BS, I was born in Switzerland, grew up in France, and live in Germany. But I actually feel more at home in the US than anywhere in Europe.
;P
anyone else not from america? Im parisian.
Parlez-vous francais?
Actually, you'll probably hate me because we don't speak proper French :P.
Born, raised and edumacated in Canada. The nicer, friendlier America of the western hemisphere. ;)
Represent!
Long live Timbits!
Funny you mention that, I had a friend from the States come visit recently, and I told her to dress nice. She showed up in snowpants, a winter coat and earmuffs, since I told her the weather was really nice around 5 Celsius lately. She forgot about the whole conversion method and I had to just laugh at her. She's only visited a dozen times or so, you'd think she'd of caught on by now. Oh well.
With the the temperatures that I'm use to I'd be packing that stuff too. I'm dressing like that if temps get below 50 to 40 F.
As to the OP, I don't know if I count. I'm Native American, accorded all the rights and priveleges of a citizen but technically I think I'm regarded as a resident alien. I lived in Italy when I was kid for a few years, and travelled widely over Europe*, Asia and the Middle East in my years on this earth, so I generally consider myself a member of the human race first and American second.
It broke my heart a few months back when I found the shoebox that I stuck whatever money I had left from the countries I've been to and I discovered I had a couple hundred bucks worth of European currencies that aren't used anymore. Lire, Francs, Marks and Psetas, all worthless now. Heck, I even had coins from the Republica de San Marino. Is that even a country anymore?
You're one of them Warm Weather types eh? Doesn't like the cold or a spot of chill? Me, I wish there was more snow. I visited Alaska once on a vacation, and I fell in love. Same with the Rocky Mountains up in B.C., just a beautiful, snowy place.
When the temp drops below about 68 to 70 F my hands and feet literally become ice cold. If they are like this for an hour or two the coldness will sometimes work there way down me limbs a bit and I'll start shivering all over. Me and the cold don't get along.
That's 'cause you're from California, Frank. In Iowa the shorts come out when the temperature hits 50 degrees farenheit.
It actually has to do with where in California I live because there are places in California that are freezing cold almost year around (mainly because of altitude).
Whereabouts the general area of California would you have to live to experience altitude coldness? I'm not familiar with California outside of some basic trivia, the rantings of Jay Leno and the Govenator.
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Also, up where baneofelves lives, in the redding area it can get quite cold too. I'm not sure of it's altitude but I do know it is in the northern part of the state.
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Also, up where baneofelves lives, in the redding area it can get quite cold too. I'm not sure of it's altitude but I do know it is in the northern part of the state.
Redding is in the temperate range. It's got distinct summer and winter seasons, like most of the rest of the country.
I'm guessing that Frank is down in the southern part of the state, closer to the tropical zone. I used to live in San Diego, I know a bit about the weather in California.
Frank would die here in Iowa the first time the wind chill hit -50 Farenheit. So far the lowest I've ever seen it drop was one time that it hit -75 or so. At that temperature, exposed skin freezes solid in about 30 seconds.
It broke my heart a few months back when I found the shoebox that I stuck whatever money I had left from the countries I've been to and I discovered I had a couple hundred bucks worth of European currencies that aren't used anymore. Lire, Francs, Marks and Psetas, all worthless now. Heck, I even had coins from the Republica de San Marino. Is that even a country anymore?
Perhaps a collector might be interested?
Oh, and it still is
.Don't forget Poland.
;P
I already did.
Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Also, up where baneofelves lives, in the redding area it can get quite cold too. I'm not sure of it's altitude but I do know it is in the northern part of the state.
No, I don't live in redding, I live in the mountains NEAR redding, where it snows all ****ing winter. Redding gets hotter than hell in the summer.
Finland, or what's left of it after the attack.
After what attack? I haven't heard of any attack down here.
I'm (mostly) German... but born in the USA, does that count?
How German exactly, if one may ask? Speak any German?
I already did.
You know, with our country being seemingly the sole pro-US European state, our help in the Middle East, the missile shield project and the feeling of abandonment after the WWII, combined with general national inferiority complex*, this is one of the Top Insults By Foreigners. If you spoke something similar out loud in the eastern regions (where I happen to live) or more shady parts of Warsaw, you wouldn't leave in one piece.
Just informing ;P
*The '89 generation got rid of that, fortunately.
You know, with our country being seemingly the sole pro-US European state, our help in the Middle East, the missile shield project and the feeling of abandonment after the WWII, combined with general national inferiority complex*, this is one of the Top Insults By Foreigners. If you spoke something similar out loud in the eastern regions (where I happen to live) or more shady parts of Warsaw, you wouldn't leave in one piece.
Just informing ;P
*The '89 generation got rid of that, fortunately.
So many reasons to love our eastern neighbours. Plus, Polish Vodka rocks!
You know, with our country being seemingly the sole pro-US European state, our help in the Middle East, the missile shield project and the feeling of abandonment after the WWII, combined with general national inferiority complex*, this is one of the Top Insults By Foreigners. If you spoke something similar out loud in the eastern regions (where I happen to live) or more shady parts of Warsaw, you wouldn't leave in one piece.
Just informing ;P
*The '89 generation got rid of that, fortunately.
I'll just throw in my two cents and make a point to give kudos to the Polish special forces. They have my thanks and appreciation.
Finnish to the core, and proud of it.
Can you send me some pulla and sisu? :D
And on Poland: kielbasa and other Polish dishes are delicious, and I usually rate cultures by their foods.
How German exactly, if one may ask? Speak any German?
My Great grandfather was 100% German and first generation American, he married a German woman. I'm 4th gen, roughly 60% German, then Indian, then a lot of other things...
Und ja, ich spreche zu Deutsch. Nicht so gut wie ich auch, aber gut genug verwenden.
But we got rid of him. He's gone now.
Concerning dirtyfrank: Well you have to remember he IS from California. Last time I was there they had 2 types of weather: Sunny and Earthquake.
How German exactly, if one may ask? Speak any German?
I am a full blooded American and all I have to say is, sorry about that guy. We don't know WHAT we were thinking....
But we got rid of him. He's gone now.
Concerning dirtyfrank: Well you have to remember he IS from California. Last time I was there they had 2 types of weather: Sunny and Earthquake.
Hey now! It snows in SoCal once or twice a decade...
No, I don't live in redding, I live in the mountains NEAR redding, where it snows all ****ing winter. Redding gets hotter than hell in the summer.
And so can the mountains. So does the rest of California.
I'm guessing that Frank is down in the southern part of the state, closer to the tropical zone. I used to live in San Diego, I know a bit about the weather in California.
If you look at my profile and look to see where I live then you would notice that I live just minutes away from Sacramento. This means I live in the central part of the state.
