"Sue them under the DMCA for selling pirated reproductions of your copyrighted "artistic work" (aka the paintjob on your house)
Might work against another individual or even evil corporations/commercial organisations selling photos of your house, but don't go round trying to sue people with access to more tanks/missiles/secret 'rendition facilities' than you. It really doesn't work, they really don't need to care about your country's law if they don't want to. These guys really don't respond well to people shouting "I know my rights" at them. They want to take a photo of your house, they are going to do so....:-)
Well referenced sir. An actual reference rather than a vaguely remembered comic strip version of history.
Long live the EU. I'm much happier with the current set up than how my grandfather or his father had to relate to folk from other European countries. Dying in a muddy trench shooting at somebody who's got no more grudge against me than I have against him because some rich bloke will make some money out of it or because some hereditary fool has some bizarre sense of honour to protect seems a bloody pointless exercise. I have no wish to do it.
interesting expression. Which "Old Country"? Lots of countries are quite old;-)
I'm quite curious because Americans seem very attached to their roots; I suppose we all are but maybe its more true of places where there is large scale immigration, and very few of the people of the country can claim long term heritage - I wonder if the same is true of places like Australia as well? Just curious really - I've heard Americans describing themselves as "Irish-American" (for example) when it might be like you that you have to go 4 or more generations back to have an ancestor born in a different country. MAybe we as humans have to understand our histories and relate to it, and if you're in a country where clearly you're not 20 generations native, it's more important to understand where you're from? I'm trying to think how that compares in the UK (where I am)... I think maybe past about 2 generations people would say "I'm British" rather than identifying heritage more than that. Hmmm, curious. Have to think about this one.
Surely rugby ticket prices are lower because the cost of running teams are lower? I'm guessing there aren't any Chelsea -priced players in the Rugby Leagues? Chelsea seem to be happy spending 20-30 million UK sterling for a top player, what does a top player cost in Rugby Union?
I guess they are screwing the fans to get that sort of money back.
As a football fan I wish you the best of luck and hope that big money doesn't come Rugby's way and mess up your game. I watch League Two football (fourth level) and the game is still small enough that security is a few bored coppers and different entrances for the home and away stands.
Sorry, in the UK, "I wouldn't feed my dog on that" is a colloquial turn of phrase, referring to food of such poor quality that it is not fit to be given to dogs to eat (dogs being considered less discerning eaters than humans and lower form of animal).
Not meant to be taken literally.
Not sure what the equivalent expression is in your country.
I am sure if India establishes itself as a commercial player and can start making a profit from launching satellites, this could prove to be *very* important. If not to the rest of the world (though I am sure the other commercial launchers are watching closely) then at least to India's domestic space program. I am sure the Indian government is far more likely to listen to their scientists requests to send up costly science experiments into space if the space program is closer to financial self-sufficiency.
Obviously the military will be more than happy if a large number of successful launches go ahead as a result: this will be a clear message to potential aggressive neighbours that India has a reliable delivery system to anywhere on the planet for 1000kg nuclear warheads.
Definitely there is crap here as well, lots of it, shelves of it, can you say "snickers" or "mars bar", lots of cloying candy crap, but pretty well every corner store has a couple of bars of decent chocolate, pretty well every half sized supermarket sells 70% cocoa content bars. And this is the UK, laughed at for its crap food across the rest of Europe.
We had the same battle here if you remember about 10 years ago with European Union food people trying to get huge numbers of British "chocolate" bars relabelled as not-chocolate, The Sun newspaper and the other red tops threw a wobbly. Shortly after that an American friend of discerning taste introduced me to proper chocolate (higher cocoa content) in France and then I realised yup, now I see why these food guys in Belgium and France wouldn't feed their dog on the stuff I've been eating.
US chocolate is pretty poor generally though in my experience, I think over there you have to go to expensive boutiques to find what you get in an average ASDA/Walmart or Tescos here.
