Let's fix your typos to reflect reality... "It's illegal because many alcohol users think it's ok to get behind a wheel, or party a little too hard and get into an drunken brawl... or something. Not to mention the health care burden alcohol users put on society...."
Alcohol and stupidity in general are just as dangerous, and are far more likely to kill or maim not only yourself but other people as well. So should we ban all alcohol use for your reasoning? Since we can't outlaw blatant stupidity, that is. And since a few people, no matter their drug or intoxication of choice, can't be trusted to do the right thing and be safe? By that logic, what else can we outlaw? Why, everything! Religion, guns, money, thinking, breathing, living....
Lol, flamebait? Off-topic, a stretch, but there. Irrelevant? Possibly. But flamebait? At least try!
I was trying to make a valid point, based off the thread, and the concept of what consumers expect (or don't) from software of any kind these days. It's hard to deny with any sense of understanding that the average computer user (not the/. self-titled uber-geek) just accepts that computers are "broken" and they have to put up with flaws. They expect such things, and though perhaps frustrated and annoyed, often don't know that it really shouldn't be this way. That they have the right, as the one paying the bills, to demand better. And that it can be better.
But if such a concept is flamebait, then the/. community is no different than the disillusioned masses. Let the status quo continue, and live with the bugs in your games.
Since this was marked as Troll, I'll clarify. It really wasn't meant to troll, but was rather a commentary on what users have come to expect from computers.
The majority of computer users are used to bugs and problems with software and hardware. They've come to expect it, as OS after OS is rolled out with major flaws and issues. And yet users still pay for this. They just assume the bugginess and crashes are the norm in the computer world, and developers rarely seem to provide them with any different viewpoint.
When the OS they're using is shipped with known bugs and security holes, and the develper acts as though it's a customer service to fix their own flaws in patches. it becomes the norm. Other developers, of all types of products, follow suit. Unless users stop buying such products, or pressing the market for release dates before a product is ready, then it will continue. This is standard form, not an exception. in any type of software.
It's up to the consumer to demand better, to not pay for the privilege of being a beta tester on release. If a company can't develop a decent product, then don't buy it.
Interesting points, and some well-stated, but alas, once again someone (as those same bible-thumpers you point out love to do) has fallen into the trap of equating behaviour such as this with Socialism, which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Socialism is, like Capitalism, an economic theory, not a "social" one. It has nothing to do with limiting the rights of individuals, or of societal "norms" of personal behaviour. It is purely a monetary distribution system. This is why you can have a Socialist Monarchy, a Socialist Democracy, a Socialist Dictatorship, etc. (as the U.S. currently has a very distorted Capitalistic Democracy). Don't fall into the trap of those who would use "Liberal," "Socialist" or even "Conservative" as blind labels when they distract from the real point.
The ruling by this judge seems ludicrous and pointless, though it really does seem, to me at least, more of a power or attention grabbing measure. A waste of the money of the taxpayers of the state, and eventually, of the taxpayers of the nation, and for no seemingly productive gain.
Where I live, Comcast started this a few days ago, as well. (a smaller company was sold to comcast last year, and so we were stuck with them). Oddly enough, however, instead of being redirected to a comcast page, we're being redirected to an earthlink ad page.
Not sure if it's related, but Comcast was recently in discussions to sell their rights up here (that they just bought), and one of the possible buyers, iirc, was Roger's (though am not in Canada, just very near).
It's been a couple years since I accepted credit cards for my businesses, but when I did, I was very aware of the fact that both Visa and Mastercard accounts forbid sellers from charging minimums or adding transaction fees to any purchase (i.e., they can't "give discounts" for cash purchases). They want it to be treated the same as cash. It's against their ToS when you sign their contract. Thus, MS using this as an excuse is meaningless blather.
The transaction fee a retailer pays is part of their cost of business. They could choose not to accept credit cards, and thus lose sales from those who don't have the cash on hand, or they can do like most do, and realize that paying the transaction fee is minimal compared to the sales they would lose if they didn't allow credit card purchases. MS chooses to pay that fee, rather than dealing with cash or check purchases, and it is their responsibility. Not the consumer's, nor their suppliers'. MS has set up their system as a Credit Card related service, and are stuck with it. To attempt to pass on this charge to a customer or to anyone else is (at least, as of a couple years ago when I dealt with such things) against the policies of Visa and Mastercard. And they can be fined or lose their accounts for this (though I doubt the banks would take it away form such a large corp.).
