The people actually *in* the UK can't boycott the UK.
Sure we can, we have elections too you know. It's not that the government is getting away with something here, as discussed elsewhere, it seems that we're just not opposed to it.
Yes, Germany did elect Hitler, democracy in action. In a democracy, is it not true that the people are always right? As that interesting k5 article was saying the other day, reality is defined by what people believe. It's not the best example (because Hitler went and started invading everybody in sight) but is the resulting war against Hitler not a further expression of democracy?
There is an interesting point raised by your ellectoral college, suposedly protecting against "the tyranny of the people". Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you have a tyrannous majority?
Really? I don't think CCTV has anything to do with police brutality or mistreatment (except that CCTV could prevent or detect such things - how far would the Rodney King case have got without the infamous video tape) and if we're talking about wrongful conviction then it takes a lot more than one bad cop to put someone in prison.
Of course, IANAL but I simply do not believe that is true in this country, which is I suppose the root of the disagreement. That's all circumstantial evidence which would help the cops to narrow down the suspects, which is the whole point. If that is enough to secure a convinction in your country (I'm assuming the US) then I think the problem is in your criminal justice system and demanding more privacy is the wrong way of attacking it.
PS Thanks for the not-trolling assumption, I was a bit worried about being labelled that:-)
BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK. The University of Michigan has one of the most respected social sciences/statistics departments in the world, so please don't come back here claiming otherwise.
Actually, I believe I will. This press release is from 1997, and the British data are from 1990-1991. Now, perhaps it isn't relevant to the discussion, but I wouldn't be suprised if our weekly church attendance is a lot lower than that nowdays.
Only someone with something to hide would act like that...Step up the surveillance everyone,I think we're onto something!!!
Oh shit, he didn't do anything. Who cares that they were watching?
Whoops, I'm responding to a 10yr old who's never read a newspaper, seen a documentary, or read a history book with the words POWER and CORRUPT in them, let alone experianced them first hand...gawd
Not quite right on the age, but I don't know how you can distrust the goverment completely. If power corrupts then surely their should be no power. So you're an anarchist?
It's like having a subscription to the Playboy channel and bitching about the subscription charges being like tax... nobody is forcing you to pay for porn, it's your choice.
Kinda, except that you can't choose to watch only commercial TV and not pay the license fee. I still don't understand the logic behind that.
Okay, I admit it, I'm a dumb Brit who finds security cameras mildly re-assuring. I don't care if I'm being watched or that the goverment can read my e-mail. Can someone please explain to me why the hell I should care?
The primary arguments for privacy seem to be that if the goverment went bad all of a sudden we'd be fucked and that I could be accused of some crime I didn't commit. First of all, if the goverment ever went bad (ie became undemocratic) then I don't think it would take them more than a week to set up whatever surveillance they wanted, no matter what their starting point. Maybe I'm being naive and ignoring history, but I find it hard to even consider this possibility because I just can't see how, in this time, in this part of the world, our goverment could be displaced or changed to something undemocratic. Secondly, I trust in the legal system. If I am ever wrongly accused then I trust in the courts to decide that I'm not guilty. There are, of course, miscarriages of justice, but it seems to me that the fact of the surveillance would not make any difference to the number of times this occured (except that it could instantly disprove many accusations). I think that the issue of privacy also brings up the question "should we break the law if we disagree with it" which is I think an interesting question, and one which I admit, has been bothering me for a while now.
Of course, it seems that in this forum, I'm in a distinct minority in holding these views, and I just don't understand why. Why is it that politicians let these things happen if they're so bad? So please, dispute my points, because I've looked and I still don't feel I've read a persuasive argument about this.
"Being John Malkovich" also had a fake web site advertising the company in the movie. They mention it on the DVD, and I'd go look it up but I lent my copy to someone (my God, I'm a circumvention device!). Anywho, here's the site. http://www.jmincorporated.com/
Here, even child pornography has been found to be protected under free speech laws. That's kind of nutty, but it shows that we're serious about free speech, even if we have to take the bad with the good.
Can you explain that a bit? The context, or details of any court cases or anything like that?
The tunnel itself is simply called "The Channel Tunnel" which is colloquially shortened to "The Chunnel". There are two different trains that go under it though. "Le Shuttle" is one, which carries vehicles aswell as passengers and just goes from Folkestone to Calais ie from one side of the water to the other. The other service is a passenger-only service called "Eurostar" which goes between London, Paris and Brussels. There are also some Freight services.