(why is it that) the sons and daughters of democratic countries have their sympathies with the treatment of mostly terrorist assholes
The USA is a lot better than many of the nasty totalitarian dictatorships round the world: there are too many, and they commit terrible abuses. But a lot of people outside the USA get quite fed up with the holier-than-thou rhetoric that sometimes issues from your fine country. Some of the claims made about how you value high moral standards are transparently at odds with activities that we see your authorities undertaking. Your country engages in activities that others find morally dubious. You form alliances with countries with terrible human rights records and then tell us in some cases that these countries are wonderful examples of democracy and respecters of human rights.
It's the hypocrisy that gets a lot of people. You are a great nation and deep in their hearts a lot of people are grateful that it's your country that is the world's single superpower, and many people are aware that it is because of your relatively high standards of openness and press freedom that we get to hear about the negative aspects of your country.
But negative aspects there are, and I think you'd win more praise by addressing faults, and admitting problems, and seeking to improve aspects of your system, rather than claiming the moral high ground when quite clearly in some cases you don't have it.
Really, referring to people locked up in Guantanamo Bay as "mostly terrorist assholes" when you or I don't know, and can't know, because these people are denied access to the Red Cross, or independent legal support, doesn't help your argument.
"I'm not aware of any other constitutionally-protected right which requires a license"
So change the Constitution! Since it got created in 1776 or thereabouts, your countrymen have been happy to change other aspects. An all-seeing infallible god didn't create the constitution, it was just a bunch of human beings who lived in their time and responded to the situation in their time.
You guys in the USA have managed to change other pretty substantial aspects of how your country is organised: you no longer think slavery is acceptable, women can now vote, Great Britain invading is no longer the major threat to your country's existence. I'd say if the constitution doesn't work, don't be afraid to change it. I'm not saying that licencing gun ownership is the solution but quite clearly for some reason gun massacres occur with much greater frequency in the USA than in any other developed countries. Surely something has to change so such terrible incidents don't keep on re-occurring?
Lots of people don't have cheap, always on, high speed connections. So I don't think they will be interested. Maybe the big players pushing web applications will be the best thing that's ever happened to encourage take up of open source software. Huge numbers of people round the world with poorer quality connections will be up for trying out open source versions of popular cornerstone tools if the big players all move to a web only model...
Where do we start? how about small minded racists with criminal records for violence for a start, who deny the holocaust and have to keep on sacking their own members for saying such outrageous rubbish that even their leaders are embarrassed?
Pal, your mythical "white British people" are one of the most bastard, mongrel ethnic groups on the planet. Don't give me that BS about racial purity. There's probably a dozen Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish with ginger hair who can make some sort of tenuous claim to being pure British, the rest of us are the results of waves of immigration for the last 2000 years. It's what humans do, move around. As for "England for the English" - well there were black people in what is now England before the English were here - read up about the soldiers in the Roman Army who served on Hadrians Wall who settled here from North Africa, Spain and the Middle East. The "English" - Angles from Germanic tribes - only invaded about 300 years after that.
"Whether or not the British people support the BNP or not should be looked at in no different a light to whether or not Indians supported Ghandi and the Quit India Movement."
Gandhi spoke of peace and negotiation with the British. BNP supporters post dog faeces and razor blades through the post to people they don't agree with.
Speaking as somebody who likes studying history and can trace my family back to the 1690s in Cornwall and Scotland, trust me, I'd never vote for your little wannabe fourth reich.
So what's to stop the radio stations from relocating in another country? What do you lose? Ok it's ashame that college kids and hackers won't be able to run their own *live* radio shows but as long as somebody's got a station set up surely you'll be able to pipe them some content? This here new fangled internet thing works further than you can shout you know. In the same way that here in the UK pirate radio stations moved onto ships and moored outside British waters and broadcast from there, why not just move your stations out to Europe/ New Zealand/ Oz/ Timbuctu?
My impression was that there was a maximum number of people that could be signed on into any specific area in Second Life - was it 40?
Let's assume that the NASA meeting has a dozen attendees. That means that this "open meeting" would only be open to 28 people if this is the case.