Once again, MS has spouted BS as an excuse for their practices of extortion. But do we expect any less?
And the U.S. owes billions of dollars to China, thus is subservient to China, and thus is evil. China has been a buddy of the U.S. since Nixon's time (when he appointed Bush Sr. as the ambassador), and has always gone along with the Chinese government, while giving lip service to human rights (which are growing to be just as abused here in the U.S.). So, once again, the U.S. is plumbing the depths of evil all for monetary gain, is the most evil, and should never have been born.
And every major provider and search engine in the U.S., along with the U.S. Military, Government run major media, schools, local governments, etc., etc., censors the web in the U.S., so best they were never born.
Until something realistic is done in the U.S., or any other country, to raise their own human rights standards so they have the ability to take a real stand on such an issue without becoming the fool, then there's no way in hell you're gonna convince a corporation to follow suit. And whining about it in Slashdot won't get this done.
There used to be a group of dentistry (and probably still is) that believed in not using painkillers when filling cavities, especially with children, so they'd learn to brush better and not get any cavities.
That, or the dental schools pre-screened for sadists.
Hubble servicing project (tentatively STS-125) scheduled for 2008, as per Wikipedia.
But don't let that get in the way of your ignorant, uninformed, nonsensical political rant.
Budget cuts and safety concerns were the reasons given for cancellation of the 2006 repair mission, and any future such missions are currently speculative possibilities "under consideration." http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future/ has more on this, as does http://hubble.nasa.gov/.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of your ignorant, uninformed and nonsensical attacking of someone else for actually knowing them.
"(1) about 60 percent of the temperature increase happened between 1500 and 1900. The notion that there was a lot of unusual greenhouse gases in that interval is questionable at best."
Without having read the whole fucking article, because I (like a good/.er) rely instead on the great minds here for all my facts, I just wonder about the math you're using to try and make your point.
If 60% of this temperature increase took 400 years, and the other 40% took only 100 years, then there would seem to be a disparity. For example, if the average temp. is up by 10 degrees in that time (made up number), then in each of the first 100 years it would have raised by 1.5 degrees (60% of 10 is 6. Divide by 4=1.5), and the last 100 years would have seen a sudden raise of 4 more degrees. Thus, trying to use your 60/40 math to disprove "unusual" or a sudden upswing in warming is rather weak.
I'm probably missing someone else's comment on this, and it wouldn't be a problem likely in a movie theatre where in-house security cameras are less likely, but...
More and more security systems are digital these days. Such as in museums, office buildings, etc. If you tried to stop someone taking a picture in a museum, say, which is likely flooded with security cameras, how would it differentiate the in-house cameras from those brought in? You couldn't flood the room with a constant barrage of the lights proposed. There'd also be now realistic way (financially or logistically) to institute such a system in in a huge stadium (say, at concerts) or any outdoor event. Even the proposed trade show usage (despite the article's claim on ambient light) isn't very realistic, as most such events are held in extremely large, open and bright spaces. Yes, a simple, blind question, and I didn't spot anything in the article about this, but I'm tired. Is this really a feasible measure outside of a few very limited uses? Isn't it more than likely that places such as movie theatres will fight the forced usage of such systems, as well, unless those asking for them fund it?
Now... if only there was a word for the kind of person who does that
This is far too easy... Do I even bother? Ooohhhh... I have to say it. If I don't someone else will, and I'm just in the mood. The body of christ compels me...
Politicians? Lawyers? Talking heads on "news" programs? Software programmers?
What would be perfect is to figure out a way to shove the annoying tourists into one end of a machine and get computers out the other. Not only would this be a worthwhile cause, but it would also save the beaches from the trash and destruction tourists leave in their wake.
My guess: they'll use lawyers.
My second guess is clowns, but we'll see which way it goes.
I'm not sure which is more frightening...
Attorneys are the laughable, goofy ones, and clowns the stuff of nightmares.
How about Attorney Clowns from the Center of the Earth? They've transported themselves to feed on our souls, and insist we should laugh the whole time as it's for our own good.
Most places in the U.S. don't have 40 or 50 offices or measures they're voting for at any one time. Only a few larger cities and communities (who tend to think that they're the center of the universe) have so many, and most have maybe a dozen or so at an average (major) election. Despite popular belief, most places in the U.S. are still rural hicksvilles, in the middle of nowhere. And it's not as if we're ever allowed to vote on anything important, anyway.