Frank would die here in Iowa the first time the wind chill hit -50 Farenheit. So far the lowest I've ever seen it drop was one time that it hit -75 or so. At that temperature, exposed skin freezes solid in about 30 seconds.
I'd probably have the heater set to 70 F no matter how much it costs. :D
Concerning dirtyfrank: Well you have to remember he IS from California. Last time I was there they had 2 types of weather: Sunny and Earthquake.
Recently it has been worming up but a few weeks back it was very cold and very wet for about 2 weeks. I also don't get earthquakes where I live. You got to live on the coast for those.
Then again, I'm one of those pro-world government, Trek-watching idealists.
Well, I'm half French and half Polish
Dude, stay away from German people.
Und ja, ich spreche zu Deutsch. Nicht so gut wie ich auch, aber gut genug verwenden.
Decent German indeed - except for the bold part, unless you're schizophrenic, in which case it's spot on, and also rather creepy :P. (It literally means "I speak German. Not as well as myself, but I can use it well enough.")
@StealthMarmot: "that guy"?
@goblin_pride: Nah. We love the Polish, and consider the French unworthy of our time (though with the recent political evolvements, that last point should be reconsidered IMO).
After what attack? I haven't heard of any attack down here.
The rest of the world shot missiles at us because we were going to squeal. Don't you watch South Park?
Can you send me some pulla and sisu? :D
Well, if you pay for them. Sure, pullas most likely wouldn't really appreciate the journey.
The rest of the world shot missiles at us because we were going to squeal. Don't you watch South Park?
No, I don't. And it obviously can't be that good a show if they demolish Finland, anyway. :D
Decent German indeed - except for the bold part, unless you're schizophrenic, in which case it's spot on, and also rather creepy :P. (It literally means "I speak German. Not as well as myself, but I can use it well enough.")
Yeah... like I said, I'm a little rusty.
Floyd wants me to say it was intentional, but I won't listen to him are now! Err..., I just felt a mental pimpslap... I need to take to myself.
;)
Dude, stay away from German people.
Nah, we're not that bad. Didn't you get the news? After WW2, we don't invade other countries anymore, we flood their markes with our wares. :D
Although you could accuse China of doing the same thing by now.
Nah, we're not that bad. Didn't you get the news? After WW2, we don't invade other countries anymore, we flood their markes with our wares. :D
Although you could accuse China of doing the same thing by now.
Yeah, for all the countries that supposedly lost in WW2 they're actually doing quite well. There might be something behind this losing wars business.
Yeah, for all the countries that supposedly lost in WW2 they're actually doing quite well. There might be something behind this losing wars business.
I think it's only if you lose to the US because for some reason we see a need to rebuild everything after we just got done blowing it up. ;)
), not one of those southern sorts who charge too much for their booze and actually feel the ccold .I can technically claim Irish and possibly Scotish nationallity due to my heritage. To me, the important point of this is it means good odds that "my team" will win the six nations :D .
To me, the important point of this is it means good odds that "my team" will win the six nations :D .
Eh? What do you mean by win the six nations?
Around here, the Six Nations is the Iriqouis Confederation, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean. And if it is, I want to remind you that the British and the Americans after them found winning the Six Nations was impossible. Just ask Canada.
I think it's only if you lose to the US because for some reason we see a need to rebuild everything after we just got done blowing it up. ;)
That reminds me of a movie actually. A really poor country notices that the US pays compensation to the countries they beat, so they decide to declare war on them, and they have this superweapon but they don't it works, but then the US surrenders to them instead. :D
Eh? What do you mean by win the six nations?
Around here, the Six Nations is the Iriqouis Confederation, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean. And if it is, I want to remind you that the British and the Americans after them found winning the Six Nations was impossible. Just ask Canada.
six nations is rugby, its between England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy. Since 4 out of 6 nations are from the UK, so its a bit misleading.
*cough* South Africa won the last rugby world cup *cough*
I think it's only if you lose to the US because for some reason we see a need to rebuild everything after we just got done blowing it up. ;)
Sorry, we never lost to the US (well, technically, we never fought them), and never accepted Marshall aid after WW2.
We used the Plan B: lose to the Soviet and rebuild everything yourself. :D
But, we never really decided which way to go, East or West.
But, we never really decided which way to go, East or West.
People in the US probably don't understand that. They've been blessed by geography. Our neighbors are Canada and Mexico. Canada is kinda like us, but nicer. And Mexico is like us on paper, at least.
People in the US don't understand the realities that are quite plain when neighboring countries have the ability to roll an army across what amounts to nothing more than a line on a map. That sort of thing changes the way you think. Americans assume that no one can beat them because it's never been tried, really. Logistics won the battle, but the people are so proud to assume that it was because the world is scared of them.
If you look back at American history, this pride is unfounded. Very few of the wars fought by the US on their own turf turn out in their favor. In the Revolution, most of the European powers fought on one side or the other. The War of 1812, fought against England ended in 1815 according to their history, but that's when England dropped out. The other 45 years or so were against the Native Americans that allied themselves to the british.
The next time some American puffs up his chest and brags about how "We saved you from Germany" or whatever, remind them that people like me still receive a treaty allotment every month from the US. Remind them that their country couldn't subdue a barbaric, backwards, primative people. Remind them that they had to sue for peace with people that they outnumbered. Remind them that the Bureau of Indian Affairs pays war reparations to the victors of the "Indian Wars".
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I caught some half-wit on television that was talking about how we had to do something about Pakistan. That always puts me in a mood to point out how stupid it is to assume everyone should be just like us. Have you ever noticed that the people that beat the war drum hardest are never the ones to fight? Nationalistic fervor is a plague and "patriots" are vermin.
Canada is kinda like us, but nicer.
That's such a load of garbage! You ******!
...
No, I'm sorry. That was terribly rude and ignorant of me. I apologize for lashing out like that, please don't take what I said to heart. I'll bake you a nice muffin as a sign of forgiveness.
Canada Rawks!
*I'm part French, so don't give me crap about racism.
...........So what happens when you get invaded by Russia?
This probably wasn't addressed to me, but since it is quite relevant to us, I answer anyway. We are, after all, only a small nation living next to Russia.
We were afraid of Soviet occupation all Cold War; there is even a word in English for our behaviour in those days: finlandization. It eased after the fall of the USSR, but thanks to Putin the threat is back.
Many Finns expect Russian attack in close future. If they come, we trust EU to help us, and otherwise the Russian won't have hard time rolling over us. After that we hide in the forests and start a guerilla war for which every man is trained during the military service. You won't be seeing me on the boards, then. ;)
Happy neighbours for the win...
This probably wasn't addressed to me, but since it is quite relevant to us, I answer anyway. We are, after all, only a small nation living next to Russia.
(...)
There is constant tension between our government and Russia. When it snaps, Ukraine and Belarus are screwed big time. Finland probably as well.
