pacts and alliances and naturally, wars. You write
Thanks for the info! It's great to know the idea is actually used in practice.
If NASA don't come up with a quick solution, I think you should write to them. Or if you don't want to, I shall. Of course, there's not much chance that they would read it, but hey, it's always worth trying.
Of course there's one small flaw with this. Passing exams isn't merit. Capitalism, especially if well regulated against its extremer aspects, is much more a true meritocracy than has ever been practised in any Asiatic cultures.
Of course there's one small flaw with this. Passing exams isn't merit. Capitalism, especially if well regulated against its extremer aspects, is much more a true democracy than has ever been practised in any Asiatic cultures. Japan began to prosper when it adopted a capitalist, i.e. European (to be exact, British or even Scottish) culture. China's modus operandi at the moment, like Japan's, is ripping off the products of Western creativity and making them cheaper. This will never make a real power, because it never has.
In the modern world, that is since about 1700, every major war has been won by a democracy. Since the first modern democracies, Britain and America, country after country has adopted democracy -- very slowly, but they have not gone back of their own volition -- and have thereby prospered. China is no exception to this, and if it ever becomes really powerful and successful (remember, even the Soviet Union failed eventually, though the bulk of it did not become a democracy) it will be as a democracy. Which incidentally is a European idea -- originally Greek and in the modern world basically British or English.
In fact, your own post makes great arguments for this. For instance, on something that you blame for impeding Chinese progress: "Sort of like if the U.S. all became Amish." This doesn't happen in a functioning democracy: power and ideas are distributed too well.
"The Europeans were brutal to those they colonized. They demanded submission and subservience. During Zhenghe's day, the Chinese didn't. They created trade pacts, but let the people be."
Here you are merely being ignorant of history. For example, note how India was colonised by the British, or North America managed by the British government. It is exactly the system of local pacts and alliances that you describe. Chaos often came when the British left, though -- in North America the Americans waged destructive war on the Indians; India and Pakistan have waged numerous wars against each other.
By contrast, the Chinese today never let the people be. Their primary foreign policy has been to arm rebel groups anywhere in the hope of them eventually forming Communist states and buying Chinese services and trading with Chinese businessmen. Without China there would have been only a small fraction of the blood that has been shed in small movements would have been shed.
I don't believe in any sort of manifest destiny for particular groups of people. But I do believe in the manifest destiny of ideas, at least until (and if) they are supplanted by better ones. And liberalism and democracy have won, and whatever models the Chinese have developed, have failed. If China succeeds based on ideas it has developed, it will be because it has developed even better ones, but that is all in the future. Right now, it hasn't.
[(1) OE. wyrcan, pa. tense worhte, pa. pple. {asg}eworht, = OS. workian, OHG. wurchen, worhta, wurhta, giworht, gewurchet (MHG. wurken, würken, worhte, geworht, gewürket), ON. yrkja, orta, ortr, Goth. waurkjan, waurhta, -waurhts:{em}OTeut. *wurkjan, *wur{chi}t-; (2) OE. (Mercian) wircan, = OFris. werkia, wirza, wrochte, wrocht, OS. wirkian, war(a)hta, war(a)ht, OHG. wirchen, warahta (MHG. wirken, warhte, G. wirken; wirkte, gewirkt), ON. verkja, virkja to feel pain:{em}OTeut. *werkjan, *war{chi}t- (*wur{chi}t-). A third OE. type represented by late wercan, weorc(e)an seems to point to early influence of the n. we(o)rc (see WORK n.) upon the vowel of the v.
Other Teut. forms are OFris. werka, OS. -werkon, (-werkot), (M)Du., M(LG.) werken, (wrochte, etc.), OHG. werchôn (MHG. werchen, werken), ON. verka (-a{edh}) in certain technical uses, orka to manage, effect, contrive (Sw. verka to do, perform, virka to crochet, Da. virke to operate, act, weave, etc.).
The Indo-Eur. base worg-, werg-, wrg- is represented outside Germanic by Zend v{schwa}r{schwa}zyeiti he works, Gr. {elenisacu}{rho}{delta}{omega} (:{em}*wergj{omac}), {rasper}{geacu}{zeta}{omega} (:{em}*wrgj{omac}) I do, perf. {elenisacu}{omicron}{rho}{gamma}{alpha}, {olenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{alpha}{nu}{omicron}{nu} ORGAN, {olenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{iota}{omicron}{nu} ORGY, OIr. fairged they made, do-fairci prepares, and the forms s.v. WARK n. and v., and WORK n.