There are many places in the U.S. that still use paper ballots, whether pencil or punch card. The computerized machines are still too iffy and expensive, and so haven't been put in place in those places that can't afford such waste (i.e., most of the nation). Where I live, we use pencil and paper, and I feel much more secure about that. I can't imagine the older people around here, who've never really touched a computer in their lives, having to deal with a machine for voting. It would be chaos. Let's face it, most people couldn't figure out how to work a computerized automatic bowling score-keeping system, much less something that actually required thought. There are also places in the U.S. (Oregon) where all voting is done by mail-in (or drop-off if you're a procrastinator) ballot. All paper, check the boxes, no machines needed for voting (though they're used for reading the ballot, I believe), no having to try and get off work or schedule in a time to wade through mobs with their signs and fiery opinions, stand in line to sign in, stand in line to vote, etc. And last I heard voter "turnout" has grown much stronger since that was put in place.
Give me paper any day. Can't trust computers at home or in the office, why would we automatically trust a voting machine made by a corporation who has fought to keep their software and system secret and hidden?
Yeah, sure. Always fight back. Teach your kids that if someone tries to mug you at gunpoint, don't run away for hp, fight back!! Had a college roommate who was on vacation with other friends in a city. Some people tried to mug them, at gunpoint. One of the tough guy idiots with them decided he would fight back. My roommate was shot, the "tough" guy ran away. The whole group that was mugged says "wow, I should have just run for help rather than arguing back."
Throughout school, I was tiny, and so bullied non-stop. I tried every method there was, from telling someone, to ignore it, to being a smart-ass, to fighting back. And every time I fought back, I got the crap kicked out of me. And despite the Disney-esque feel good visions of those who think fighting back makes a bully respect you, the reality is that they laugh and do the same exact thing the next day. Only thing that ever worked to get rid of any bullies was when a girlfriend of one saw him beating on me in a hall, and ripped into him.
If a kid fights back because they're being bullied, then yes, back them up on it. But also teach them there are other ways. Idiotic violence shouldn't be there first response.
Am I a wuss today because I learned that going ballistic and being a violent idiot wouldn't solve anything? No. I stick up for myself, and tell others where to stick it quite frequently. If someone is beating their kid, or being a racist prick within my sight or hearing, I do something about it. If I see kids being bullied, I step in. My stepping in teaches them that there is someone else out there who will help them, they're not alone in the world. And maybe one day they'll return the favour. Teaching them that the only way to solve your problems is by physically fighting back doesn't instill any more self-confidence than teaching them there are idiots in the world, and sometimes it's better to just walk away and laugh or pity them. Self-confidence should come from inside someone, in their own abilities, and not from the ability to kick someone's ass to get rid of a "problem." The bullies don't stop bullying, and there will always be another out there to take their place. Violence will get returned, and rarely makes any point. Especially when the kid you've taught this to does it at age 18, and gets thrown in jail for attempted murder.
Do I think this will change anyone's mind? No. Because some people have decided that violence, or smashing someone's head into a locker, is the only way, despite the fact that all evidence proves there are no weapons of mass destruction.... wait... different issue...
Not certain of the dates, but weren't Scotland and Ireland still separate at this time? I know Charles used Scotland to try and squash Cromwell's forces, and they made a good run of it. But it was Cromwell who decided the Irish were evil catholic scum, and it was time to arrive at a final solution. He set about on a campaign of slaughter and subjugation, and ordered that Irish Catholic children be sent to the West Indies as slave labour, both to get rid of them, and because he knew a large percentage would die (and dead children can't breed).
Cromwell, and the Parliament he controlled, were _extremely_ Puritan, and used that. I believe, backed by his Army, he pretty much dissolved parliament from about 1653 to his death in 1658. During his reign, they banned Christmas as being too secular, shut down inns and theatres (not holy enough, and detracted from god), made swearing a crime (repeated offenses could get you thrown in prison), banned most sports (boys caught playing on Sundays were whipped), made it illegal for women to do "unnecessary" work on Sundays (punishable by being placed in stocks), instituted a mandatory fast day each month, enforced strict dress codes (no make-up, no flashy colours, no revealing clothing), and much more. Despite saying the monarchy was dead, he ordered he be buried in Westminster Abbey on his death (where Kings and Queens were buried).