Lets just hope it won't be our lifetime. ;P
Lets just hope it won't be our lifetime. ;P
Or rather, let's hope it will be, so we can get it over with before my children have to experience it.
I'm an exiled Texan...we used to be a foreign country (and if the governor has his way, will be again...).
And it'll be one of the shortest lived independant republics in history. If the US doesn't decide to force reunion, expect the Native American tribes that have populations in neighboring states* to have carte blanche from the US government to press their claim to territory in Texas under force of arms. And there's still that pesky fight with Mexico that Texas started all those years ago.
*My own tribe has population in Oklahoma and Kansas in addition to the 800 or so that live on the one reservation that we still occupy in Texas. Since the bulk of the tribe still holds on to that "warrior tradition" thing, easily 3/4 of us are military trained. That governor in Texas might want to think of the consequences before he starts rattling on about disolving the union.
Many Finns expect Russian attack in close future. If they come, we trust EU to help us, and otherwise the Russian won't have hard time rolling over us. After that we hide in the forests and start a guerilla war for which every man is trained during the military service. You won't be seeing me on the boards, then. ;)
Don't worry. If they come across the frontier at you, you have friends. It might take the US government a few years to jump into the fight, but you'll probably get a couple hundred volunteers just show up one day. It helped the limeys during blitz that some Americans just travelled to Britain to lend a hand before the country itself jumped in.
I'm an exiled Texan...we used to be a foreign country (and if the governor has his way, will be again...).
All of America used to be a foreign country.
However, I hope your governor gets his wish. I wish all the red states would leave the union and stop sandbagging our nation into ruin.
Don't worry. If they come across the frontier at you, you have friends. It might take the US government a few years to jump into the fight, but you'll probably get a couple hundred volunteers just show up one day. It helped the limeys during blitz that some Americans just travelled to Britain to lend a hand before the country itself jumped in.
I know that, but a couple hundred volunteers won't help against a couple million Russians on the Finnish border when there are only some 300,000 Finns. Oh, and any chance of tanks, ships or planes volunteering? ;)
Just my two cents.
I know that, but a couple hundred volunteers won't help against a couple million Russians on the Finnish border when there are only some 300,000 Finns. Oh, and any chance of tanks, ships or planes volunteering? ;)
Well, for what it's worth, most Germans love the Finns as well. Though I don't think the government would do much, volunteers are definitely possible. Good music = many friends.
*My own tribe has population in Oklahoma and Kansas in addition to the 800 or so that live on the one reservation that we still occupy in Texas. Since the bulk of the tribe still holds on to that "warrior tradition" thing, easily 3/4 of us are military trained. That governor in Texas might want to think of the consequences before he starts rattling on about disolving the union.
A friend of mine is an American Indian, and when he was younger he would go into known Klan/****/neo-nazi bars and pick fights with everyone in there, alone. I also know plenty of cops who, despite many years of military service, will not go into certain parts of the reservation here because of the AIM.
Suffice to say I'm sure we'd all blink and the the formerly independent Republic of Texas would have become the new American Indian Nation.
I know that, but a couple hundred volunteers won't help against a couple million Russians on the Finnish border when there are only some 300,000 Finns. Oh, and any chance of tanks, ships or planes volunteering? ;)
Not unless I manage to fit one of them into my carry-on luggage. Getting in with a rifle will be touchy enough, but I think Norway or Sweden would probably be a bit more relaxed on the restrictions when they suddenly have new neighbors.
A friend of mine is an American Indian, and when he was younger he would go into known Klan/****/neo-nazi bars and pick fights with everyone in there, alone. I also know plenty of cops who, despite many years of military service, will not go into certain parts of the reservation here because of the AIM.
I've been an AIM member since I was just a little kid. My grandfather was a traditionalist. Being outspoken and traditionalist makes me a potential danger, hence I'm on an FBI watchlist. AIM is a political organization, though. It's the military experience that most of the members of AIM have that scares law enforcement so much. A handful of violent militants make us all look bad.
Your buddy sounds like someone I could get along with. I used to do pretty much the same thing when I was younger. It's an Indian thing. The reason for choosing neo-nazis and skinhead types is because they're always talking about making the US a white nation and we have a claim to this place that they don't.
The Republic of Texas would find itself in dire straits if they tried to leave the US. They'd find themselves being forced back into the union, invaded by Mexico or infiltrated by Native Americans. Any one of the three would spell the doom of the independant republic of Texas.
All of America used to be a foreign country.
However, I hope your governor gets his wish. I wish all the red states would leave the union and stop sandbagging our nation into ruin.
Replace "red" with "blue". That is all. ;)
Meh, politics is more complicated then 'red' and 'blue'. Most states are purple.
If you look at averages then all states are purple. Red and Blue only refer to tendency as far as these voting averages. I hate a 2 party system. I wish a 3rd party could gain tons of power without one of the current parties falling apart. It would make things less black and white in US politics and thus less ridiculous.
Fantaticism is never funny.
In this case, it is. On a large scale? No. One bitter dood? Yup. Funny. ;)
Well, for what it's worth, most Germans love the Finns as well. Though I don't think the government would do much, volunteers are definitely possible. Good music = many friends.
Bjork?
Bjork?
That's Iceland. Finland is farther east.
EDIT: Indian Ninjas...
So what music is from finland that is earnig them so many friends?
Perhaps of more import: How can it earn them any friends when it seems so few know about it? ;)
EDIT: Indian Ninjas...
You trusted Google-fu, my memory was faster.
HIM is on the list.
Edit: Gee thanks for the list of names! It was very informative! [/sarcasim]
Edit: Gee thanks for the list of names! It was very informative! [/sarcasim]
I dunno, I'm intrigued. What does "melodic death metal" sound like? How about "love metal". I didn't realize there were quite so many kinds of "metal" music.
Nightwish, Symphonic Metal
Stratovarius, Speed Metal
I dunno, I'm intrigued. What does "melodic death metal" sound like? How about "love metal". I didn't realize there were quite so many kinds of "metal" music.
Yah, but mabey someone suggesting which bands off that list are actually good so that I could sample them for myself and find out would be helpfull whereas a list of all bands from any country is more or less worthless as most of them will probably suck and the list is too long and boreing to sort through with any sense of entertainment.
Perhaps of more import: How can it earn them any friends when it seems so few know about it? ;)
Well, if you didn't live in the States, you could know what happens everywhere else in the world. ;)
Here are a few bands that I see on the list that I've know a few on these forums listen to.
Nightwish, Symphonic Metal
Stratovarius, Speed Metal
Thank you.
Well, if you didn't live in the States, you could know what happens everywhere else in the world. ;)
Umm, I live in the States too. We have alot of the same resources here that the rest of the world does. Although not everyone is as keen on utilizing them as I am.
