I have a scale that measures in grains but, alas, that's a topic for another day. Either way, bitching about/. is a tradition around here and never seems to affect change but people never stop. It is usually inversely proportionate to UID numbers.
You are rather new to be determining what traditions we uphold. Nothing personal but your opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight (nor does mine). Following the fashion of complaining isn't actually going to accomplish anything either. Yeah, complaining about/. and being an active poster is also a tradition.
I'd forgotten the Crimean and don't know much about the Russo-Japanese war (I will soon though. *grin*) Thanks. I'm not sure if I am able to say that they lost WWI really. IIRC they were pretty much just inept during the war due to crappy weapons and inner strife.
Oh, I'm not forgetting it. Stalin's entire strategy was to throw warm bodies at the German guns and once Hitler started directing the war it was over for the Germans. Many people I meet believe that America won the war by their lonesome and don't even know of the USSRs involvement. It's sad really.
I think that's the B-2. We've only lost one (IIRC, too lazy to search tonight) and that was due to equipment failure. As near as we know I don't think a B-2 has been detected and, as far as I know when it was last announced/praised, certainly hasn't ever been engaged.
Our big fear was that Japan would fight to the last man and that we'd have to invade. That would have been hell. I wonder if the Information Age will mean that history is no longer written by the victors?
I was trying to think... Has Russia (or even what we know now as culturally Russia) ever really been defeated in a war on their own soil? A part of me wants to say Ghengis Khan but they're very similar racially as the people out on the Steppes didn't exactly obey the line in the dirt that was Mongolia but, alas, I'm not even sure about that. We can't even claim the Cold War as that was Russia defeating themselves more than anything.
He has a valid point and his theory has been postulated (and is commonly accepted) by people who are experts in the field. That whole point was the difference between Neville Chamberlain (spelling, too lazy to look it up) and Winston Churchill for instance. Your response makes me curious...
See, the PM of the UK at the time was Neville Chamberlain and his nickname actually was "The Great Appeaser."
I don't mean this as an insult and I was once of a similar mind. But, I'm going to guess that you have been restricted (willfully or culturally) to an Americanized history of WWII. Read (or watch) about the events of the 1930s in western and central Europe. France and England stood by and LET Hitler take what he wanted with Chamberlain signing non-aggression pacts and getting autographed night stand pictures of Hitler all because of the sour taste that WWI left in the mouths of Europeans. I'll chalk it up to American education (left over from the Cold War) and not hold it against you all that much.
You probably also think that America won the war in Europe and that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. Hint: You can thank the Russians, probably for both. The Russians threw tens of millions of people at Hitler (defeating the Germans) and then crossed the boarder and beat the snot out of the Japanese in Manchuria around the same time we nuked 'em. The latter isn't known for certain and is still debated but there's a lot of evidence for it being as much, if not more, a catalyst than us having dropped a nuke on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Did America help in Europe? Absolutely and we funded and supported a great deal of it. Europe would have had a difficult time without American help, money, and equipment. The same applies in North Africa and in Italy. American Marines did the majority of work in the Pacific with the help of the locals, UK, NZ, and AUS but the Japanese were scared shitless of the Russians who threw something insane like 24,000,000 people in the European theater alone.
My memory is a bit fuzzy and some of the numbers or names may be a bit off but I doubt I got anything too far off. However, the person's post was spot on for the most part and what they propose isn't even really subject to debate with most folks though I'm sure you could get find someone who disagreed though I'd have to see some extraordinary evidence and reasoning. If you have some other facts that the experts don't know about then I'd be interested in hearing about them. I'm not an expert nor do I have a degree in the subject, I'm just a rather passionate fan of certain areas of our history and I consider learning about those periods to be a hobby.
To show you that I really don't mean this as an insult I went and did a quick Google for just the terms "wwii appeasement" and found this as a handy link:
I'd recommend just a few of the more recent documentaries or World at War if you can find it. The Military Channel has a bunch that are worth watching. It is a subject I really enjoy so if you have anything to support your statements I'm definitely interested in it.