Please respond if you know the maximum figure (i.e. it's not 40). But even if its 100, 200, then surely this is less open than, ooh, a streaming videocast with a couple of question-collectors in the audience who will pick up messages emailed/IM'd to the meeting and pass them forward? or am I missing something here?
"There was a time when only the richest of the rich could afford automobiles. Now everyone has them."
There was a time a hundred years ago when only the super rich could afford Rolls-Royces with chauffeurs. That's still true. Same with yachts, crystal and silver dinner sets, and a lot of other things.
And on another rant:-) , the trickle down effect doesn't make everybody richer... still a lot of folk on a dollar a day.
"Hypothetically, I could live in Canada while the WoW servers I play on are housed in the U.S. but do business with a guy in Germany whose playing through a proxy in France."
Sigh. So what's the problem? Sounds like folk are just saying "you make money over a computer, you pay taxes". People also do business internationally, let's modify your example:
"(In Real Life), (Some guy) could live in Canada while (they use an online financial service based in the) U.S. but do business with a guy in Germany whose (online account is in a bank) in France."
See? no problem. Happens in real life too. International lawyers and tax specialists can deal with that, they'll deal with you money moving around countries as well. Who cares its on WoW servers rather than international financial trading servers?
hehe. Another good reason not to own a truck!:-) A friend of ours has a Ford Transit van - I asked him if he was some kind of masochist owning it, he probably moves friends' stuff every week/ pick up some logs / take rubbish down the dump for his family etc...
Maybe you're both just really nice community minded people and are building up vast reserves of good will and social capital:-)
hehehe Toyota Hi-Lux considered "tiny" ! yup, there's definitely a different culture in the USA from the UK then, grin! As you know most people would laugh at you in the UK if you have one of those and don't have a serious reason to be using one (farmer, builder, park ranger) - though that said there's increasingly an SUV culture here alas. I agree that it's luckily been slowed down by there just not being the parking space/manoeuvring room in most towns for monster vehicles.
Help me on this one folks. Old European here. The slashdot intro says that 55 miles per gallon makes the Prius "one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road". But over here in Old Europe, a quick look up suggest that's more like about what you'd expect from your typical little runabout hatchback. Millions of them on the road, it's your typical student/ low budget / cheap and cheerful commute to work - down to the shops - off to the parents in another town at the weekend car. Does 70mph happily on the motorway all day with a couple of folk and all their stuff for a camping holiday.
I had a check at a UK govt. site - purely random, it was for driving instructors (!) and it suggested my girlfriend's hatchback, a Peugeot 106 should be happy doing 40mpg in urban areas and 55 in cross country runs (56mph best fuel consumption) - check http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/bens/ben23.htm Appendix 2. Diesel cars get even better mileage, all the folk I know who are in 'trades' (like plumbers, carpenters, etc) that have to do lots of miles for their business drive these for better mileage.
So why is over 25 miles per gallon (or so) such a big deal in the US? Is it just the fact that petrol is so cheap that you buy bigger cars that do poor mpg? (Here in the UK petrol is about 6 dollars per gallon, how much is it there?)
Infrastructure costs might be a problem - cost of a satellite dish for each location, associated hardware, plus need for power means either renewables power generation unit like solar power for batteries or a diesel generator. Very costly if you want to supply a thousand or so villages. A friend of mine worked in rural Cambodia and we got to use the laptops and have electric lights for a couple of hours in the evening when they fired up the generator in the yard.
Give them to US Marines in Iraq...
on
Smart Sunglasses
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Really, then at least the average Iraqi citizens would be able to see their eyes most of the time.