The normal representative of OE. wyrcan would be *worch (for the vocalism cf. worm, worse, wort); the substitution of k for ch, producing the modern standard form (w{revope}{lm}k) instead of (w{revope}{lm}t{sh}), is shown in north-midland areas c1200, and is due mainly to WORK n., though Scandinavian influence (see various forms above) is possible.
and
[OE. weorc = OFris., OS., (M)LG., (M)Du. werk, OHG. werah, werc (MHG. werch, werc, G. werk), ON. verk (Sw., Da. verk):{em}OTeut. *werkom (see WORK v.); cognate are Gr. {elenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{omicron}{nu}, Arm. gorc, Zend var{schwa}za- activity. Forms {gamma} and {epsilon} show partial assimilation to the forms of WORK v.; see also WARK, WARCH n.1 (in a specialized sense).]
Nice theory but for the fact that the orcs and goblins and the pirates are white too. So are Sauron and Saruman -- and for that matter, Saruman was the White and Gandalf the Grey until he became White. Radagast the Brown was a very decent chap, though in no way central to the plot.
As someone else earlier suggested, why not dissolve it? There are acids with high enough electronegativity differences to dissolve just about anything. If the acid were brushed on to the a sufficiently narrow part of the knot, and all collected as it dripped down, it would in time etch that part of the metal away enough to break it and hence dislodge the knob. Of course, it would have to be secured first so it doesn't collapse when it shouldn't. But that seems less invasive if more time-consuming. However, it needn't even be so expensive -- the acid can after all simply be re-circulated. No matter how time-consuming, though, it's simple enough that there's not much overhead -- so it could be done in weeks instead of 6 months.
And yes, I don't see this option discussed anywhere in the article. Several other options with immediately visible flaws are discussed and rejected, but this isn't.
It's a hobby around here. That said, Slashdot has a terrific diversity of views and you will see (and do in this thread) comments from just about every reasonable viewpoint, modded up too. Sure, the majority tends to some opinion on most topics, but that doesn't detract from what's great about Slashdot.
6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.
You're right. Very fine line. In fact, come to think of it, it's so fine I've never seen it at all. I know very few people who are true libertarians and not assholes, largely because to be a true libertarian in the US means failing to think through the results of your chosen policies to their logical conclusions.
Yes, I do know that there are libertarians who do think things through and are not assholes. But they're a very small minority; not even their Presidential candidate in '08 fit that description.
Through the average level and quality of education in those countries.
No, I see no problem in generalising my experience and my knowledge of facts about the educational systems of those societies to make a comparison. Don't forget, even a low sampling can give quite high statistical confidence as long as there is no systemic bias. I account for my systemic bias by stating that my experience is only relevant to coders from those respective regions.
It probably works that way in films, but certainly not in real life. A gang of 6 is plenty enough to rush you no matter how quickly you try to shoot each of them. This will be an option definitely on the table once you get a gun out. And if having killed people isn't bad enough for you, the survivors are not going to be merciful with you.
Here's a question for you. How many were from non-Western countries? The only effect of halting US immigration would be to shift global leadership to other Western countries, which at this point collectively means the EU. Not India, which is what we're discussing at the moment. Nor yet China or Japan or Africa or Latin America, you can bet on it.
India's pleased as Punch about the guest workers in America, same as all the African countries about relatives in Europe. Reason: funds sent home are a significant chunk of their GDP.
The West has a collective guilt about colonialism and racism, which still hinders real candour. Frankly, racism existed on both sides, and there is as much about colonialism to be proud of as to be ashamed of, especially for the more liberal empires like Britain and Belgium. America does have a real history of buggering things up with respect to the non-European world, but it also has plenty of things to be proud of, often things undertaken by private citizens.
What's the point? The West must forget the guilt, and non-Western countries will stop taking advantage of it. Until then, frankly, it is not a bad thing, because the West is pretty rich, and money going from the West to the rest of the world, though it go into countries not half so democratic and liberal, is not a bad thing.
You're an idiot. GP was talking about nations/societies, not races.