Cromwell used his Army to enforce his rules, dividing England into 11 areas, each governed by a Major-General. They used the soldiers to enforce his puritanical rules. The sentiment and reaction of the common people to all of these things was, predictably, not favourable. Cromwell was _not_ well-liked, and was proclaimed a "hero" only by a very few.
I'm not trying to say I know everything about the time. Much of English History is very convoluted and confusing, and Monarchs and rulers were constantly killing each other and fighting for power. But, having obsessed on the subject for awhile, I have read and studied the era quite a bit, and its effect on the New England colonies. Please, anyone, read up on it for yourselves, and not just from state-issued history lessons, or laudatory biographies. Doesn't have a lot on this era, but a quick and amusing overview of the entire history of Great Britain can be found in the book, "A Rhyming History of Great Britain," which may sound cheesy, but is actually very well done, and amusing as well as informative. A good start. I picked up my copy in London, but it may be available in the U.S.
Is it really a "civil war" if it's just between two groups trying of people already in power trying to kill each other to claim absolute power? Cromwell's, or the monarch's, forces running rampant throughout the land killing those in a position of power who disagreed with them had little to do with real people (aka those who actually had to live with the choices of the people in power, and had no control over anything). Don't civil wars involve uprisings of people? Okay, maybe that's a romantic view of things....
Yes, Charles was pretty pissed off that people had killed his father and stole power, for no other reason than gaining power to enforce own very strict puritan viewpoints and to have, well, more power. Makes sense, doesn't it? The puritans didn't think anyone else was good, strict or holy enough, and were not worthy. I'm not defending the monarchy over cromwell, here (though I do take particular umbrage to types who say they're doing something for the good of the "people", such as dissolving the monarchy, and then declare themselves "Supreme" anything), just saying that cromwell and his cronies were no different, and the history they teach in the U.S. about the colonies and the nation's founding is extremely lacking and flawed in these regards.
At least 3 of the regicides fled to the colonies, and hid out there. William Goffe, Edward Whalley, and John Dixwell hid out in the New Haven Colony (now part of Conencticut). I've traced ancestors and related towns that sheltered them, as well as other ancestors and towns that refused to shelter them, and told the authorities where they were. Both sides did so, according to their own letters and statements, for political purposes. Some liked the monarchy, and some didn't. But the "Supreme Protector" who replaced the monarch for a short time was no more liked or disliked by the people in the colonies or England. My interpretation of that dislike comes not from post-cromwell demonising, but from letters, statements and documents of the time. "History" books are always influenced by the current power, and only by going to that actual words of people _at the time_ can we hope to find anything reflecting actual sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's fix your typos to reflect reality...
"It's illegal because many alcohol users think it's ok to get behind a wheel, or party a little too hard and get into an drunken brawl... or something. Not to mention the health care burden alcohol users put on society...."
Alcohol and stupidity in general are just as dangerous, and are far more likely to kill or maim not only yourself but other people as well. So should we ban all alcohol use for your reasoning? Since we can't outlaw blatant stupidity, that is. And since a few people, no matter their drug or intoxication of choice, can't be trusted to do the right thing and be safe? By that logic, what else can we outlaw? Why, everything! Religion, guns, money, thinking, breathing, living....
Lol, flamebait? Off-topic, a stretch, but there. Irrelevant? Possibly. But flamebait? At least try!
I was trying to make a valid point, based off the thread, and the concept of what consumers expect (or don't) from software of any kind these days. It's hard to deny with any sense of understanding that the average computer user (not the /. self-titled uber-geek) just accepts that computers are "broken" and they have to put up with flaws. They expect such things, and though perhaps frustrated and annoyed, often don't know that it really shouldn't be this way. That they have the right, as the one paying the bills, to demand better. And that it can be better.
But if such a concept is flamebait, then the /. community is no different than the disillusioned masses. Let the status quo continue, and live with the bugs in your games.
Since this was marked as Troll, I'll clarify. It really wasn't meant to troll, but was rather a commentary on what users have come to expect from computers.
The majority of computer users are used to bugs and problems with software and hardware. They've come to expect it, as OS after OS is rolled out with major flaws and issues. And yet users still pay for this. They just assume the bugginess and crashes are the norm in the computer world, and developers rarely seem to provide them with any different viewpoint.