I have lived long enough to understand that it depends more on the person than on their nationality whether they understand anything or not. (Most of my classmates don't.)
I know, I was just kidding. The truth is, though, in Finland there is an innumerable amount of jokes about Americans who have trouble pointing out Canada on the map. And that's just the kindest one.
There are a lot of americans that have trouble finding america on the map if it is drawn with RL colors rather than with nice lines dividing different colored countries. I went to school with some people that knew mexico is south of the US but couldn't find it on a map and others that could have sworn that Japan was near Europe somewhere.
Yah, but mabey someone suggesting which bands off that list are actually good so that I could sample them for myself and find out would be helpfull whereas a list of all bands from any country is more or less worthless as most of them will probably suck and the list is too long and boreing to sort through with any sense of entertainment.
Its not a few single bands, it's the amount. Finland is near legendary its metal (the music, that is). The Finns produce enough for a country 50 times larger, and surprisingly enough, it hasn't hurt the quality like mass production often do. My guess is large amount of metal fans will have at least one Finnish band on their top five favourites, and likely five or more on their top thirty.
As for the band HIM that dirtyfrank mentioned, I'm not that big a fan, but I'd reckon Ville Valo (the front singer) alone could recruit a number of American females (and gay males) close to what is currently in the US army, should Finland ever be in need of military support (of course, it would require a willingness to use teenaged emo-girls as cannon fodder, but I can't see how that should be a problem).
And I second Nightwish for an example of a good Finnish band. I also like Apocalyptica, but it can be an acquired taste, and their stuff varies a lot. Korpiklaani is good too, if only for the humour.
There are a lot of americans that have trouble finding america on the map if it is drawn with RL colors rather than with nice lines dividing different colored countries. I went to school with some people that knew mexico is south of the US but couldn't find it on a map and others that could have sworn that Japan was near Europe somewhere.
/epic facepalm.
That's pathetic. I can't believe some people.
/epic facepalm.
That's pathetic. I can't believe some people.
It's people like this that make history and geography classes very entertaining. :D
man, I can't believe that people are that stupid.
I can't believe it's not butter.
Yes, people are that stupid. This is what happens when a child/teens priorities are games, sex and drugs. Most of these people did see things such as learning and school as important.
There are a lot of americans that have trouble finding america on the map if it is drawn with RL colors rather than with nice lines dividing different colored countries. I went to school with some people that knew mexico is south of the US but couldn't find it on a map and others that could have sworn that Japan was near Europe somewhere.
But again, it depends a lot on the individual. My cousin failed a job interview where they asked him to find Poland on a map with no names, and he pointed at Holland. Of course, he also once managed to get lost on the way to pick a friend up at the airport, and ended up taking a detour long enough to drive from one end of Denmark to the other (had he moved the same way the whole time). But for some reason, he later got a big carrier in shipping.
I think the problem is that the the US, and the area around it, has too few countries in too large an area, so while people in many other countries have to learn the position of several countries nearby, US citizens only need to concern themselves with 2 countries. And of course, when they mess of up those coutries, it seems even more pathetic than when a Dane like my cousin mess up Poland and Holland. But I'd need to see some data on the geography skill of Canadian students to check if that's really the reason.
But again, it depends a lot on the individual. My cousin failed a job interview where they asked him to find Poland on a map with no names, and he pointed at Holland. Of course, he also once managed to get lost on the way to pick a friend up at the airport, and ended up taking a detour long enough to drive from one end of Denmark to the other (had he moved the same way the whole time). But for some reason, he later got a big carrier in shipping.
I think the problem is that the the US, and the area around it, has too few countries in too large an area, so while people in many other countries have to learn the position of several countries nearby, US citizens only need to concern themselves with 2 countries. And of course, when they mess of up those coutries, it seems even more pathetic than when a Dane like my cousin mess up Poland and Holland. But I'd need to see some data on the geography skill of Canadian students to check if that's really the reason.
No, it's more of them just not caring. Some Americans don't even seem to know that the US is made up of 50 states and that there are 3 branches of government and that the 13 stripes on our flag represent out 13 original colonies and that the 50 starts represent our current 50 states. Most of them tended to know that Oregon is north of California, Nevada is to the east and that Mexico is to the south. Even knowing these things didn't help them much with finding them on a map because they'd first have to try and find California. For the most part they really only cared enough about geography to know where the next town over is. They could drive to the town though I'm sure they'd have difficulty finding it on a state map.
On another note, I didn't realize Apocalyptica was from Finland. I just heard the music and said "this is really cool" and bought a CD. You learn something new every day.
Yeah... Americans can get pretty bad... I remember hearing horror stories from the last time America hosted the olypmics of people from New Mexico being asked for their passports. The security guards didn't know that we were part of the US of A...
On another note, I didn't realize Apocalyptica was from Finland. I just heard the music and said "this is really cool" and bought a CD. You learn something new every day.
Many of my favorite bands are from Finland. Sonata Arctica, Stratovarius, and Nightwish, to name a few. I had no idea Children of Bodom, HIM, or Apocalpytica were from Finland, and they're all bands I've listened to.
Oh, and of course Fintroll is from Finland.
...Pretty much all the best metal comes from Europe.
But again, it depends a lot on the individual. My cousin failed a job interview where they asked him to find Poland on a map with no names, and he pointed at Holland. Of course, he also once managed to get lost on the way to pick a friend up at the airport, and ended up taking a detour long enough to drive from one end of Denmark to the other (had he moved the same way the whole time). But for some reason, he later got a big carrier in shipping.
I think the problem is that the the US, and the area around it, has too few countries in too large an area, so while people in many other countries have to learn the position of several countries nearby, US citizens only need to concern themselves with 2 countries. And of course, when they mess of up those coutries, it seems even more pathetic than when a Dane like my cousin mess up Poland and Holland. But I'd need to see some data on the geography skill of Canadian students to check if that's really the reason.
Poland is east of holland and south of denmark, right? [West Haphelia or somethign was between them. What became of that tiny nation, I have no idea.](Atleast, thats where it was in 1700..... Damn all these total war games, filling my head with antiquated maps!)
[On a side note, I apologize. I was thinking of Prussia, not Poland.]
Now I'm playing as the United Provinces [AKA Holland] and focusing on killing pirates. [Using exsclusivley indians.]
The plan is to raise a native american horde and ship them back across the sea to conqure europe. Eat arrows, musket weilding scum!
Eat arrows, musket weilding scum!
You know, that's part of the reason the Indian wars went the way they did, right? A gun makes a hole. That's not nearly as gruesome as seeing an arrow sticking out of the guy standing next to you. And when they do fall down, those arrows twist and pull in the wound, causing the guy next to you to shriek, groan or cry out in horrible pain as the wound rips open even more.