I have little experience of Chinese colleagues, just one data point who's decent, but I would lay higher odds on a European coder I don't know being a good coder than people from any other region. Especially Eastern Europeans, but my impression is not limited to them.
Patriot? I'm not American, so I didn't see it, although I read up on it on Wikipedia. It seems it's just more of the usual Hollywood trash, fitting right in with Mel Gibson's melodrama. Patriot is not in any way a depiction of reality, you know, at least not of what was in question. The only claim it could have to reality would be perhaps as an allegory of the Congo.
What happened to the good old-fashioned method of running away? Minimising bloodshed? If you pull a gun, there's a good chance it won't only be used as a deterrent but to fire. Not to mention that if 6 people feel in immediate danger, they will probably rush the person with the gun, which means he will be overwhelmed and killed, at most "taking one or two with him".
People had a lot to lose at the time of the Revolution. Their lives, their families, and their property. This wasn't Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany or China, this was just Britain. There comes a point when the vocal minority wanting Home Rule inflames things to the point where war is inevitable. Same thing happened in Ireland. Don't confuse desperation with a natural desire to govern yourself.
Frankly, true or untrue (and I'm inclined to believe she's telling the truth), there's nothing else she would say afterwards, is there? It's put rather poetically too, so at least she's evidently had time to formulate it nicely.
Probably neither you or the GP have a firm grasp of history. For the GP: British rule was typically liberal, wildlife hunting under a few European wealthy hunters did not deplete wildlife, the British did not collapse stable democracies anywhere (although the Americans, who are related, did collapse a few stable dictatorships and tottering democracies), nor did they anywhere rape a country of its natural resources. British private companies did do many of these things, as private companies everywhere have always done and still do -- in that respect, nothing's new, and you may blame everyone equally.
As for the parent, there are no instances of British ethnic cleansing or genocide (though you will find instances for virtually every other colonial empire, including the Americans -- perhaps not the Belgians, although Leopold on his own did), they ended rather than began slavery -- I know the Indian and Ireland famines are claimed by some disgruntled historians to be genocides, but that's a fringe view. The were wars started to gain political favour, as past centuries were very warlike, but they did at least typically have the advantage of leaving a better administration in their wake (read: one with less suffering and better rights) than before. There was no systematic disregard for human life, at least any such disregard was less than was typical of the era, for any given era you care to name. Regard for human life is never perfect, it is a slowly improving thing, and it is pretty imperfect today for that matter. Bigotry? The British were rather racist, as was most of the world, but they didn't follow up on it by persecuting minorities -- unlike the KKK you cite, or the French or the Germans. And the South African concentration camps in fact housed British subjects and also Boers; they were underquipped and there was great suffering (not more than typical for a warring company at the time, check out death rates in a typical Army barracks for any country at the time -- American civil war records are well-kept), though they were never forced-labour or extermination camps, as what we later came to think of as concentration camps were. These wrongs were righted due to the campaigning of Emily Hobhouse. As Robert Burns said "For never but by British hands// Maun British wrangs be righted".
I'm not British or American or interested in Britain today, but I am keenly interested in history. It's rather shoddily taught today and everyone spouts the prefabricated opinions that are fashionable, as you and the GP did. The British Empire was not a nice place, because the world was not a nice place, and frankly it still isn't. But the Empire was the most progressive and actually had the military and economic aegis to back its liberality up. The passing of its rule and the taking of the helm by America plunged the world into a more chaotic time, characterised by a quite different type of relationship of the wealthy to the poor. What used to happen? British or European companies would set up shop somewhere where good profits were to be made, inevitably sparking some protest and violence due to their practices. Britain would intervene: invade or colonise, unless there was an anti-imperialist government at home. They colonised and built up well and liberally (by comparison) administered areas all over the world, spreading the values of the English enlightenment with good Victorian administration and science. What happens today? Big companies set up shop somewhere where good profits are to be made, inevitably sparking protest or violence due to their practices. America intervenes and bears pressure on the government to keep quiet, or even topples it if it is very contrary. I do hope you don't call that an improvement! The only improvements the global poor have seen have been passive: due to non-governmental initiatives and the gradual diffusion of technology and wealth.
So what were British values, the ones that sustained the Empire, in practice and not in myth? The values of private individual
Slashdot Mirror
Au contraire, I only open it when I need to. That was for an OED copy-paste.