Please, can somebody talk to those troops? Wearing mirrored or black lenses, well that might make you feel the big man and hard, or pure 'leet, like you're in the Matrix or James Bond or something, but there's way too many psychology studies which show that this *alienates* people. Yes, you are right, it does make you look evil and frightening. Which might be good when you're back home trying to impress your buddies but if you're dealing with a bunch of frightened locals who are trying to work out if you're the good guys and they should support you, or you're a bunch of evil imperialist foreigners (etc etc..) , well, you're not doing yourself any favours by covering your eyes. It's basic human psychology, we look into each others eyes and if we can't see another person's eyes we're disconcerted, assume they are hiding something. Going to be some wavering teenage boys out there who are going to get shouted at by US cyberwarriors with black/mirrored lenses and end up thinking "feck em! evil foreigners! I think I will sign up to kick em out of my country, help out the local militias". For goodness sakes, if folk need sunglasses, issue them with yellow lens, or some sort of colour that means people can at least see their eyes...
If the authorities are checking out people who are planning to protest -where are they looking? on websites, wikis, etc where people are asking to share rides, a place to stay etc. They are already checking the web. Protesting on YouTube is going to be 'safer'? I'd say it singles you out more. Far safer to turn up unannounced as part of a large crowd, you're less likely to get hauled out and disappeared, and more likely to get media coverage as well. Ok you're going to get filmed by the authorities there as well, but at least if you're one of ten thousand you're giving them a bit of work to do, trawling through all that footage. I guess they can put you all in Guantanamo Bay, I am sure they are entitled to for any form of protest these days, but at least you'll have a bit of company.
Youtube protests are going to get lost in the millions of Simpsons episodes/drunken nights out/skateboard radical tricks/etc that are being uploaded.
Not been to Boston but walked around part of Detroit with some local guys for a couple of days. Guess it must have been pretty central because they took me to a nice museum at one point. Seem to remember there were sidewalks there. Helsinki (Finland) pretty good for walking around as well: that is one city that's really nice to walk around, some great architecture. Not much need for a car there, trams are great as well.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sue them under the DMCA for selling pirated reproductions of your copyrighted "artistic work" (aka the paintjob on your house)
:-)
Might work against another individual or even evil corporations/commercial organisations selling photos of your house, but don't go round trying to sue people with access to more tanks/missiles/secret 'rendition facilities' than you. It really doesn't work, they really don't need to care about your country's law if they don't want to. These guys really don't respond well to people shouting "I know my rights" at them. They want to take a photo of your house, they are going to do so....
Well referenced sir. An actual reference rather than a vaguely remembered comic strip version of history.
Long live the EU. I'm much happier with the current set up than how my grandfather or his father had to relate to folk from other European countries. Dying in a muddy trench shooting at somebody who's got no more grudge against me than I have against him because some rich bloke will make some money out of it or because some hereditary fool has some bizarre sense of honour to protect seems a bloody pointless exercise. I have no wish to do it.
interesting expression. Which "Old Country"? Lots of countries are quite old ;-)
I'm quite curious because Americans seem very attached to their roots; I suppose we all are but maybe its more true of places where there is large scale immigration, and very few of the people of the country can claim long term heritage - I wonder if the same is true of places like Australia as well? Just curious really - I've heard Americans describing themselves as "Irish-American" (for example) when it might be like you that you have to go 4 or more generations back to have an ancestor born in a different country. MAybe we as humans have to understand our histories and relate to it, and if you're in a country where clearly you're not 20 generations native, it's more important to understand where you're from? I'm trying to think how that compares in the UK (where I am)... I think maybe past about 2 generations people would say "I'm British" rather than identifying heritage more than that. Hmmm, curious. Have to think about this one.
That's one heck of a work ethic by the way.
Surely rugby ticket prices are lower because the cost of running teams are lower? I'm guessing there aren't any Chelsea -priced players in the Rugby Leagues? Chelsea seem to be happy spending 20-30 million UK sterling for a top player, what does a top player cost in Rugby Union?
I guess they are screwing the fans to get that sort of money back.
As a football fan I wish you the best of luck and hope that big money doesn't come Rugby's way and mess up your game. I watch League Two football (fourth level) and the game is still small enough that security is a few bored coppers and different entrances for the home and away stands.