When the OS they're using is shipped with known bugs and security holes, and the develper acts as though it's a customer service to fix their own flaws in patches. it becomes the norm. Other developers, of all types of products, follow suit. Unless users stop buying such products, or pressing the market for release dates before a product is ready, then it will continue. This is standard form, not an exception. in any type of software.
It's up to the consumer to demand better, to not pay for the privilege of being a beta tester on release. If a company can't develop a decent product, then don't buy it.
Since when did we, as game consumers, start giving software development companies a pass for releasing buggy software?
Easy Answer: the first time you ever booted up a windows machine to play a game on.
Interesting points, and some well-stated, but alas, once again someone (as those same bible-thumpers you point out love to do) has fallen into the trap of equating behaviour such as this with Socialism, which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Socialism is, like Capitalism, an economic theory, not a "social" one. It has nothing to do with limiting the rights of individuals, or of societal "norms" of personal behaviour. It is purely a monetary distribution system. This is why you can have a Socialist Monarchy, a Socialist Democracy, a Socialist Dictatorship, etc. (as the U.S. currently has a very distorted Capitalistic Democracy). Don't fall into the trap of those who would use "Liberal," "Socialist" or even "Conservative" as blind labels when they distract from the real point.
The ruling by this judge seems ludicrous and pointless, though it really does seem, to me at least, more of a power or attention grabbing measure. A waste of the money of the taxpayers of the state, and eventually, of the taxpayers of the nation, and for no seemingly productive gain.
Where I live, Comcast started this a few days ago, as well. (a smaller company was sold to comcast last year, and so we were stuck with them). Oddly enough, however, instead of being redirected to a comcast page, we're being redirected to an earthlink ad page.
A spot of research brought up this Wired article from April on possible site hijacking through such error pages... http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/isps-error-page.html
Not sure if it's related, but Comcast was recently in discussions to sell their rights up here (that they just bought), and one of the possible buyers, iirc, was Roger's (though am not in Canada, just very near).
It's been a couple years since I accepted credit cards for my businesses, but when I did, I was very aware of the fact that both Visa and Mastercard accounts forbid sellers from charging minimums or adding transaction fees to any purchase (i.e., they can't "give discounts" for cash purchases). They want it to be treated the same as cash. It's against their ToS when you sign their contract. Thus, MS using this as an excuse is meaningless blather. The transaction fee a retailer pays is part of their cost of business. They could choose not to accept credit cards, and thus lose sales from those who don't have the cash on hand, or they can do like most do, and realize that paying the transaction fee is minimal compared to the sales they would lose if they didn't allow credit card purchases. MS chooses to pay that fee, rather than dealing with cash or check purchases, and it is their responsibility. Not the consumer's, nor their suppliers'. MS has set up their system as a Credit Card related service, and are stuck with it. To attempt to pass on this charge to a customer or to anyone else is (at least, as of a couple years ago when I dealt with such things) against the policies of Visa and Mastercard. And they can be fined or lose their accounts for this (though I doubt the banks would take it away form such a large corp.). Once again, MS has spouted BS as an excuse for their practices of extortion. But do we expect any less?
And the U.S. owes billions of dollars to China, thus is subservient to China, and thus is evil. China has been a buddy of the U.S. since Nixon's time (when he appointed Bush Sr. as the ambassador), and has always gone along with the Chinese government, while giving lip service to human rights (which are growing to be just as abused here in the U.S.). So, once again, the U.S. is plumbing the depths of evil all for monetary gain, is the most evil, and should never have been born. And every major provider and search engine in the U.S., along with the U.S. Military, Government run major media, schools, local governments, etc., etc., censors the web in the U.S., so best they were never born. Until something realistic is done in the U.S., or any other country, to raise their own human rights standards so they have the ability to take a real stand on such an issue without becoming the fool, then there's no way in hell you're gonna convince a corporation to follow suit. And whining about it in Slashdot won't get this done.
There used to be a group of dentistry (and probably still is) that believed in not using painkillers when filling cavities, especially with children, so they'd learn to brush better and not get any cavities. That, or the dental schools pre-screened for sadists.
And if you have really bad teeth, they no longer feel the cold! If those pesky abcesses and gaps in your mouth wouldn't get in the way...
But don't let that get in the way of your ignorant, uninformed, nonsensical political rant.