As expressed in the 1964 revue "Beyond the Fringe": "Of course, they have inherited our two-party system, haven't they? Well, let me see now, they've got the Republican Party, you see, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party. And then there's the Democratic Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party."
:)
How times don't change.
Well, the US government itself seems to be taking tack 1. And it has been for a century or so at least.
But seriously for a moment. Don't you think it is reasonable that when they say general welfare, they mean just that, and then enumerate a starting list of powers? It would be pretty stupid to keep the list unchanged over centuries of use!
Let me take a guess here and hazard that you're against universal healthcare. Why, when that is one of those things that is most assuredly, under any possible definition, part of "general welfare", both of the individual members of a nation and the nation as a whole? Yet because it wasn't possible, or simply imagined, in 1789, you must stick out against it? I do apologise if you support universal healthcare in the US.
Actually, the libertarian ideas are quite new in US politics. If you look back to speeches and propaganda of the pre-war era, Americans were very proud of their social welfare system, such as it was. It has grown enormously since then, though still lagging behind Europe, so at least it's clear that America as a whole is for social justice and welfare.
However, the culture of Japan from the beginning of the Meiji Restoration through to the end of the Second World War was virtually unchanged!
Well exactly! You seem to think that I dated Japan's time of prosperity from the Meiji Restoration, but I date it from the Second World War. That's when the country was really transformed.
There was no 'adoption' of anything European, and in fact the nature of Japanese companies is so unique that after the war (even despite deliberate efforts by the occupying US government to dismantle the companies!) when it became obvious that they were outperforming their Western counterparts, it became fashionable for Western businessmen to go to Japan to learn about kaizen!
No adoption! Of course just about every interesting bit of Japanese design was first ripped off from the Europeans. Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I prefer to think in terms of large cases. From Mazda to hifis it became very fashionable for Japanese businessmen to copy good European designs, make them cheaper and sell them to Europe and America.
You say essentially that ripping off creativity will never create a real power. Wow. You don't seem to know your ancient history either. That was the Roman civilization's raison d'etre! They became a world power through jealous mimicry of Greek culture, religion, art, politics, etc. etc.
Bollocks! The Romans ripped off Greek culture, but that's not what made them great. The Romans were made great by concepts the Greeks could not hope to imitate -- rigorous discipline, loyalty (the Macedonians had that) and a wonderful ability for organisation. Democracy or an appreciation for philosophy did not make the Romans great, for they had neither of themselves. Brilliant warfare and splendid administration of conquered territories are what made Rome great.
You also ignore the fact that Japan and China are already 'real powers' with the largest economies in the world after the US. (And considering how much US debt is owned by China, I think the balance of power is more equal than most people are comfortable imagining.)
Japan is a second-rate power, of course. China is impressive because of its population -- in reality, when you look at the individual citizen, it is a very poor country. It wields some power, but it is basically in thrall to its export market. Sure, it holds a lot of US debt, but using that to ruin the US would just ruin itself, so it bides its time. In the meanwhile, the debt happily depreciates. The US is a real winner out of that relationship so far. What China intends to do with it is anybody's guess, of course. Privately, I think nothing will come of it.
You mention the Civil War, and I apologise for forgetting to mention 'between a democratic and non-democratic country'. The Civil War's basic premise, of course, was played out over a much larger scale under a decade later, and though Franco held on, that era thankfully died in the late 70s. Same for Eritrea: the Eritreans certainly didn't live under a democracy. I'm not interested in the obvious refutations of when two non-democracies fight. So please leave rebellions, etc. out of this. Also, if it is coalitions fighting against each other, as in the Napoleonic Wars or WWII, the side with democracies is the one I am referring to. Cleaning up that mess I think you will find I come out right. I pick 1700 because there were no democracies before it except in ancient times.
Oh:
It's also important to remember that the United Kingdom is still not a democracy, but a constitutional monarchy.
I think you ought to research what it means to be a democracy (not to mention what the House of Lords is), as your statement is quite ridiculous.
Yes, I describe the colonisation of India as a system of pacts and alliances and naturally, wars. You write
Thanks for the info! It's great to know the idea is actually used in practice.
If NASA don't come up with a quick solution, I think you should write to them. Or if you don't want to, I shall. Of course, there's not much chance that they would read it, but hey, it's always worth trying.