Sorry, in the UK, "I wouldn't feed my dog on that" is a colloquial turn of phrase, referring to food of such poor quality that it is not fit to be given to dogs to eat (dogs being considered less discerning eaters than humans and lower form of animal).
Not meant to be taken literally.
Not sure what the equivalent expression is in your country.
I am sure if India establishes itself as a commercial player and can start making a profit from launching satellites, this could prove to be *very* important. If not to the rest of the world (though I am sure the other commercial launchers are watching closely) then at least to India's domestic space program. I am sure the Indian government is far more likely to listen to their scientists requests to send up costly science experiments into space if the space program is closer to financial self-sufficiency.
Obviously the military will be more than happy if a large number of successful launches go ahead as a result: this will be a clear message to potential aggressive neighbours that India has a reliable delivery system to anywhere on the planet for 1000kg nuclear warheads.
Definitely there is crap here as well, lots of it, shelves of it, can you say "snickers" or "mars bar", lots of cloying candy crap, but pretty well every corner store has a couple of bars of decent chocolate, pretty well every half sized supermarket sells 70% cocoa content bars. And this is the UK, laughed at for its crap food across the rest of Europe.
We had the same battle here if you remember about 10 years ago with European Union food people trying to get huge numbers of British "chocolate" bars relabelled as not-chocolate, The Sun newspaper and the other red tops threw a wobbly. Shortly after that an American friend of discerning taste introduced me to proper chocolate (higher cocoa content) in France and then I realised yup, now I see why these food guys in Belgium and France wouldn't feed their dog on the stuff I've been eating.
US chocolate is pretty poor generally though in my experience, I think over there you have to go to expensive boutiques to find what you get in an average ASDA/Walmart or Tescos here.
(why is it that) the sons and daughters of democratic countries have their sympathies with the treatment of mostly terrorist assholes
The USA is a lot better than many of the nasty totalitarian dictatorships round the world: there are too many, and they commit terrible abuses. But a lot of people outside the USA get quite fed up with the holier-than-thou rhetoric that sometimes issues from your fine country. Some of the claims made about how you value high moral standards are transparently at odds with activities that we see your authorities undertaking. Your country engages in activities that others find morally dubious. You form alliances with countries with terrible human rights records and then tell us in some cases that these countries are wonderful examples of democracy and respecters of human rights.
It's the hypocrisy that gets a lot of people. You are a great nation and deep in their hearts a lot of people are grateful that it's your country that is the world's single superpower, and many people are aware that it is because of your relatively high standards of openness and press freedom that we get to hear about the negative aspects of your country.
But negative aspects there are, and I think you'd win more praise by addressing faults, and admitting problems, and seeking to improve aspects of your system, rather than claiming the moral high ground when quite clearly in some cases you don't have it.
Really, referring to people locked up in Guantanamo Bay as "mostly terrorist assholes" when you or I don't know, and can't know, because these people are denied access to the Red Cross, or independent legal support, doesn't help your argument.
"I'm not aware of any other constitutionally-protected right which requires a license"
So change the Constitution! Since it got created in 1776 or thereabouts, your countrymen have been happy to change other aspects. An all-seeing infallible god didn't create the constitution, it was just a bunch of human beings who lived in their time and responded to the situation in their time.
You guys in the USA have managed to change other pretty substantial aspects of how your country is organised: you no longer think slavery is acceptable, women can now vote, Great Britain invading is no longer the major threat to your country's existence. I'd say if the constitution doesn't work, don't be afraid to change it. I'm not saying that licencing gun ownership is the solution but quite clearly for some reason gun massacres occur with much greater frequency in the USA than in any other developed countries. Surely something has to change so such terrible incidents don't keep on re-occurring?
>>I've never been at risk of being shot in a shooting spree or any other situation.
>Uh, how would you know?