I know, I was just kidding. The truth is, though, in Finland there is an innumerable amount of jokes about Americans who have trouble pointing out Canada on the map. And that's just the kindest one.
Half of Americans can't point to a specific state in the United States. I wish that was a joke.
And they have better range. And thoes little natives dont get tired of running nearly as quikly as though guys in the big jackets lugging the gunpowder.
Don't forget that they're bloody quiet too. A bow doesn't make a sound you can hear at range. And figuring out where the shot came from is a bit difficult unless you saw it coming in.
Don't forget that they're bloody quiet too. A bow doesn't make a sound you can hear at range. And figuring out where the shot came from is a bit difficult unless you saw it coming in.
Seeing it coming is rarley an issue in 1700's combat. The indians come in groups of 120, so that many arrows and someone in the army is goign to be able to figure out the general location of the enemy. Lets face it, with muskets, knowing the general location is as good as know the exact position.
Half of Americans can't point to a specific state in the United States. I wish that was a joke.
But it is quite funny.
Indian Ninjas...
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
You trusted Google-fu, my memory was faster.
Wikipedia-jitsu, actually.
For the record, a few bands that win them many friends in Germany:
Apocalyptica
Children of Bodom
Nightwish
Poisonblack
Sonata Arctica
Stratovarius
...and a host of others that everybody here believes to be Finnish even though they're... something else. Scandinavian.
I wish a 3rd party could gain tons of power without one of the current parties falling apart. It would make things less black and white in US politics and thus less ridiculous.
That's what I like about Canada. Sure, we have the two primaries, Liberals and Conservatives; but the NDP is the part of the Big Three, then you have the Green Party and the Individual runners, and a few other odd parties here and there. Trust me, as great as the power of choice is, it is ridiculous. 3/4's of our own Canadian comedy is about politics. You rarely have to write your own material, it's just that good. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bands_from_Finland
HIM is on the list.
Ok. So I like one Finnish band. :D How did I forget HIM was from Finland? I've heard of some of the rest but have never heard any of them. That's likely due to the fact that I have precious little tolerance for new music nowdays. ;)
Rest of y'all: Fie on you for not recognizing Ensiferum and Turisas.
Well, the funny thing is that I haven't heard of half of the bands on that list. But then, I am not into any kind of metal music.
I can relate. I'm sure we've got about two billion country acts here in America. Damned if I could name more than maybe five. And that's just cuz my fiancee listens to that crap. :D
Well, the funny thing is that I haven't heard of half of the bands on that list. But then, I am not into any kind of metal music.
Neither have I. Hell, in Western Europe (France & Spain), you're a subculture geek if you know one of them.
But hey, Sabaton got it spot on when they say "The best heavy metal comes from the North":D .
On the ignorance of world affairs thing, one girl in my A-level chemistry class didn't realise that world war 2 had happened yet and wasn't entirely sure what it was supposed to be. She was shocked to discover that saving private ryan was based on an actual war!
dirtyfrank: Look up the definition of "Sandbagging". The Neocon's complete and utter refusal to adapt to changing world issues and insistance on going back to a time that technically didn't exist at all is in fact sandbagging, your refusal to budge is destroying our nation.
They're just playing polyticks*. They're hedging their bets that there won't be an appreciable effect before the next election cycle. Being in the minority, they have two ways to go. They can be the ones that fix the problem or they can point out that the majority couldn't do it either.
It's a messy situation. Our economy is broken in ways that we can't even imagine. All of the bailouts and stimulus are just stop-gaps while the powers-that-be figure out how to rip apart the financial market and rebuild in a more stable form. The fact that limited nationalization may be part of the process scares the "conservative" party.
*From the greek Poly, meaning many and Ticks, tiny bloodsucking insects.
Didn't Andrew Jackson try to nationalize banks back in the 1800s? Hell, it's been too long since I read about that man's term as president, I can't remember the details, but that sounds close, or at least related...
If you think about it, banking itself is odd. A bank loans money and makes money by charging interest in those loans. A loanshark loans money as well and makes money by charging interest on those loans. The difference between the two is that one is legal and the other isn't. Before the modern era, both would've been called "moneylenders", remember them?
Banks, in theory, allow you to get in on a chunk of that money they make by using the money you deposit to loan. It's a confidence game. They build a nice, big temple of commerce and you come along and give them your money in hope that you'll get something more back than you put in. You do, but they bring in far more than they pay out. Nationalizing the banks would allow the government to take direct control of the business of loaning out the IOUs that they print. Heck, it might even let the IRS turn a profit without raiding your paycheck every week.
Show
If you think about it, banking itself is odd. A bank loans money and makes money by charging interest in those loans. A loanshark loans money as well and makes money by charging interest on those loans. The difference between the two is that one is legal and the other isn't. Before the modern era, both would've been called "moneylenders", remember them?
Banks, in theory, allow you to get in on a chunk of that money they make by using the money you deposit to loan. It's a confidence game. They build a nice, big temple of commerce and you come along and give them your money in hope that you'll get something more back than you put in. You do, but they bring in far more than they pay out. Nationalizing the banks would allow the government to take direct control of the business of loaning out the IOUs that they print. Heck, it might even let the IRS turn a profit without raiding your paycheck every week.
The economy has never made sense to me. An entire system based on consumer faith just strikes me as being a bad idea.
... and greed. I think the beauty of our economy is that it manages to capture human weakness and make it work for society.
Most of the time.
... and greed. I think the beauty of our economy is that it manages to capture human weakness and make it work for society.
Is the greed of the guys in the temples of commerce better or worse than the greed of the guy that makes loans at the local trattoria?
Oh, that's right. The guys in the temples of commerce made off with millions. Whereas the kindly old man down the road got fifteen years in the joint for racketeering. The difference between the two is nothing more than the label slapped onto them by politicians that are quite susceptible to the very greed that drives the system.
Is the greed of the guys in the temples of commerce better or worse than the greed of the guy that makes loans at the local trattoria?
Oh, that's right. The guys in the temples of commerce made off with millions. Whereas the kindly old man down the road got fifteen years in the joint for racketeering. The difference between the two is nothing more than the label slapped onto them by politicians that are quite susceptible to the very greed that drives the system.
I am not talking about private moneylenders at all, nor judging them in any way. All I am saying is that banks, to an extent, profit everybody. Quite an achievement for an institution based entirely on human vice, don't you think?
Quite an achievement for an institution based entirely on human vice, don't you think?
It is, really. Although I wonder how it is that the Neoconservatives in the US can reconcile protecting usurious moneylending practices by credit companies with their religious base. That's one of those nagging questions that has been bothering me all along.
I suspect they reconcile it much the same way I reconcile the democrats anti-gun policies. I may not like that aspect of them, but overall I still think they're better then the other team.
I've never understood the need to own a weapon...
I've never understood the need to own a weapon...