Of course there's one small flaw with this. Passing exams isn't merit. Capitalism, especially if well regulated against its extremer aspects, is much more a true meritocracy than has ever been practised in any Asiatic cultures.
Of course there's one small flaw with this. Passing exams isn't merit. Capitalism, especially if well regulated against its extremer aspects, is much more a true democracy than has ever been practised in any Asiatic cultures. Japan began to prosper when it adopted a capitalist, i.e. European (to be exact, British or even Scottish) culture. China's modus operandi at the moment, like Japan's, is ripping off the products of Western creativity and making them cheaper. This will never make a real power, because it never has.
In the modern world, that is since about 1700, every major war has been won by a democracy. Since the first modern democracies, Britain and America, country after country has adopted democracy -- very slowly, but they have not gone back of their own volition -- and have thereby prospered. China is no exception to this, and if it ever becomes really powerful and successful (remember, even the Soviet Union failed eventually, though the bulk of it did not become a democracy) it will be as a democracy. Which incidentally is a European idea -- originally Greek and in the modern world basically British or English.
In fact, your own post makes great arguments for this. For instance, on something that you blame for impeding Chinese progress: "Sort of like if the U.S. all became Amish." This doesn't happen in a functioning democracy: power and ideas are distributed too well.
"The Europeans were brutal to those they colonized. They demanded submission and subservience. During Zhenghe's day, the Chinese didn't. They created trade pacts, but let the people be."
Here you are merely being ignorant of history. For example, note how India was colonised by the British, or North America managed by the British government. It is exactly the system of local pacts and alliances that you describe. Chaos often came when the British left, though -- in North America the Americans waged destructive war on the Indians; India and Pakistan have waged numerous wars against each other.
By contrast, the Chinese today never let the people be. Their primary foreign policy has been to arm rebel groups anywhere in the hope of them eventually forming Communist states and buying Chinese services and trading with Chinese businessmen. Without China there would have been only a small fraction of the blood that has been shed in small movements would have been shed.
I don't believe in any sort of manifest destiny for particular groups of people. But I do believe in the manifest destiny of ideas, at least until (and if) they are supplanted by better ones. And liberalism and democracy have won, and whatever models the Chinese have developed, have failed. If China succeeds based on ideas it has developed, it will be because it has developed even better ones, but that is all in the future. Right now, it hasn't.
[(1) OE. wyrcan, pa. tense worhte, pa. pple. {asg}eworht, = OS. workian, OHG. wurchen, worhta, wurhta, giworht, gewurchet (MHG. wurken, würken, worhte, geworht, gewürket), ON. yrkja, orta, ortr, Goth. waurkjan, waurhta, -waurhts:{em}OTeut. *wurkjan, *wur{chi}t-; (2) OE. (Mercian) wircan, = OFris. werkia, wirza, wrochte, wrocht, OS. wirkian, war(a)hta, war(a)ht, OHG. wirchen, warahta (MHG. wirken, warhte, G. wirken; wirkte, gewirkt), ON. verkja, virkja to feel pain:{em}OTeut. *werkjan, *war{chi}t- (*wur{chi}t-). A third OE. type represented by late wercan, weorc(e)an seems to point to early influence of the n. we(o)rc (see WORK n.) upon the vowel of the v.
Other Teut. forms are OFris. werka, OS. -werkon, (-werkot), (M)Du., M(LG.) werken, (wrochte, etc.), OHG. werchôn (MHG. werchen, werken), ON. verka (-a{edh}) in certain technical uses, orka to manage, effect, contrive (Sw. verka to do, perform, virka to crochet, Da. virke to operate, act, weave, etc.).
The Indo-Eur. base worg-, werg-, wrg- is represented outside Germanic by Zend v{schwa}r{schwa}zyeiti he works, Gr. {elenisacu}{rho}{delta}{omega} (:{em}*wergj{omac}), {rasper}{geacu}{zeta}{omega} (:{em}*wrgj{omac}) I do, perf. {elenisacu}{omicron}{rho}{gamma}{alpha}, {olenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{alpha}{nu}{omicron}{nu} ORGAN, {olenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{iota}{omicron}{nu} ORGY, OIr. fairged they made, do-fairci prepares, and the forms s.v. WARK n. and v., and WORK n.