I think the grandparent poster is doing some basic statistical reckoning. How many school massacres have there been in NZ compared to the USA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings
Lots of people don't have cheap, always on, high speed connections. So I don't think they will be interested. Maybe the big players pushing web applications will be the best thing that's ever happened to encourage take up of open source software. Huge numbers of people round the world with poorer quality connections will be up for trying out open source versions of popular cornerstone tools if the big players all move to a web only model...
"And what exactly is wrong with the BNP?"
t y
Where do we start? how about small minded racists with criminal records for violence for a start, who deny the holocaust and have to keep on sacking their own members for saying such outrageous rubbish that even their leaders are embarrassed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Par
Pal, your mythical "white British people" are one of the most bastard, mongrel ethnic groups on the planet. Don't give me that BS about racial purity. There's probably a dozen Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish with ginger hair who can make some sort of tenuous claim to being pure British, the rest of us are the results of waves of immigration for the last 2000 years. It's what humans do, move around. As for "England for the English" - well there were black people in what is now England before the English were here - read up about the soldiers in the Roman Army who served on Hadrians Wall who settled here from North Africa, Spain and the Middle East. The "English" - Angles from Germanic tribes - only invaded about 300 years after that.
"Whether or not the British people support the BNP or not should be looked at in no different a light to whether or not Indians supported Ghandi and the Quit India Movement."
Gandhi spoke of peace and negotiation with the British. BNP supporters post dog faeces and razor blades through the post to people they don't agree with.
Speaking as somebody who likes studying history and can trace my family back to the 1690s in Cornwall and Scotland, trust me, I'd never vote for your little wannabe fourth reich.
So what's to stop the radio stations from relocating in another country? What do you lose? Ok it's ashame that college kids and hackers won't be able to run their own *live* radio shows but as long as somebody's got a station set up surely you'll be able to pipe them some content? This here new fangled internet thing works further than you can shout you know. In the same way that here in the UK pirate radio stations moved onto ships and moored outside British waters and broadcast from there, why not just move your stations out to Europe/ New Zealand/ Oz/ Timbuctu?
My impression was that there was a maximum number of people that could be signed on into any specific area in Second Life - was it 40?
Let's assume that the NASA meeting has a dozen attendees. That means that this "open meeting" would only be open to 28 people if this is the case.
Please respond if you know the maximum figure (i.e. it's not 40). But even if its 100, 200, then surely this is less open than, ooh, a streaming videocast with a couple of question-collectors in the audience who will pick up messages emailed/IM'd to the meeting and pass them forward? or am I missing something here?
"There was a time when only the richest of the rich could afford automobiles. Now everyone has them."
:-) , the trickle down effect doesn't make everybody richer... still a lot of folk on a dollar a day.
There was a time a hundred years ago when only the super rich could afford Rolls-Royces with chauffeurs. That's still true. Same with yachts, crystal and silver dinner sets, and a lot of other things.
And on another rant
"Hypothetically, I could live in Canada while the WoW servers I play on are housed in the U.S. but do business with a guy in Germany whose playing through a proxy in France."
Sigh. So what's the problem? Sounds like folk are just saying "you make money over a computer, you pay taxes". People also do business internationally, let's modify your example:
"(In Real Life), (Some guy) could live in Canada while (they use an online financial service based in the) U.S. but do business with a guy in Germany whose (online account is in a bank) in France."
See? no problem. Happens in real life too. International lawyers and tax specialists can deal with that, they'll deal with you money moving around countries as well. Who cares its on WoW servers rather than international financial trading servers?
hehe. Another good reason not to own a truck! :-) A friend of ours has a Ford Transit van - I asked him if he was some kind of masochist owning it, he probably moves friends' stuff every week/ pick up some logs / take rubbish down the dump for his family etc...
:-)
Maybe you're both just really nice community minded people and are building up vast reserves of good will and social capital
cheers! most informative, thanks.
hehehe Toyota Hi-Lux considered "tiny" ! yup, there's definitely a different culture in the USA from the UK then, grin! As you know most people would laugh at you in the UK if you have one of those and don't have a serious reason to be using one (farmer, builder, park ranger) - though that said there's increasingly an SUV culture here alas. I agree that it's luckily been slowed down by there just not being the parking space/manoeuvring room in most towns for monster vehicles.