Budget cuts and safety concerns were the reasons given for cancellation of the 2006 repair mission, and any future such missions are currently speculative possibilities "under consideration." http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future/ has more on this, as does http://hubble.nasa.gov/.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of your ignorant, uninformed and nonsensical attacking of someone else for actually knowing them.
Without having read the whole fucking article, because I (like a good
If 60% of this temperature increase took 400 years, and the other 40% took only 100 years, then there would seem to be a disparity. For example, if the average temp. is up by 10 degrees in that time (made up number), then in each of the first 100 years it would have raised by 1.5 degrees (60% of 10 is 6. Divide by 4=1.5), and the last 100 years would have seen a sudden raise of 4 more degrees. Thus, trying to use your 60/40 math to disprove "unusual" or a sudden upswing in warming is rather weak.
Wow!! A useful and constructive response. Thank you. :) There truly is hope for this world, yet.
I'm probably missing someone else's comment on this, and it wouldn't be a problem likely in a movie theatre where in-house security cameras are less likely, but...
More and more security systems are digital these days. Such as in museums, office buildings, etc. If you tried to stop someone taking a picture in a museum, say, which is likely flooded with security cameras, how would it differentiate the in-house cameras from those brought in? You couldn't flood the room with a constant barrage of the lights proposed. There'd also be now realistic way (financially or logistically) to institute such a system in in a huge stadium (say, at concerts) or any outdoor event. Even the proposed trade show usage (despite the article's claim on ambient light) isn't very realistic, as most such events are held in extremely large, open and bright spaces. Yes, a simple, blind question, and I didn't spot anything in the article about this, but I'm tired. Is this really a feasible measure outside of a few very limited uses? Isn't it more than likely that places such as movie theatres will fight the forced usage of such systems, as well, unless those asking for them fund it?
And devout Catholics can pray the Rosary while flipping through their contacts. Some people do tend to worship their gadgets, anyway...
Dunno that I'd want to have to talk into a crucifix, though. Or use it as an earpiece.
No, it's WWBBD. Brian Boitano. Now everybody sing along!
Ummm...
Their stance would make them Capitalists, not Communists. Communism would have everything shared. In Captitalism, everything is bought.
Look it up.
Oops... Didn't mean to troll with the programmers thing. Just popped out. I have nothing against Developers, and in fact happen to live with one.
Must be the subconscious leaking out again. Someone needs to make a protective undergarment for that.
This is far too easy... Do I even bother? Ooohhhh... I have to say it. If I don't someone else will, and I'm just in the mood. The body of christ compels me... Politicians? Lawyers? Talking heads on "news" programs? Software programmers?
What would be perfect is to figure out a way to shove the annoying tourists into one end of a machine and get computers out the other. Not only would this be a worthwhile cause, but it would also save the beaches from the trash and destruction tourists leave in their wake.
My second guess is clowns, but we'll see which way it goes.
I'm not sure which is more frightening...
Attorneys are the laughable, goofy ones, and clowns the stuff of nightmares.
How about Attorney Clowns from the Center of the Earth? They've transported themselves to feed on our souls, and insist we should laugh the whole time as it's for our own good.
There are many places in the U.S. that still use paper ballots, whether pencil or punch card. The computerized machines are still too iffy and expensive, and so haven't been put in place in those places that can't afford such waste (i.e., most of the nation). Where I live, we use pencil and paper, and I feel much more secure about that. I can't imagine the older people around here, who've never really touched a computer in their lives, having to deal with a machine for voting. It would be chaos. Let's face it, most people couldn't figure out how to work a computerized automatic bowling score-keeping system, much less something that actually required thought. There are also places in the U.S. (Oregon) where all voting is done by mail-in (or drop-off if you're a procrastinator) ballot. All paper, check the boxes, no machines needed for voting (though they're used for reading the ballot, I believe), no having to try and get off work or schedule in a time to wade through mobs with their signs and fiery opinions, stand in line to sign in, stand in line to vote, etc. And last I heard voter "turnout" has grown much stronger since that was put in place.
Give me paper any day. Can't trust computers at home or in the office, why would we automatically trust a voting machine made by a corporation who has fought to keep their software and system secret and hidden?
Throughout school, I was tiny, and so bullied non-stop. I tried every method there was, from telling someone, to ignore it, to being a smart-ass, to fighting back. And every time I fought back, I got the crap kicked out of me. And despite the Disney-esque feel good visions of those who think fighting back makes a bully respect you, the reality is that they laugh and do the same exact thing the next day. Only thing that ever worked to get rid of any bullies was when a girlfriend of one saw him beating on me in a hall, and ripped into him.