Someone insisting you voluntarily surrender something is an oxymoron and still taking something from you. I think that if you're being asked to surrender something, no matter how trivial, it is best to ensure that the communication is clear. There are some principles that are so strong that you have to be clear that they're boundaries and freedom is a very important thing to not let go of. Rights and liberties will be taken away as governments only grow in power, I'll concede those but there are already enough restrictions on my freedoms already. Freedom is taken by force or threat of force usually (I can't immediately think of a time or situation where it wasn't) and that's truly into the enslavement territory and is probably well past the time to start fighting back should that be what one desires. I am, of course, assuming that there are those who'd live happily with further restrictions on their freedoms and I wonder about their sanity.
They have to be trolling. I simply don't want to believe anyone at/. is that dumb. Hell, I'm often dumb so I make it a point to phrase it in the form of a question and am very happy with the frequency of quality answers here, it's one of the reasons I've been here this long and why I keep coming back. (I don't mind not knowing, I just ask or state what I believe to be true.)
Anyhow, I found out some more information. There's a Wikipedia page about it. It appears that they're not required or anything though that is under consideration. If you're interested the link is here:
Somehow I think you completely failed to grasp what I wrote? Perhaps you're confusing what I quoted someone else saying as something I said. I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. Hell, I think that the laws should be expanded to include even more dangerous weapons. The type of weapons aren't, and never have been, the problem. I suppose that they could try to outlaw all firearms in their entirety but I don't think that would work too well. We need neither more overly complex laws nor fewer liberties. That you'd confuse me for a "gun grabber" is amusing.
This is also true. It is probably also true if you even HAVE a friend who'd leave an unattended firearm (loaded or unloaded) down on a coffee table or the floor when there's a child present. Perhaps it'd be best if they would ditch that friend before having a child. Just taking a child into that environment is a sign of poor parenting. However, even should this mythical, irresponsible, and improbable friend exist the burden still lies on the parent to ensure the environment is safe and a responsible parent will know and/or notice randomly scattered firearms in the Playroom of Death.
Read my reply to him. I can see where you'd be confused and I should have been more clear. It's impossible to be a perfect parent but blaming inanimate objects and trying to push the onus onto those around them isn't an effective parenting strategy. It is also unlikely that one will be a perfect parent and a good thing that kids are generally pretty tough.
Then you failed as a parent. And you know what? That's okay. It's your fault but we all make mistakes and children are resilient creatures. Do your best, hope for the best, know you'll screw up somewhere. Sorry that you don't win a medal and that you have to face your errors. You'll be okay, your kid will be better off for it too. It's not their responsibility unless they specifically shoulder that responsibility and it behooves you to seek quality friends, toys, and environments. Even when you don't they'll probably survive, forgive you, and love you so the medal doesn't mean a whole lot. It's not anyone's fault but your own but it's going to happen regardless and, when it does, it sure as hell isn't the fault of the inanimate object.
What implies that we can't do both? Though I was under the impression (I had read it somewhere, as I recall, from a commenter on this site or Fark) that pilots wore the special laser safety glasses when landing or taking off now because of this. Maybe it was them personally or they were lying. Either way, it is possible to take precautions and still have the act be illegal because sometimes equipment fails and sometimes people make mistakes so the act can still be illegal.
I don't see anything in your post that absolves the parents from their responsibilities to watch their children. Especially if your children are at the age where they instinctively put things in their mouths, you need to watch them at all times.
The fact is that what you suggest is literally impossible.
If your friend has loaded guns lying around his house, is it the gun's fault for going off when the child picks it up?
No, but that of the friend, and that of lax gun regulation that allows him to have guns in the first place.
Please do not vote or breed. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure the environment the children is safe - always unless that responsibility is given to a caretaker. Even selecting a quality caretaker is a parent's responsibility. Stop trying to blame your ineptitude on inanimate objects.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/recent though it is too late now as the story is already posted.
The cops around here, in very rural Maine, already wear cameras. They are doing away with video cameras in the cars even because they wear them now.