The normal representative of OE. wyrcan would be *worch (for the vocalism cf. worm, worse, wort); the substitution of k for ch, producing the modern standard form (w{revope}{lm}k) instead of (w{revope}{lm}t{sh}), is shown in north-midland areas c1200, and is due mainly to WORK n., though Scandinavian influence (see various forms above) is possible.
and
[OE. weorc = OFris., OS., (M)LG., (M)Du. werk, OHG. werah, werc (MHG. werch, werc, G. werk), ON. verk (Sw., Da. verk):{em}OTeut. *werkom (see WORK v.); cognate are Gr. {elenisacu}{rho}{gamma}{omicron}{nu}, Arm. gorc, Zend var{schwa}za- activity. Forms {gamma} and {epsilon} show partial assimilation to the forms of WORK v.; see also WARK, WARCH n.1 (in a specialized sense).]
OED.
Nice theory but for the fact that the orcs and goblins and the pirates are white too. So are Sauron and Saruman -- and for that matter, Saruman was the White and Gandalf the Grey until he became White. Radagast the Brown was a very decent chap, though in no way central to the plot.
As someone else earlier suggested, why not dissolve it? There are acids with high enough electronegativity differences to dissolve just about anything. If the acid were brushed on to the a sufficiently narrow part of the knot, and all collected as it dripped down, it would in time etch that part of the metal away enough to break it and hence dislodge the knob. Of course, it would have to be secured first so it doesn't collapse when it shouldn't. But that seems less invasive if more time-consuming. However, it needn't even be so expensive -- the acid can after all simply be re-circulated. No matter how time-consuming, though, it's simple enough that there's not much overhead -- so it could be done in weeks instead of 6 months.
And yes, I don't see this option discussed anywhere in the article. Several other options with immediately visible flaws are discussed and rejected, but this isn't.
It's a hobby around here. That said, Slashdot has a terrific diversity of views and you will see (and do in this thread) comments from just about every reasonable viewpoint, modded up too. Sure, the majority tends to some opinion on most topics, but that doesn't detract from what's great about Slashdot.
6) There is a fine line between being true to libertarian ideals and being an asshole.
You're right. Very fine line. In fact, come to think of it, it's so fine I've never seen it at all. I know very few people who are true libertarians and not assholes, largely because to be a true libertarian in the US means failing to think through the results of your chosen policies to their logical conclusions.
Yes, I do know that there are libertarians who do think things through and are not assholes. But they're a very small minority; not even their Presidential candidate in '08 fit that description.
Through the average level and quality of education in those countries.
No, I see no problem in generalising my experience and my knowledge of facts about the educational systems of those societies to make a comparison. Don't forget, even a low sampling can give quite high statistical confidence as long as there is no systemic bias. I account for my systemic bias by stating that my experience is only relevant to coders from those respective regions.
It probably works that way in films, but certainly not in real life. A gang of 6 is plenty enough to rush you no matter how quickly you try to shoot each of them. This will be an option definitely on the table once you get a gun out. And if having killed people isn't bad enough for you, the survivors are not going to be merciful with you.
Here's a question for you. How many were from non-Western countries? The only effect of halting US immigration would be to shift global leadership to other Western countries, which at this point collectively means the EU. Not India, which is what we're discussing at the moment. Nor yet China or Japan or Africa or Latin America, you can bet on it.
India's pleased as Punch about the guest workers in America, same as all the African countries about relatives in Europe. Reason: funds sent home are a significant chunk of their GDP.
The West has a collective guilt about colonialism and racism, which still hinders real candour. Frankly, racism existed on both sides, and there is as much about colonialism to be proud of as to be ashamed of, especially for the more liberal empires like Britain and Belgium. America does have a real history of buggering things up with respect to the non-European world, but it also has plenty of things to be proud of, often things undertaken by private citizens.
What's the point? The West must forget the guilt, and non-Western countries will stop taking advantage of it. Until then, frankly, it is not a bad thing, because the West is pretty rich, and money going from the West to the rest of the world, though it go into countries not half so democratic and liberal, is not a bad thing.
You're an idiot. GP was talking about nations/societies, not races.
I have little experience of Chinese colleagues, just one data point who's decent, but I would lay higher odds on a European coder I don't know being a good coder than people from any other region. Especially Eastern Europeans, but my impression is not limited to them.