If a kid fights back because they're being bullied, then yes, back them up on it. But also teach them there are other ways. Idiotic violence shouldn't be there first response.
Am I a wuss today because I learned that going ballistic and being a violent idiot wouldn't solve anything? No. I stick up for myself, and tell others where to stick it quite frequently. If someone is beating their kid, or being a racist prick within my sight or hearing, I do something about it. If I see kids being bullied, I step in. My stepping in teaches them that there is someone else out there who will help them, they're not alone in the world. And maybe one day they'll return the favour. Teaching them that the only way to solve your problems is by physically fighting back doesn't instill any more self-confidence than teaching them there are idiots in the world, and sometimes it's better to just walk away and laugh or pity them. Self-confidence should come from inside someone, in their own abilities, and not from the ability to kick someone's ass to get rid of a "problem." The bullies don't stop bullying, and there will always be another out there to take their place. Violence will get returned, and rarely makes any point. Especially when the kid you've taught this to does it at age 18, and gets thrown in jail for attempted murder.
Do I think this will change anyone's mind? No. Because some people have decided that violence, or smashing someone's head into a locker, is the only way, despite the fact that all evidence proves there are no weapons of mass destruction.... wait... different issue...
Cromwell, and the Parliament he controlled, were _extremely_ Puritan, and used that. I believe, backed by his Army, he pretty much dissolved parliament from about 1653 to his death in 1658. During his reign, they banned Christmas as being too secular, shut down inns and theatres (not holy enough, and detracted from god), made swearing a crime (repeated offenses could get you thrown in prison), banned most sports (boys caught playing on Sundays were whipped), made it illegal for women to do "unnecessary" work on Sundays (punishable by being placed in stocks), instituted a mandatory fast day each month, enforced strict dress codes (no make-up, no flashy colours, no revealing clothing), and much more. Despite saying the monarchy was dead, he ordered he be buried in Westminster Abbey on his death (where Kings and Queens were buried).
Cromwell used his Army to enforce his rules, dividing England into 11 areas, each governed by a Major-General. They used the soldiers to enforce his puritanical rules. The sentiment and reaction of the common people to all of these things was, predictably, not favourable. Cromwell was _not_ well-liked, and was proclaimed a "hero" only by a very few.
I'm not trying to say I know everything about the time. Much of English History is very convoluted and confusing, and Monarchs and rulers were constantly killing each other and fighting for power. But, having obsessed on the subject for awhile, I have read and studied the era quite a bit, and its effect on the New England colonies. Please, anyone, read up on it for yourselves, and not just from state-issued history lessons, or laudatory biographies. Doesn't have a lot on this era, but a quick and amusing overview of the entire history of Great Britain can be found in the book, "A Rhyming History of Great Britain," which may sound cheesy, but is actually very well done, and amusing as well as informative. A good start. I picked up my copy in London, but it may be available in the U.S.
Yes, Charles was pretty pissed off that people had killed his father and stole power, for no other reason than gaining power to enforce own very strict puritan viewpoints and to have, well, more power. Makes sense, doesn't it? The puritans didn't think anyone else was good, strict or holy enough, and were not worthy. I'm not defending the monarchy over cromwell, here (though I do take particular umbrage to types who say they're doing something for the good of the "people", such as dissolving the monarchy, and then declare themselves "Supreme" anything), just saying that cromwell and his cronies were no different, and the history they teach in the U.S. about the colonies and the nation's founding is extremely lacking and flawed in these regards.
At least 3 of the regicides fled to the colonies, and hid out there. William Goffe, Edward Whalley, and John Dixwell hid out in the New Haven Colony (now part of Conencticut). I've traced ancestors and related towns that sheltered them, as well as other ancestors and towns that refused to shelter them, and told the authorities where they were. Both sides did so, according to their own letters and statements, for political purposes. Some liked the monarchy, and some didn't. But the "Supreme Protector" who replaced the monarch for a short time was no more liked or disliked by the people in the colonies or England. My interpretation of that dislike comes not from post-cromwell demonising, but from letters, statements and documents of the time. "History" books are always influenced by the current power, and only by going to that actual words of people _at the time_ can we hope to find anything reflecting actual sentiment.