I have a scale that measures in grains but, alas, that's a topic for another day. Either way, bitching about /. is a tradition around here and never seems to affect change but people never stop. It is usually inversely proportionate to UID numbers.
You are rather new to be determining what traditions we uphold. Nothing personal but your opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight (nor does mine). Following the fashion of complaining isn't actually going to accomplish anything either. Yeah, complaining about /. and being an active poster is also a tradition.
Thanks. Something new for me to read about.
I'd forgotten the Crimean and don't know much about the Russo-Japanese war (I will soon though. *grin*) Thanks. I'm not sure if I am able to say that they lost WWI really. IIRC they were pretty much just inept during the war due to crappy weapons and inner strife.
Something like 84,000 dead seems a lot to consider trivial and just walking over but it's your story and you can tell it any way you'd like I suppose.
Oh, I'm not forgetting it. Stalin's entire strategy was to throw warm bodies at the German guns and once Hitler started directing the war it was over for the Germans. Many people I meet believe that America won the war by their lonesome and don't even know of the USSRs involvement. It's sad really.
I think that's the B-2. We've only lost one (IIRC, too lazy to search tonight) and that was due to equipment failure. As near as we know I don't think a B-2 has been detected and, as far as I know when it was last announced/praised, certainly hasn't ever been engaged.
Our big fear was that Japan would fight to the last man and that we'd have to invade. That would have been hell. I wonder if the Information Age will mean that history is no longer written by the victors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
Argue with them.
It seems you missed their obvious sarcasm. No irony involved. I thought you were brighter than that.
I was trying to think... Has Russia (or even what we know now as culturally Russia) ever really been defeated in a war on their own soil? A part of me wants to say Ghengis Khan but they're very similar racially as the people out on the Steppes didn't exactly obey the line in the dirt that was Mongolia but, alas, I'm not even sure about that. We can't even claim the Cold War as that was Russia defeating themselves more than anything.
Did you just "B-B-But Bush" in a North Korea thread? Really? I hate Bush too but, come on now...
He has a valid point and his theory has been postulated (and is commonly accepted) by people who are experts in the field. That whole point was the difference between Neville Chamberlain (spelling, too lazy to look it up) and Winston Churchill for instance. Your response makes me curious...
See, the PM of the UK at the time was Neville Chamberlain and his nickname actually was "The Great Appeaser."
I don't mean this as an insult and I was once of a similar mind. But, I'm going to guess that you have been restricted (willfully or culturally) to an Americanized history of WWII. Read (or watch) about the events of the 1930s in western and central Europe. France and England stood by and LET Hitler take what he wanted with Chamberlain signing non-aggression pacts and getting autographed night stand pictures of Hitler all because of the sour taste that WWI left in the mouths of Europeans. I'll chalk it up to American education (left over from the Cold War) and not hold it against you all that much.
You probably also think that America won the war in Europe and that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. Hint: You can thank the Russians, probably for both. The Russians threw tens of millions of people at Hitler (defeating the Germans) and then crossed the boarder and beat the snot out of the Japanese in Manchuria around the same time we nuked 'em. The latter isn't known for certain and is still debated but there's a lot of evidence for it being as much, if not more, a catalyst than us having dropped a nuke on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Did America help in Europe? Absolutely and we funded and supported a great deal of it. Europe would have had a difficult time without American help, money, and equipment. The same applies in North Africa and in Italy. American Marines did the majority of work in the Pacific with the help of the locals, UK, NZ, and AUS but the Japanese were scared shitless of the Russians who threw something insane like 24,000,000 people in the European theater alone.
My memory is a bit fuzzy and some of the numbers or names may be a bit off but I doubt I got anything too far off. However, the person's post was spot on for the most part and what they propose isn't even really subject to debate with most folks though I'm sure you could get find someone who disagreed though I'd have to see some extraordinary evidence and reasoning. If you have some other facts that the experts don't know about then I'd be interested in hearing about them. I'm not an expert nor do I have a degree in the subject, I'm just a rather passionate fan of certain areas of our history and I consider learning about those periods to be a hobby.