If we had this, how many more tunnels would you need to be able to travel to any country by rail? I wonder how long it would take to go from London to New York by rail across Eurasia and North America, that would be one heck of a journey.
pan is a free newsreader which looks/works a lot like Agent for Windows. It uses NNTP servers directly like you would in Windows, without you having to worry about keeping a news spool etc. etc. Anyway, here's the
full feature list. If this is the only thing holding you back, I'd suggest you give it a try. (There are of course other UNIX news readers that would probably fit your needs, but I'm just promoting the one I use)
Is anyone else totally chuffed (I think "stoked" is the American equivalent:-) to hear IBM talking about Linux as rapidly becoming an industry standard? Ya gotta love it, this free software thing is actually gunna happen on a massive scale it seems.
While I think the usage of the term "GNU/Linux" is wholly justified I find it rather annoying to say. Just saying "GNU Linux" isn't right because it implies that Linux is a GNU project. "GNU slash Linux" is kinda cumbersome and I can't imagine saying it in conversation. "GNU with Linux" is slightly better on that front and I think gets the idea across. "GNU 'n' Linux" has a certain charm but sounds too close to "Guns 'n' Roses" for my liking. The main problem I think is that while it looks good written down or on a monitor "GNU/Linux" doesn't sound like the name of an operating system. So, what do other people say? Anyone know how RMS says it?
Geeeeeezzzzzz, Hemos, pay attention old chap!:-) The UK is a member of the EU and has been for 27 years. We're not (yet) a member of the common European currency which I suppose might be where the confusion arises. The comments about our legal system got me a bit pissed off as well but that's OT so I'll just leave it there.
What was the name of that laptop company?
on
Free Love
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
The people actually *in* the UK can't boycott the UK.
Sure we can, we have elections too you know. It's not that the government is getting away with something here, as discussed elsewhere, it seems that we're just not opposed to it.
Yes, Germany did elect Hitler, democracy in action. In a democracy, is it not true that the people are always right? As that interesting k5 article was saying the other day, reality is defined by what people believe. It's not the best example (because Hitler went and started invading everybody in sight) but is the resulting war against Hitler not a further expression of democracy?
There is an interesting point raised by your ellectoral college, suposedly protecting against "the tyranny of the people". Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you have a tyrannous majority?
all it takes is one bad cop to abuse the system
Really? I don't think CCTV has anything to do with police brutality or mistreatment (except that CCTV could prevent or detect such things - how far would the Rodney King case have got without the infamous video tape) and if we're talking about wrongful conviction then it takes a lot more than one bad cop to put someone in prison.
In this country that is plenty for a conviction.
Of course, IANAL but I simply do not believe that is true in this country, which is I suppose the root of the disagreement. That's all circumstantial evidence which would help the cops to narrow down the suspects, which is the whole point. If that is enough to secure a convinction in your country (I'm assuming the US) then I think the problem is in your criminal justice system and demanding more privacy is the wrong way of attacking it.
PS Thanks for the not-trolling assumption, I was a bit worried about being labelled that :-)
BTW, the rate of church attendance is more like 44% in the US and 27% in the UK. The University of Michigan has one of the most respected social sciences/statistics departments in the world, so please don't come back here claiming otherwise.
Actually, I believe I will. This press release is from 1997, and the British data are from 1990-1991. Now, perhaps it isn't relevant to the discussion, but I wouldn't be suprised if our weekly church attendance is a lot lower than that nowdays.
Only someone with something to hide would act like that...Step up the surveillance everyone,I think we're onto something!!!
Oh shit, he didn't do anything. Who cares that they were watching?
Whoops, I'm responding to a 10yr old who's never read a newspaper, seen a documentary, or read a history book with the words POWER and CORRUPT in them, let alone experianced them first hand...gawd
Not quite right on the age, but I don't know how you can distrust the goverment completely. If power corrupts then surely their should be no power. So you're an anarchist?
not that BBC would devote two of the four legally authorized TV stations in the UK to actually seeing government in action
BBC Parliment, available on digital satellite (maybe cable too, not sure). The most boring thing I've ever seen on TV, but I'm damn glad it's there.
It's like having a subscription to the Playboy channel and bitching about the subscription charges being like tax... nobody is forcing you to pay for porn, it's your choice.
Kinda, except that you can't choose to watch only commercial TV and not pay the license fee. I still don't understand the logic behind that.
Okay, I admit it, I'm a dumb Brit who finds security cameras mildly re-assuring. I don't care if I'm being watched or that the goverment can read my e-mail. Can someone please explain to me why the hell I should care?