Patriot? I'm not American, so I didn't see it, although I read up on it on Wikipedia. It seems it's just more of the usual Hollywood trash, fitting right in with Mel Gibson's melodrama. Patriot is not in any way a depiction of reality, you know, at least not of what was in question. The only claim it could have to reality would be perhaps as an allegory of the Congo.
What happened to the good old-fashioned method of running away? Minimising bloodshed? If you pull a gun, there's a good chance it won't only be used as a deterrent but to fire. Not to mention that if 6 people feel in immediate danger, they will probably rush the person with the gun, which means he will be overwhelmed and killed, at most "taking one or two with him".
People had a lot to lose at the time of the Revolution. Their lives, their families, and their property. This wasn't Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany or China, this was just Britain. There comes a point when the vocal minority wanting Home Rule inflames things to the point where war is inevitable. Same thing happened in Ireland. Don't confuse desperation with a natural desire to govern yourself.
Small arms against rock-throwers? Are you quite out of your mind?
Frankly, true or untrue (and I'm inclined to believe she's telling the truth), there's nothing else she would say afterwards, is there? It's put rather poetically too, so at least she's evidently had time to formulate it nicely.
Probably neither you or the GP have a firm grasp of history. For the GP: British rule was typically liberal, wildlife hunting under a few European wealthy hunters did not deplete wildlife, the British did not collapse stable democracies anywhere (although the Americans, who are related, did collapse a few stable dictatorships and tottering democracies), nor did they anywhere rape a country of its natural resources. British private companies did do many of these things, as private companies everywhere have always done and still do -- in that respect, nothing's new, and you may blame everyone equally.
// Maun British wrangs be righted".
As for the parent, there are no instances of British ethnic cleansing or genocide (though you will find instances for virtually every other colonial empire, including the Americans -- perhaps not the Belgians, although Leopold on his own did), they ended rather than began slavery -- I know the Indian and Ireland famines are claimed by some disgruntled historians to be genocides, but that's a fringe view. The were wars started to gain political favour, as past centuries were very warlike, but they did at least typically have the advantage of leaving a better administration in their wake (read: one with less suffering and better rights) than before. There was no systematic disregard for human life, at least any such disregard was less than was typical of the era, for any given era you care to name. Regard for human life is never perfect, it is a slowly improving thing, and it is pretty imperfect today for that matter. Bigotry? The British were rather racist, as was most of the world, but they didn't follow up on it by persecuting minorities -- unlike the KKK you cite, or the French or the Germans. And the South African concentration camps in fact housed British subjects and also Boers; they were underquipped and there was great suffering (not more than typical for a warring company at the time, check out death rates in a typical Army barracks for any country at the time -- American civil war records are well-kept), though they were never forced-labour or extermination camps, as what we later came to think of as concentration camps were. These wrongs were righted due to the campaigning of Emily Hobhouse. As Robert Burns said "For never but by British hands
I'm not British or American or interested in Britain today, but I am keenly interested in history. It's rather shoddily taught today and everyone spouts the prefabricated opinions that are fashionable, as you and the GP did. The British Empire was not a nice place, because the world was not a nice place, and frankly it still isn't. But the Empire was the most progressive and actually had the military and economic aegis to back its liberality up. The passing of its rule and the taking of the helm by America plunged the world into a more chaotic time, characterised by a quite different type of relationship of the wealthy to the poor. What used to happen? British or European companies would set up shop somewhere where good profits were to be made, inevitably sparking some protest and violence due to their practices. Britain would intervene: invade or colonise, unless there was an anti-imperialist government at home. They colonised and built up well and liberally (by comparison) administered areas all over the world, spreading the values of the English enlightenment with good Victorian administration and science. What happens today? Big companies set up shop somewhere where good profits are to be made, inevitably sparking protest or violence due to their practices. America intervenes and bears pressure on the government to keep quiet, or even topples it if it is very contrary. I do hope you don't call that an improvement! The only improvements the global poor have seen have been passive: due to non-governmental initiatives and the gradual diffusion of technology and wealth.
So what were British values, the ones that sustained the Empire, in practice and not in myth? The values of private individual
Yes, I was playing it just a few days ago. wump is part of the same collection.
And Mozart. That still leaves the Successful Wunderkinds - Flopped Wunderkinds score at 2:81285, at last count...