Help me on this one folks. Old European here. The slashdot intro says that 55 miles per gallon makes the Prius "one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road". But over here in Old Europe, a quick look up suggest that's more like about what you'd expect from your typical little runabout hatchback. Millions of them on the road, it's your typical student/ low budget / cheap and cheerful commute to work - down to the shops - off to the parents in another town at the weekend car. Does 70mph happily on the motorway all day with a couple of folk and all their stuff for a camping holiday.
I had a check at a UK govt. site - purely random, it was for driving instructors (!) and it suggested my girlfriend's hatchback, a Peugeot 106 should be happy doing 40mpg in urban areas and 55 in cross country runs (56mph best fuel consumption) - check http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/bens/ben23.htm Appendix 2. Diesel cars get even better mileage, all the folk I know who are in 'trades' (like plumbers, carpenters, etc) that have to do lots of miles for their business drive these for better mileage.
So why is over 25 miles per gallon (or so) such a big deal in the US? Is it just the fact that petrol is so cheap that you buy bigger cars that do poor mpg? (Here in the UK petrol is about 6 dollars per gallon, how much is it there?)
Isn't it just the USA (and possibly Canada?) that says "math" instead of "maths" ?
In the UK we call it "maths" short for mathematics. I am not sure what other English speaking countries prefer.
"Community satellite feed, then?"
Infrastructure costs might be a problem - cost of a satellite dish for each location, associated hardware, plus need for power means either renewables power generation unit like solar power for batteries or a diesel generator. Very costly if you want to supply a thousand or so villages. A friend of mine worked in rural Cambodia and we got to use the laptops and have electric lights for a couple of hours in the evening when they fired up the generator in the yard.
Really, then at least the average Iraqi citizens would be able to see their eyes most of the time.
Please, can somebody talk to those troops? Wearing mirrored or black lenses, well that might make you feel the big man and hard, or pure 'leet, like you're in the Matrix or James Bond or something, but there's way too many psychology studies which show that this *alienates* people. Yes, you are right, it does make you look evil and frightening. Which might be good when you're back home trying to impress your buddies but if you're dealing with a bunch of frightened locals who are trying to work out if you're the good guys and they should support you, or you're a bunch of evil imperialist foreigners (etc etc..) , well, you're not doing yourself any favours by covering your eyes. It's basic human psychology, we look into each others eyes and if we can't see another person's eyes we're disconcerted, assume they are hiding something. Going to be some wavering teenage boys out there who are going to get shouted at by US cyberwarriors with black/mirrored lenses and end up thinking "feck em! evil foreigners! I think I will sign up to kick em out of my country, help out the local militias". For goodness sakes, if folk need sunglasses, issue them with yellow lens, or some sort of colour that means people can at least see their eyes...
If the authorities are checking out people who are planning to protest -where are they looking? on websites, wikis, etc where people are asking to share rides, a place to stay etc. They are already checking the web. Protesting on YouTube is going to be 'safer'? I'd say it singles you out more. Far safer to turn up unannounced as part of a large crowd, you're less likely to get hauled out and disappeared, and more likely to get media coverage as well. Ok you're going to get filmed by the authorities there as well, but at least if you're one of ten thousand you're giving them a bit of work to do, trawling through all that footage. I guess they can put you all in Guantanamo Bay, I am sure they are entitled to for any form of protest these days, but at least you'll have a bit of company.
Youtube protests are going to get lost in the millions of Simpsons episodes/drunken nights out/skateboard radical tricks/etc that are being uploaded.
Not been to Boston but walked around part of Detroit with some local guys for a couple of days. Guess it must have been pretty central because they took me to a nice museum at one point. Seem to remember there were sidewalks there. Helsinki (Finland) pretty good for walking around as well: that is one city that's really nice to walk around, some great architecture. Not much need for a car there, trams are great as well.