You mention Bloody Sunday yet omit the Omagh bombing which killed more people. You mention shoot-to-kill yet fail to mention the Australian backpackers killed by an IRA bomb in Holland. You mention internment without trial yet fail to mention kneecapping, the murder of informants, the Remembrance Day bombing of Enniskillen..
At least share both sides of the story. The British behaviour in Ireland may not be admirable but the actions of the Irish are at least as bad.
I didn't say they deserved to have their throats cut in their sleep.
I do believe they are evil men/women.
They must be. They perpetuate myths and pursue agendas that harm society and subjugate entire populations.
Organised religion is evil, by whichever measure you use. Hell, all religions are condemned by at least one other religion for being heretical, so even religions think they're evil.
I personally don't advocate the murder of everybody that promotes religious beliefs. I do wish they'd all just stfu and try doing some genuine good for the world.
Some people think being a Catholic priest is a good reason to molest young boys and that it causes no real harm. You think we shouldn't stop them either?
This whole thread arose from a discussion on female genital mutilation. This is also a time honoured tradition, and rather than real harm, a lot of people believe it has a benefit to society. You think we shouldn't stop them?
There _are_ good reasons for male circumcision. 6000 years of religious bullshit is not one of them.
calling for violence against innocent people is in no way insightful yeah, but he didn't. he called for violence against imams, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders.
I was curious a couple of years ago about why it was still accepted, so did some research.
Turns out that circumcision does appear to have medical benefits in later life, including (but not limited to) reduced chance of catching HIV. To the extent that some people are recommending it as an aid to reducing the problems with HIV in Africa.
This thus puts the practice on more interesting ground, and not entirely dissimilar to a discussion on how to deal with child hermaphrodites (or whatever the current term is for such people) or even people with an extra toe (for instance). It ceases to be a purely religious decision and becomes a discussion of what's best for the child. Just happens that the child's parents are wrong;)
Mutilating females however is done entirely and purely to deny sexual pleasure in adulthood and thus lacks any moral basis. Hence its illegality.
If the UK went turtle, it would have been starved out That's the one big danger. We could have sued for peace though, at which point the Germans would've stopped sinking our shipping - Hitler didn't want war with the UK in the first place.
We may well have been able to grow enough food after a period of hardship anyway - the main need for shipping was for oil/weapons/machinery.
Either way, we certainly wouldn't have been invading France in June 1944, I agree.
US military dominance IS a good thing for much of the world, it saves the EU and Japan some defense money to have their defense guaranteed by the strongest military in the world. Taiwan and South Korea owe their continued existence to US military support in the past. Peaceful democratic nations have nothing to fear from the US military, only those who would attack their neighbors or sponsor terrorism need worry. Here we have to disagree. Several peaceful democratic nations have been destablised by the US, and in ways that would invite severe retaliation were there not such an imbalance of power.
US military dominance may be preferable to (e.g.) Iranian military dominance, but that doesn't make it desirable or necessarily a good thing. If the US de-federalised into its components states and ceased to play on the world stage the main European and Asian powers would still be in much the same position they are now.
(It's a shame you posted anonymously, your post was interesting and thoughtful)
Ah, lend-lease. For a start, we've now paid back every penny of that money. Secondly, as an indirect payment, we gave you the scientists and knowledge that led to the Manhattan Project.
I'd say the US gained massively from that particular commercial/political transaction.
It would have been interesting to see if Stalin would have pushed past the borders of Germany into France - but yes, he'd have had Germany to himself.
The US support prior to their military involvement certainly helped. I still think it fallacious to pretend the US won the war in Europe, and still resent snotty American idiots suggesting that's the case.
I'm very aware of the US involvement in the Pacific - by far the most significant allied contribution in that area. That didn't direct aid Europe though, which is what I was responding to.
I also don't belittle the US military. It is indeed quite awesome in the modern era. I disagree with you regarding its use for imperialistic influence though. It admittedly isn't used as the major European powers used theirs, but it is used to back up US economic aims.
Lets face it, the B2 is a magnificent piece of kit. Even now, when it's partially detectable, it's better than the aircraft (almost) every other nation uses.
(Then again, in the first gulf war the US were amazed at the ability of the UK to get in, take out a target and get back out again while flying a cruddy Tornado GR1. Not everything is down to tech. But even there, the US army is better trained than most - the situation in Iraq largely derives from political leadership issues and population pacification training failures than military war-fighting capabilities)
No, I mean the UK. Even had Hitler taken over the whole of Europe between Spain and Sweden, the UK could have held out indefinitely. Especially after his ill-judged foray East.
I'm not American bashing per se, I'm highlighting the stereotypical American "we won the war" fallacious viewpoint, and doing so because it pisses me off. America did contribute to the war effort, in many ways, and I haven't denied that.