You've never understood self-defense? (There are plenty of other reasons to own a firearm, of course. This one is just the most obvious. And one of our most fundamental rights.)
If you think about it, banking itself is odd. A bank loans money and makes money by charging interest in those loans. A loanshark loans money as well and makes money by charging interest on those loans. The difference between the two is that one is legal and the other isn't. Before the modern era, both would've been called "moneylenders", remember them?
Do not forget one other difference: The banks will not break your legs if your payment is late!
Do not forget one other difference: The banks will not break your legs if your payment is late!
They have means far more sophisticated than that
.You've never understood self-defense? (There are plenty of other reasons to own a firearm, of course. This one is just the most obvious. And one of our most fundamental rights.)
Actually, yes.
Who are you defending yourself from?
I've never understood the need to own a weapon...
It's your duty to the republic and the ideals it stands for to at least maintain arms for the common defense. Mine sit locked in the closet except for that one time a year I get the cases out and take them to the range to make sure that if needed, I can still hit what I aim at. The local police know what I have and a couple of them have even borrowed them for training* purposes in the past.
The rights that we enjoy entail responsibilities as well. Our right to bear arms isn't just an option, it's a duty to the republic. Our right to vote is also a duty to the republic to make our voice heard and prevent the rise of tyranny through the electoral system. Our right to free speech is a duty to make our grievances heard. The right of the press is a duty to keep the people informed of what the government does in our name.
*I have a soviet-made AK-74. it's a bit of an odd gun even considering the widespread distribution of Kalishnikov variants. A couple of guys from the local police love being able to take it down to the range to feel the difference between firing it and other rifles.
I've never understood the need to own a weapon...
Well, ignorance is bliss and all that.
Seriously, if you can't understand why a person would want to own a weapon, then I really don't think you've been paying attention to world history, current events, or the basic human constants throughout human history.
Alternatively, taking away weapons has often been a method for the powerful to control the weak.
So while I have zero desire to ever use a weapon, the idea of being disallowed the right to own one fills me with dread.
Do not forget one other difference: The banks will not break your legs if your payment is late!
No, they'll tell anyone and everyone that will listen that you are a deadbeat and then raise the rate of interest that they loaned you money at if you're three days late. I'd rather have the broken leg, thank you.
Well, ignorance is bliss and all that.
Seriously, if you can't understand why a person would want to own a weapon, then I really don't think you've been paying attention to world history, current events, or the basic human constants throughout human history.
Alternatively, taking away weapons has often been a method for the powerful to control the weak.
So while I have zero desire to ever use a weapon, the idea of being disallowed the right to own one fills me with dread.
(Makes him feel powerfull.)
It's your duty to the republic and the ideals it stands for to at least maintain arms for the common defense. Mine sit locked in the closet except for that one time a year I get the cases out and take them to the range to make sure that if needed, I can still hit what I aim at. The local police know what I have and a couple of them have even borrowed them for training* purposes in the past.
Why not join the reserves? Wouldn't this also fulfill the duty to common defence?
*I have a soviet-made AK-74. it's a bit of an odd gun even considering the widespread distribution of Kalishnikov variants. A couple of guys from the local police love being able to take it down to the range to feel the difference between firing it and other rifles.
That's pretty cool. I can understand gun enthusiasts wanting to keep weapons. Just curious, what restrictions are there on guns?
Seriously, if you can't understand why a person would want to own a weapon, then I really don't think you've been paying attention to world history, current events, or the basic human constants throughout human history.
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at... I'm not sure I see how economic turmoil or war in the middle east equates to keeping firearms in one's own household. As for history, is it just assumed that eventually the populace will have to rise up in arms against their government?
Why not join the reserves? Wouldn't this also fulfill the duty to common defence?
Actually, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. The US was born from a rebellion, so the founding fathers allowed for people to rise up against it again, should the US government become tyrannical. It has nothing to do with self-defense, on a personal level.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's your duty to the republic and the ideals it stands for to at least maintain arms for the common defense. Mine sit locked in the closet except for that one time a year I get the cases out and take them to the range to make sure that if needed, I can still hit what I aim at. The local police know what I have and a couple of them have even borrowed them for training* purposes in the past.
The rights that we enjoy entail responsibilities as well. Our right to bear arms isn't just an option, it's a duty to the republic. Our right to vote is also a duty to the republic to make our voice heard and prevent the rise of tyranny through the electoral system. Our right to free speech is a duty to make our grievances heard. The right of the press is a duty to keep the people informed of what the government does in our name.
If it didn't put me above my character limit, I would sig that. We need more people like you (by "we", I mean Germany - apparently, not as uncommon in the US).
Think of it this way. To date, every nation/civilization (that I can think of) that is not still around ended from internal or external violence.
I don't know exactly why, but that struck me as really funny. I guess it's the "Well, DUH!" factor.
Actually, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. The US was born from a rebellion, so the founding fathers allowed for people to rise up against it again, should the US government become tyrannical. It has nothing to do with self-defense, on a personal level.
Oh, I see. It seems... a strange way of thinking, but I suppose if you had to rise up violently in the first place, that will be your initial starting point when creating your own laws.
So, by having the right to bear arms, are you then expected to do so?
Think of it this way. To date, every nation/civilization (that I can think of) that is not still around ended from internal or external violence.
... and in most cases, that was a pretty damn good thing.
Oh, I see. It seems... a strange way of thinking, but I suppose if you had to rise up violently in the first place, that will be your initial starting point when creating your own laws.
So, by having the right to bear arms, are you then expected to do so?
It's hotly debated on whether or not it's expected. I won't say where I fall (I'm not constitutional scholar), but it's not cut-and-dry by any means.
We do, after all, have laws against treason, which if the person believed that the government is tyrannical, could be constitutionally legal?
Like I said, it's not in any way an easy decision. Many states have different laws covering licenses and carrying permits and stuff.
I don't know exactly why, but that struck me as really funny. I guess it's the "Well, DUH!" factor.
Well, yeah. But I wanted to be perfectly clear, and it felt like it might help to absolutely spell it out in no uncertain terms.
Well, yeah. But I wanted to be perfectly clear, and it felt like it might help to absolutely spell it out in no uncertain terms.
I know. It makes it even funnier because I know you and your penchant for not saying things sarcastically. ;)
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at... I'm not sure I see how economic turmoil or war in the middle east equates to keeping firearms in one's own household. As for history, is it just assumed that eventually the populace will have to rise up in arms against their government?
The overthrow of the government under force of arms is last defense against tyranny and is an implied solution in the constitution. The United States was established by rebellious men fighting against what they felt was an unjust and tyrannical monarch. By specifically setting forth the rights of the people to keep the means of formenting rebellion, they left the assurance that tyranny could not thrive here.