To show you that I really don't mean this as an insult I went and did a quick Google for just the terms "wwii appeasement" and found this as a handy link:
http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/appeasement.html
I'd recommend just a few of the more recent documentaries or World at War if you can find it. The Military Channel has a bunch that are worth watching. It is a subject I really enjoy so if you have anything to support your statements I'm definitely interested in it.
Someone insisting you voluntarily surrender something is an oxymoron and still taking something from you. I think that if you're being asked to surrender something, no matter how trivial, it is best to ensure that the communication is clear. There are some principles that are so strong that you have to be clear that they're boundaries and freedom is a very important thing to not let go of. Rights and liberties will be taken away as governments only grow in power, I'll concede those but there are already enough restrictions on my freedoms already. Freedom is taken by force or threat of force usually (I can't immediately think of a time or situation where it wasn't) and that's truly into the enslavement territory and is probably well past the time to start fighting back should that be what one desires. I am, of course, assuming that there are those who'd live happily with further restrictions on their freedoms and I wonder about their sanity.
They have to be trolling. I simply don't want to believe anyone at /. is that dumb. Hell, I'm often dumb so I make it a point to phrase it in the form of a question and am very happy with the frequency of quality answers here, it's one of the reasons I've been here this long and why I keep coming back. (I don't mind not knowing, I just ask or state what I believe to be true.)
Anyhow, I found out some more information. There's a Wikipedia page about it. It appears that they're not required or anything though that is under consideration. If you're interested the link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasers_and_aviation_safety
Err.... I won't take the low hanging fruit and I'll assume that you're trolling. You simply have to be.
https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+safety+glasses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Somehow I think you completely failed to grasp what I wrote? Perhaps you're confusing what I quoted someone else saying as something I said. I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. Hell, I think that the laws should be expanded to include even more dangerous weapons. The type of weapons aren't, and never have been, the problem. I suppose that they could try to outlaw all firearms in their entirety but I don't think that would work too well. We need neither more overly complex laws nor fewer liberties. That you'd confuse me for a "gun grabber" is amusing.
This is also true. It is probably also true if you even HAVE a friend who'd leave an unattended firearm (loaded or unloaded) down on a coffee table or the floor when there's a child present. Perhaps it'd be best if they would ditch that friend before having a child. Just taking a child into that environment is a sign of poor parenting. However, even should this mythical, irresponsible, and improbable friend exist the burden still lies on the parent to ensure the environment is safe and a responsible parent will know and/or notice randomly scattered firearms in the Playroom of Death.
Read my reply to him. I can see where you'd be confused and I should have been more clear. It's impossible to be a perfect parent but blaming inanimate objects and trying to push the onus onto those around them isn't an effective parenting strategy. It is also unlikely that one will be a perfect parent and a good thing that kids are generally pretty tough.
Then you failed as a parent. And you know what? That's okay. It's your fault but we all make mistakes and children are resilient creatures. Do your best, hope for the best, know you'll screw up somewhere. Sorry that you don't win a medal and that you have to face your errors. You'll be okay, your kid will be better off for it too. It's not their responsibility unless they specifically shoulder that responsibility and it behooves you to seek quality friends, toys, and environments. Even when you don't they'll probably survive, forgive you, and love you so the medal doesn't mean a whole lot. It's not anyone's fault but your own but it's going to happen regardless and, when it does, it sure as hell isn't the fault of the inanimate object.
What implies that we can't do both? Though I was under the impression (I had read it somewhere, as I recall, from a commenter on this site or Fark) that pilots wore the special laser safety glasses when landing or taking off now because of this. Maybe it was them personally or they were lying. Either way, it is possible to take precautions and still have the act be illegal because sometimes equipment fails and sometimes people make mistakes so the act can still be illegal.
The fact is that what you suggest is literally impossible.
No, but that of the friend, and that of lax gun regulation that allows him to have guns in the first place.
Please do not vote or breed. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure the environment the children is safe - always unless that responsibility is given to a caretaker. Even selecting a quality caretaker is a parent's responsibility. Stop trying to blame your ineptitude on inanimate objects.
Those properties are what gives it its intrinsic value.