However, to pretend that Europe should somehow be amazingly grateful for their contribution is to deny the significant achievements of Europeans, the British Commonwealth and other countries across the globe who were in from the start, in at the end, and there right through the whole thing.
As for dead American teenagers.. 36 other allied nations lost a higher percentage of their population in that war than the US. Forgive me if I put you some way down the list of people to thank.
It's an interesting thought. I guess I'm basing my assumption on two main factors - the cold war stayed cold - nuclear weapons have changed the rules somewhat
If it came down to a significant spat between India, China or Europe (as a whole) against the US, it would still be interesting. In reality China aren't going to get in the way of the US except in their own corner of the world, India are happily improving their own economy and arguing with Pakistan and Europe is too divided on whether to help the US to provide any real opposition. So the US has free reign across the globe to pursue its economic imperialism, which (as demonstrated by Iraq) it's happy to back with military force.
Not much different to the UK in the past 500 years - the only reason I assume a morally higher standpoint is that we gave our empire back:)
With the benefit of historical hindsight (something Churchill obviously didn't have the luxury of) I'm less convinced. Had the Soviets not been afraid of US anti-communism they wouldn't have had so strong a desire for a shield between themselves and the extensive US military presence in Western Europe.
They might have introduced a communist style government across much of Europe, but many of the people fighting the Germans supported that viewpoint anyway. The regimes would quickly have destablised and changed. There's a good chance that the Benelux countries, Scandinavia and France would all have worked out much as they have anyway, as the Russians would have had no reason to go beyond German borders anyway (and by the time Berlin fell the UK along with armies from those countries would've forced a second front irrespective of US involvement).
Still, glad you enjoyed looking at the soiled nappies of a fat drunk.
I would stop digging now. I may have been a little tongue in cheek. I'm personally horrified at using token ring still:)
That case was made about five years ago in terms of employee flexibility and happiness (including VP's). Secure wifi networks hadn't been proven 5 years ago. Equally, the laptops we bought back then (which sadly I'm still using) didn't have wifi built in.
Adding a card would enable it, but you're looking at increased complication and scope for user error - always an issue with VPs.
Financial institutions can afford to be behind the technology bleeding edge.
I'm playing devil's advocate a little, there's a little more I'd like us to do that might boost productivity and reduce employee frustration. It's never as easy at a bank as it would be at a company like Amazon..
Ironically your 'fixed' version is less accurate than the original. The damage may have been caused by something else. The crash was caused by whatever the aircraft crashed into (i.e. the ground).
Don't mind me, I just hate cunts that think it's somehow clever to misquote people and act as though their new version is superior or witty or something.
Is this something they teach in schools in the US? I find it bewildering that so many people from that country have this extraordinarily unbalanced view of WWII.
Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US. Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose.
If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war. Had America joined the war sooner, it may have been over quicker. Instead the UK had to bankrupt the world's largest ever empire to win that war, and did so on a point of principle. Don't fucking tell me the US saved Europe.
Incidentally, half of Europe did live under communist dictatorship for fifty years post-WWII. Ironically without US global interference and posturing the communist states may have collapsed more swiftly than they did.
Back on topic, I'm delighted that there are ways to detect and defeat B2 bombers. US military dominance is not a good thing for the world at large. Healthy tension encourages equilibrium, which I'd greatly prefer to US imperialistic pressures.
What's the point of running on a non-internal network? It's rather easier to plug the laptop into an ethernet port and run on the internal network.
Just because one of our buildings is still on token ring doesn't make us backwards, it just means we're prioritising customer service above middle-manager technowanking. As evidenced by our industry customer ratings. Things are working fine, when there's a genuine business case for making things wireless then it's something that can be considered.
Nothing. They'll break the side window instead, that's easier.
Replacing a windscreen costs £50 - I ring the insurance company, they ask me where the car is, a short while later a van turns up, someone gets out, replaces the windscreen and drives off again. I get charged £50. No reason this would be any different..
You could add all those crimes to the mix. I would. What he was asking for was a simple re-evaluation of the law - the outcome of that evaluation could be "the law is excellent, let's keep it".
I recall those discussions were focussed around routing around such software in educational institutions (for people aged 16+) and in libraries, etc.
Even back then there was a general acknowledgement that a parent could and would restrict their children's 'net access. The usual suggestion was "educate them" rather than "censor their access" but the main thrust of the discussion wasn't around helping young children subvert parental care.
Slashdot Mirror
You mention Bloody Sunday yet omit the Omagh bombing which killed more people. You mention shoot-to-kill yet fail to mention the Australian backpackers killed by an IRA bomb in Holland. You mention internment without trial yet fail to mention kneecapping, the murder of informants, the Remembrance Day bombing of Enniskillen..