The Constitution gives us the means to speak out, spread news via the press, vote against tyrannical men and remove them under force of arms if all other means fail. The armed populace is a means to hold a standing army in check.
Oh, I see. It seems... a strange way of thinking, but I suppose if you had to rise up violently in the first place, that will be your initial starting point when creating your own laws.
So, by having the right to bear arms, are you then expected to do so?
Nope, one is not forced or expected to bear arms but if one wants to own guns then they have the option to do so legally.
If it didn't put me above my character limit, I would sig that. We need more people like you (by "we", I mean Germany - apparently, not as uncommon in the US).
Actually, I'm a bit uncommon in the US.
Actually, yes.
Who are you defending yourself from?
Umm. Do you like, watch the news? There's all sorts of bad people out there that would not hesitate to do me and mine harm in order to get even the slightest bit ahead in their lives. People have been killed for sums of money that wouldn't cover the cost of the weapon used (including knives, screwdrivers and baseball bats). With the economy getting worse, more people are resorting to crime to get by.
Really, this stuff is pretty simple.
Actually, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. The US was born from a rebellion, so the founding fathers allowed for people to rise up against it again, should the US government become tyrannical. It has nothing to do with self-defense, on a personal level.
Not exactly. We have a right as human beings - not American citizens (or whatever) to defend ourselves. Gov't has nothing to do with that. Ever. It follows that if we have this right we should be able to use the best tools available to exercise it. In some cases, guns are the best tool.
Think of it this way. To date, every nation/civilization (that I can think of) that is not still around ended from internal or external violence.
But would that not still be the case if the populace rises up to remove the established tyrannical government? The old nation is ended and the new one is born. So, basically the constitution has in place a violent means to end itself, like a big self destruct button?
The overthrow of the government under force of arms is last defense against tyranny and is an implied solution in the constitution. The United States was established by rebellious men fighting against what they felt was an unjust and tyrannical monarch. By specifically setting forth the rights of the people to keep the means of formenting rebellion, they left the assurance that tyranny could not thrive here.
The Constitution gives us the means to speak out, spread news via the press, vote against tyrannical men and remove them under force of arms if all other means fail. The armed populace is a means to hold a standing army in check.
It just strikes me as, well, strange that this is included to begin with. I mean, if the people are going to rise up against the government, then they are going to rise up against the government whether the constitution gives them the go-ahead or not.
At which point - why bother including it in the first place?
Umm. Do you like, watch the news? There's all sorts of bad people out there that would not hesitate to do me and mine harm in order to get even the slightest bit ahead in their lives. People have been killed for sums of money that wouldn't cover the cost of the weapon used (including knives, screwdrivers and baseball bats). With the economy getting worse, more people are resorting to crime to get by.
Hm, the crime debate. Actually, I don't think I'll go into it as it might be getting too political (and I think this subject is skirting that area to begin with). I'll just say that, after studying crime, I'm not entirely sure that owning a weapon has the impact on crime that is commonly held.
Not exactly. We have a right as human beings - not American citizens (or whatever) to defend ourselves. Gov't has nothing to do with that. Ever. It follows that if we have this right we should be able to use the best tools available to exercise it. In some cases, guns are the best tool.
That is highly debatable (as it's been debated throughout history), and I'm not interested in debating it here. I was speaking of the right of US citizens to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment), which is the tyrannical gov't thing. No big deal though, if that's what you were talking about (IYO). I thought he was asking about the 2nd Amendment. My bad.
It just strikes me as, well, strange that this is included to begin with. I mean, if the people are going to rise up against the government, then they are going to rise up against the government whether the constitution gives them the go-ahead or not.
The right to revolt isn't there, but the tools for revolution are protected. And judging by the other writings of the founding fathers, they never figured the United States would last as long as it has.
It just strikes me as, well, strange that this is included to begin with. I mean, if the people are going to rise up against the government, then they are going to rise up against the government whether the constitution gives them the go-ahead or not.
At which point - why bother including it in the first place?
It restricts the steps the goverment can take to attempt to prevent it. They cant remove the guns, or shoot the protesters, or censure the news reports of what has happened. They can try to do these thigns, but that will do more to strengthen the opposition aginst them because a vast majority of the populace has been raised to expect these rights above and beyond any others, so activly trying to remove them to repress an unruley populace would create more unrest than it would remove. It basically gives the rebellion an obvious headstart.
That is highly debatable (as it's been debated throughout history), and I'm not interested in debating it here. I was speaking of the right of US citizens to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment), which is the tyrannical gov't thing. No big deal though, if that's what you were talking about (IYO). I thought he was asking about the 2nd Amendment. My bad.
Yeah, I'm shooting for the 2nd Amendment... thingy.
It restricts the steps the goverment can take to attempt to prevent it. They cant remove the guns, or shoot the protesters, or censure the news reports of what has happened. They can try to do these thigns, but that will do more to strengthen the opposition aginst them because a vast majority of the populace has been raised to expect these rights above and beyond any others, so activly trying to remove them to repress an unruley populace would create more unrest than it would remove. It basically gives the rebellion an obvious headstart.
So it's in place to hasten violent uprising?
That is highly debatable (as it's been debated throughout history), and I'm not interested in debating it here. I was speaking of the right of US citizens to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment), which is the tyrannical gov't thing. No big deal though, if that's what you were talking about (IYO). I thought he was asking about the 2nd Amendment. My bad.
Meh. I think he was but I tend to get riled up by this topic and that leads to talking too much. :D
BTW, the Heller decision states that good ol' Amendment Number 2 does indeed apply to an individual's right to keep and bear arms. It is, of course, still under debate but official American policy as of this second states this as fact. It ain't just for a militia to rise against a tyrannical government.
It just strikes me as, well, strange that this is included to begin with. I mean, if the people are going to rise up against the government, then they are going to rise up against the government whether the constitution gives them the go-ahead or not.
At which point - why bother including it in the first place?
Because it matters that the government cannot violate this right. It's a "we've got the kill-switch" so that the government will fear the people. ;)
But no, the people who would rise against the government in defense of the ideals of the government wouldn't necessarily do it without this provision - the idea is that every member of the society would be able to rebel as the founding fathers did against an unjust government.
It makes sense from the point of view of when the Constitution was founded - the founding fathers put the power legally in the hands of the citizens, rather than in the hands of the government.
EDIT: Yeah, what those guys said. And, as I said earlier, it's a highly debated topic with no easy answer. ;)
But would that not still be the case if the populace rises up to remove the established tyrannical government? The old nation is ended and the new one is born. So, basically the constitution has in place a violent means to end itself, like a big self destruct button?
Yes, which is only meant to be used if the government has become one huge tyrannical douche. Basically once they start treating the common citizen like a bunch of worthless slaves with no rights what so ever....or maybe a bit sooner than that.