The primary arguments for privacy seem to be that if the goverment went bad all of a sudden we'd be fucked and that I could be accused of some crime I didn't commit. First of all, if the goverment ever went bad (ie became undemocratic) then I don't think it would take them more than a week to set up whatever surveillance they wanted, no matter what their starting point. Maybe I'm being naive and ignoring history, but I find it hard to even consider this possibility because I just can't see how, in this time, in this part of the world, our goverment could be displaced or changed to something undemocratic. Secondly, I trust in the legal system. If I am ever wrongly accused then I trust in the courts to decide that I'm not guilty. There are, of course, miscarriages of justice, but it seems to me that the fact of the surveillance would not make any difference to the number of times this occured (except that it could instantly disprove many accusations). I think that the issue of privacy also brings up the question "should we break the law if we disagree with it" which is I think an interesting question, and one which I admit, has been bothering me for a while now.
Of course, it seems that in this forum, I'm in a distinct minority in holding these views, and I just don't understand why. Why is it that politicians let these things happen if they're so bad? So please, dispute my points, because I've looked and I still don't feel I've read a persuasive argument about this.
"Being John Malkovich" also had a fake web site advertising the company in the movie. They mention it on the DVD, and I'd go look it up but I lent my copy to someone (my God, I'm a circumvention device!). Anywho, here's the site. http://www.jmincorporated.com/
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
2001-03-27 01:33:42
Here, even child pornography has been found to be protected under free speech laws. That's kind of nutty, but it shows that we're serious about free speech, even if we have to take the bad with the good.
Can you explain that a bit? The context, or details of any court cases or anything like that?
The tunnel itself is simply called "The Channel Tunnel" which is colloquially shortened to "The Chunnel". There are two different trains that go under it though. "Le Shuttle" is one, which carries vehicles aswell as passengers and just goes from Folkestone to Calais ie from one side of the water to the other. The other service is a passenger-only service called "Eurostar" which goes between London, Paris and Brussels. There are also some Freight services.
Well, if you're an american. It's $60 thousand million in England (a billion there is 10^12)
Nope, used to be true, but simply isn't anymore, a billion is a thousand million, and a trillion is a thousand billion on either side of the Atlantic.
If we had this, how many more tunnels would you need to be able to travel to any country by rail? I wonder how long it would take to go from London to New York by rail across Eurasia and North America, that would be one heck of a journey.
pan is a free newsreader which looks/works a lot like Agent for Windows. It uses NNTP servers directly like you would in Windows, without you having to worry about keeping a news spool etc. etc. Anyway, here's the
full feature list. If this is the only thing holding you back, I'd suggest you give it a try. (There are of course other UNIX news readers that would probably fit your needs, but I'm just promoting the one I use)
Looks like Rob could finally get his .dot TLD.
Damn you and your DBZ spoilers Malda!
Is anyone else totally chuffed (I think "stoked" is the American equivalent :-) to hear IBM talking about Linux as rapidly becoming an industry standard? Ya gotta love it, this free software thing is actually gunna happen on a massive scale it seems.
While I think the usage of the term "GNU/Linux" is wholly justified I find it rather annoying to say. Just saying "GNU Linux" isn't right because it implies that Linux is a GNU project. "GNU slash Linux" is kinda cumbersome and I can't imagine saying it in conversation. "GNU with Linux" is slightly better on that front and I think gets the idea across. "GNU 'n' Linux" has a certain charm but sounds too close to "Guns 'n' Roses" for my liking. The main problem I think is that while it looks good written down or on a monitor "GNU/Linux" doesn't sound like the name of an operating system. So, what do other people say? Anyone know how RMS says it?
This is from CNET's article:
"I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end," said Howard King, the Los Angeles attorney who represents Metallica...
This is a message my brother (big Metallica fan) left for me:
Hey Jon check this shit out!!!! If Butthole-tallica get me banned from Napster I'll burn my fucking Justice CD!!!!
THX1138
They said (on the last episode I think) that they'd be doing it by phone or some other real-time means so it'll probably be similar to how it is now.
Geeeeeezzzzzz, Hemos, pay attention old chap! :-) The UK is a member of the EU and has been for 27 years. We're not (yet) a member of the common European currency which I suppose might be where the confusion arises. The comments about our legal system got me a bit pissed off as well but that's OT so I'll just leave it there.
Couldn't quite hear what it was called. Thanks.