At least share both sides of the story. The British behaviour in Ireland may not be admirable but the actions of the Irish are at least as bad.
I didn't say they deserved to have their throats cut in their sleep.
I do believe they are evil men/women.
They must be. They perpetuate myths and pursue agendas that harm society and subjugate entire populations.
Organised religion is evil, by whichever measure you use. Hell, all religions are condemned by at least one other religion for being heretical, so even religions think they're evil.
I personally don't advocate the murder of everybody that promotes religious beliefs. I do wish they'd all just stfu and try doing some genuine good for the world.
Interesting parting point. Maybe I'll write to my MP after all, requesting that male genital mutilation be made illegal on the grounds of abuse.
Any medical benefits can still be gained through adult circumcision should the individual so choose, so it's still very much an option.
Some people think being a Catholic priest is a good reason to molest young boys and that it causes no real harm. You think we shouldn't stop them either?
This whole thread arose from a discussion on female genital mutilation. This is also a time honoured tradition, and rather than real harm, a lot of people believe it has a benefit to society. You think we shouldn't stop them?
There _are_ good reasons for male circumcision. 6000 years of religious bullshit is not one of them.
You don't miss it, so you reserve the right to mutilate your son?
Shit, in this entire discussion you haven't actually given a single good reason why you might want to do it to him.
There are some potentially good reasons for circumcision. "Because daddy is mutilated" is pretty fucking definitely not one of them.
I was curious a couple of years ago about why it was still accepted, so did some research.
Turns out that circumcision does appear to have medical benefits in later life, including (but not limited to) reduced chance of catching HIV. To the extent that some people are recommending it as an aid to reducing the problems with HIV in Africa.
This thus puts the practice on more interesting ground, and not entirely dissimilar to a discussion on how to deal with child hermaphrodites (or whatever the current term is for such people) or even people with an extra toe (for instance). It ceases to be a purely religious decision and becomes a discussion of what's best for the child. Just happens that the child's parents are wrong
Mutilating females however is done entirely and purely to deny sexual pleasure in adulthood and thus lacks any moral basis. Hence its illegality.
We may well have been able to grow enough food after a period of hardship anyway - the main need for shipping was for oil/weapons/machinery.
Either way, we certainly wouldn't have been invading France in June 1944, I agree. US military dominance IS a good thing for much of the world, it saves the EU and Japan some defense money to have their defense guaranteed by the strongest military in the world. Taiwan and South Korea owe their continued existence to US military support in the past. Peaceful democratic nations have nothing to fear from the US military, only those who would attack their neighbors or sponsor terrorism need worry. Here we have to disagree. Several peaceful democratic nations have been destablised by the US, and in ways that would invite severe retaliation were there not such an imbalance of power.
US military dominance may be preferable to (e.g.) Iranian military dominance, but that doesn't make it desirable or necessarily a good thing. If the US de-federalised into its components states and ceased to play on the world stage the main European and Asian powers would still be in much the same position they are now.
(It's a shame you posted anonymously, your post was interesting and thoughtful)
Ah, lend-lease. For a start, we've now paid back every penny of that money. Secondly, as an indirect payment, we gave you the scientists and knowledge that led to the Manhattan Project.
I'd say the US gained massively from that particular commercial/political transaction.
It would have been interesting to see if Stalin would have pushed past the borders of Germany into France - but yes, he'd have had Germany to himself.
The US support prior to their military involvement certainly helped. I still think it fallacious to pretend the US won the war in Europe, and still resent snotty American idiots suggesting that's the case.
I'm very aware of the US involvement in the Pacific - by far the most significant allied contribution in that area. That didn't direct aid Europe though, which is what I was responding to.
I also don't belittle the US military. It is indeed quite awesome in the modern era. I disagree with you regarding its use for imperialistic influence though. It admittedly isn't used as the major European powers used theirs, but it is used to back up US economic aims.
Lets face it, the B2 is a magnificent piece of kit. Even now, when it's partially detectable, it's better than the aircraft (almost) every other nation uses.
(Then again, in the first gulf war the US were amazed at the ability of the UK to get in, take out a target and get back out again while flying a cruddy Tornado GR1. Not everything is down to tech. But even there, the US army is better trained than most - the situation in Iraq largely derives from political leadership issues and population pacification training failures than military war-fighting capabilities)
No, I mean the UK. Even had Hitler taken over the whole of Europe between Spain and Sweden, the UK could have held out indefinitely. Especially after his ill-judged foray East.
I'm not American bashing per se, I'm highlighting the stereotypical American "we won the war" fallacious viewpoint, and doing so because it pisses me off. America did contribute to the war effort, in many ways, and I haven't denied that.