It just strikes me as, well, strange that this is included to begin with. I mean, if the people are going to rise up against the government, then they are going to rise up against the government whether the constitution gives them the go-ahead or not.
At which point - why bother including it in the first place?
The difference is that with such a right the citizens are prepared to defend themselves from a government that turn tyrannical where if they have no such privilege the citizens are completely useless and such a struggle will likely take countless generations and require outside help to overcome. Without out it a government can quickly turn things into a feudal like system where everyone that is not currently rich and that thinks the same as the person(s) in charge is reduced to a nobody and is forced to work their entire life upon a plot of land. Never to leave and never to be educated. Giving the citizens a means to protect themselves helps keep things from getting so bad for the government knows that the citizenry is capable of defending themselves.
Yeah, I'm shooting for the 2nd Amendment... thingy.
So it's in place to hasten violent uprising?
Exactly. It gives the populace more power in that it makes them more of a threat to their government than other populations that don't have the same expectation of rights. It makes them harder to govern aginst there will, thus helping to enforce the "Of the people, by the people, for the people" thing. It makes it more difficutl for the government to make largescale and obvious descisions that are contrary to the wishes of the majority of the populace.
Exactly. It gives the populace more power in that it makes them more of a threat to their government than other populations that don't have the same expectation of rights. It makes them harder to govern aginst there will, thus helping to enforce of "Of the people, by the people, for the people" thing. It makes it more difficutl for the government to make largescale and obvious descisions that are contrary to the wishes of the majority of the populace.
Yes. It's to keep the government in line.
Yes. It's to keep the government in line.
And there has never been a more noble purpose, to be sure.
And there has never been a more noble purpose, to be sure.
We might need something like that, too. A couple months ago the Finnish parliament refused to take into account the public opinion when preparing new legislation. They said the public can't know what's best for it, and therefore it should not interfere with the work of the parliament.
I was quite astounded when I heard this.
I thought everyone had gotten over our one-war stand with them but no, someone always has to bring it up again and again. ;)
Wow.... did finland just get compared to Nazi germany? Sweet.
So it seems.
I thought everyone had gotten over our one-war stand with them but no, someone always has to bring it up again and again. ;)
Not exactly. One act of government done with a similar policy in place. I brought it up because people tend to forget about it. Burning books and genocide stick in the mind longer than disarmament. Though if they were armed some of the other may not have happened. At least not as easily. And that type of distraction would have had a huge impact on the whole deal-y.
It's amazing how much history is simply ignored to further a cause. Registration, for example, has been used to confiscate weapons in England and Australia. When it was started here, nobody could figure out why gun owners were against it. Well ... duh. Oh. It's also been shown to be utterly ineffective at what it was allegedly designed for. A minuscule amount of crimes have ever been solved due to registration info. The reason? Criminals don't obey laws. Again ... duh.
Re: Governments doing things without permission of the populace
Eh, I'm both ways on this (cue the jokes). On some issues I certainly think the populace should have a say. On others that just becomes a method for the majority to oppress the minority (see civil rights issues).
It depends on the nature of what the government is handing down.
I didn't forget, I just didn't spell it out explictely. See my earlier comment about how a disarmed populace is easier to control.
Hey pal, I said people, not Escher Enigmas. ;) :P Not to imply you're not a person, of course, I'm just trying to highlight the vaguery of my statement. Think of "people" in this instance as "they". Yeah, they. You know them, don't you? ;) :D
Re: Governments doing things without permission of the populace
Eh, I'm both ways on this (cue the jokes). On some issues I certainly think the populace should have a say. On others that just becomes a method for the majority to oppress the minority (see civil rights issues).
It depends on the nature of what the government is handing down.
Yep. It's a tricky topic.
I didn't forget, I just didn't spell it out explictely. See my earlier comment about how a disarmed populace is easier to control.
Re: Governments doing things without permission of the populace
Eh, I'm both ways on this (cue the jokes). On some issues I certainly think the populace should have a say. On others that just becomes a method for the majority to oppress the minority (see civil rights issues).
It depends on the nature of what the government is handing down.
So the rights of a governmenr to make decisions contrary to majority desire is directly correlated to your personal belife in the quality of the decisions they make?
Re: Governments doing things without permission of the populace
Eh, I'm both ways on this (cue the jokes). On some issues I certainly think the populace should have a say. On others that just becomes a method for the majority to oppress the minority (see civil rights issues).
It depends on the nature of what the government is handing down.
The new legislation was to give the companies the right to look into their employees' email and such to see if there was any industrial espionage or alike going on.
Now, if it also disallowed people using cryptography on their e-mails or required people to give their crytographic keys to the company, then I'd be more leery.
On the other hand, if you're talking about saying that a company can look at any e-mail that the employee receives, whether it's a company-provided e-mail or not, then I would agree they're crossing a line.
Of course, I'm not sure how that would be a legislation-worthy issue...
It came up when Nokia (the largest company in Finland) made a threat that if they weren't allowed to read their employees' e-mail, they'd leave Finland for good. No one believed, save the government and the parliament.
We might need something like that, too. A couple months ago the Finnish parliament refused to take into account the public opinion when preparing new legislation. They said the public can't know what's best for it, and therefore it should not interfere with the work of the parliament.
It sounds like the Finnish parliament is looking for an education in unemployment.
And, I'm impressed we managed to discuss this political issue without it getting locked. A good sign, methinks.
And, I'm impressed we managed to discuss this political issue without it getting locked. A good sign, methinks.
Shh, polyticks ist verboten.
It was about any e-mail, at least I understood so.
It came up when Nokia (the largest company in Finland) made a threat that if they weren't allowed to read their employees' e-mail, they'd leave Finland for good. No one believed, save the government and the parliament.
Was this home emails sent to home emails or emails sent using Nokia corporate infrastructure such as computers and LAN in the offices?
If the latter, I think they can look in on that here in the states too. Here, I think, companies are not required to ive you privacy on communication lines that are for corporate use. It is their system. It is for use by their company. You use it at their discretion. At least that is how I think it works here. I don't have a problem with it.
Was this home emails sent to home emails or emails sent using Nokia corporate infrastructure such as computers and LAN in the offices?
If the latter, I think they can look in on that here in the states too. Here, I think, companies are not required to ive you privacy on communication lines that are for corporate use. It is their system. It is for use by their company. You use it at their discretion. At least that is how I think it works here. I don't have a problem with it.
It was the companies' network, so I understood. My point (as unclear as it may have been) was not the law in itself, but the fact that the parliament wasn't interested in the public opinion, and the public wasn't interested in this dismissal. Heck, we still have some discussion about the law, but not about the parliament's dismissing the people.
Heh, can Nokia moniture the text messages sent and recieved by Nokia emploies on Nokia phones?
No, I don't think so. Of course, they design the OS themselves, so it wouldn't be impossible.