However, to pretend that Europe should somehow be amazingly grateful for their contribution is to deny the significant achievements of Europeans, the British Commonwealth and other countries across the globe who were in from the start, in at the end, and there right through the whole thing.
As for dead American teenagers.. 36 other allied nations lost a higher percentage of their population in that war than the US. Forgive me if I put you some way down the list of people to thank.
It's an interesting thought. I guess I'm basing my assumption on two main factors
- the cold war stayed cold
- nuclear weapons have changed the rules somewhat
If it came down to a significant spat between India, China or Europe (as a whole) against the US, it would still be interesting. In reality China aren't going to get in the way of the US except in their own corner of the world, India are happily improving their own economy and arguing with Pakistan and Europe is too divided on whether to help the US to provide any real opposition. So the US has free reign across the globe to pursue its economic imperialism, which (as demonstrated by Iraq) it's happy to back with military force.
Not much different to the UK in the past 500 years - the only reason I assume a morally higher standpoint is that we gave our empire back
With the benefit of historical hindsight (something Churchill obviously didn't have the luxury of) I'm less convinced. Had the Soviets not been afraid of US anti-communism they wouldn't have had so strong a desire for a shield between themselves and the extensive US military presence in Western Europe.
They might have introduced a communist style government across much of Europe, but many of the people fighting the Germans supported that viewpoint anyway. The regimes would quickly have destablised and changed. There's a good chance that the Benelux countries, Scandinavia and France would all have worked out much as they have anyway, as the Russians would have had no reason to go beyond German borders anyway (and by the time Berlin fell the UK along with armies from those countries would've forced a second front irrespective of US involvement).
Still, glad you enjoyed looking at the soiled nappies of a fat drunk.
Adding a card would enable it, but you're looking at increased complication and scope for user error - always an issue with VPs.
Financial institutions can afford to be behind the technology bleeding edge.
I'm playing devil's advocate a little, there's a little more I'd like us to do that might boost productivity and reduce employee frustration. It's never as easy at a bank as it would be at a company like Amazon..
Ironically your 'fixed' version is less accurate than the original. The damage may have been caused by something else. The crash was caused by whatever the aircraft crashed into (i.e. the ground).
Don't mind me, I just hate cunts that think it's somehow clever to misquote people and act as though their new version is superior or witty or something.
Is this something they teach in schools in the US? I find it bewildering that so many people from that country have this extraordinarily unbalanced view of WWII.
Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US. Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose.
If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war. Had America joined the war sooner, it may have been over quicker. Instead the UK had to bankrupt the world's largest ever empire to win that war, and did so on a point of principle. Don't fucking tell me the US saved Europe.
Incidentally, half of Europe did live under communist dictatorship for fifty years post-WWII. Ironically without US global interference and posturing the communist states may have collapsed more swiftly than they did.
Back on topic, I'm delighted that there are ways to detect and defeat B2 bombers. US military dominance is not a good thing for the world at large. Healthy tension encourages equilibrium, which I'd greatly prefer to US imperialistic pressures.
What's the point of running on a non-internal network? It's rather easier to plug the laptop into an ethernet port and run on the internal network.
Just because one of our buildings is still on token ring doesn't make us backwards, it just means we're prioritising customer service above middle-manager technowanking. As evidenced by our industry customer ratings. Things are working fine, when there's a genuine business case for making things wireless then it's something that can be considered.
Nothing. They'll break the side window instead, that's easier.
Replacing a windscreen costs £50 - I ring the insurance company, they ask me where the car is, a short while later a van turns up, someone gets out, replaces the windscreen and drives off again. I get charged £50. No reason this would be any different..
Whoa! You replace wiper blades twice a year?!
I replace mine.. let me think about this.. 3 times ever.
Current car is nearly two years old, still original wiper blades, 42k miles driven. I live in England, so yes, it definitely rains.
You need to buy better wiper blades!
Fuck that. It's my country and I'm going to stay.
I also care about my freedom. Running away isn't the answer.
You could add all those crimes to the mix. I would. What he was asking for was a simple re-evaluation of the law - the outcome of that evaluation could be "the law is excellent, let's keep it".
How is this a bad thing?
I recall those discussions were focussed around routing around such software in educational institutions (for people aged 16+) and in libraries, etc.
Even back then there was a general acknowledgement that a parent could and would restrict their children's 'net access. The usual suggestion was "educate them" rather than "censor their access" but the main thrust of the discussion wasn't around helping young children subvert parental care.
You mistake me for someone else. I have no kids. I was merely highlighting that you weren't addressing the issue that was being raised.
Your answer to that issue is indeed a multiple machine approach. Shrug, it clearly works for you.
On work laptops? Nope, it's disabled. The joys of working for financial institutions..