Pedantic question about standardisation

[BrianShaw]

Not here.

I never felt safe (or protected against pickpockets or camera theft) with the UK police carrying not muchmore than a whistle.

 

[Steve Smith]

I never felt safe (or protected against pickpockets or camera theft) with the UK police carrying not muchmore than a whistle.

How does a cop carrying a gun protect against pockets being picked or cameras being stolen?


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I never felt safe (or protected against pickpockets or camera theft) with the UK police carrying not muchmore than a whistle.

And I don't feel any safer at home now that most cops go around clanking like a mobile weapons locker.

 

[BrianShaw]

Here in LA, it is the flashlight we fear the most!

 

[MattKing]

Like Steve, I also would not wish to live in a country where people carry guns.

There are a lot of guns in Canada. Almost all the legally owned ones are rifles, and are most suited to hunting or competition shooting.

Compared to the US though, there are very few people shot by those guns.

Some of the difference is due to differences in laws - every gun owner must apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and must have one before acquiring the gun. The Certificate is only issued to those who don't have a relevant criminal record, and have successfully completed a course. There are specific rules about storage of guns and ammunition.

More importantly, however, there is a real difference in the culture in Canada when it comes to guns. The legal ownership of guns is looked at as a heavy responsibility and privilege by the law abiding gun owners here. There is little or no perception that gun ownership is a right.

We are experiencing a growing problem with criminal use of guns - they are being smuggled from the US.

Our Border Services agency recently released its annual report, which included statistics on the use of weapons by Border Services guards. They began carrying weapons in 2007. Not all carry guns - batons and pepper sprays are used instead or in addition to guns.

They report all incidents where a weapon of any type is drawn or raised or deployed. Numbers for 2011 were down from the year before - about 150 compared to about 200 incidents over the entire year.

They also talked about statistics for numbers of times guns had actually been discharged.

Since 2007 Border Services guards have discharged guns only 3 times.

Two times guns were accidentally discharged while loading or unloading them.

And the remaining time? The gun was discharged by a Border Services guard when he or she put down a severely injured moose who had (I assume) stumbled into a border crossing.

Only in Canada, you say?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Here in LA, it is the flashlight we fear the most!

I'm pretty sure I'd rather be shot in a limb than have my skull caved in by one of those 6-cell koshes they call flashlights. The training young cops recieve is beginning to disturb me.

 

[BrianShaw]

Only in Canada, you say?

Yup... only in Canada, I say.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm pretty sure I'd rather be shot in a limb than have my skull caved in by one of those 6-cell koshes they call flashlights. The training young cops recieve is beginning to disturb me.

Interestingly, use of flashlight for anything more than illumination purposes is against policy here in LA. That has been violated so many times that the big MagLights have been replaced (100% I think -- STANDARDISED, in keeping with the thread) with smaller padded rechargable flashlights. The only problem is that they don't provide sufficient illumination. I don't know about getting shot in a limb or anywhere else as a desired option, but I'd gladly take my chances of getting shot AT rather than getting konked on the noggin with a flashlight or any other kind of club. The chances of getting hit by the bullet is probably smaller than the chances of getting a concussion.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Interestingly, use of flashlight for anything more than illumination purposes is against policy here in LA. That has been violated so many times that the big MagLights have been replaced (100% I think -- STANDARDISED, in keeping with the thread) with smaller padded rechargable flashlights. The only problem is that they don't provide sufficient illumination. I don't know about getting shot in a limb or anywhere else as a desired option, but I'd gladly take my chances of getting shot AT rather than getting konked on the noggin with a flashlight or any other kind of club. The chances of getting hit by the bullet is probably smaller than the chances of getting a concussion.

Concussion?? I have one of those Maglites. The ones the police carry are heavier, made of thicker metal specifically for use as a club. You're talking shattered skulls, not just a lump or three.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, there'll just be the police who go about armed.......

When I said 'nobody' I meant 'nobody'.

 

[blansky]

If the US had hesitated in entering WWI or WWII any longer than we did, or if we had pondered the "rightfulness" of one side or another, this discussion would not be about the English language.

PE

Explain??

 

[Steve Smith]

Twenty six pages and no one has mentioned the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party yet!


Steve.

 

[BrianShaw]

Just wait...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Twenty six pages and no one has mentioned the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party yet!


Steve.

I'm just praying politics will get dragged into it soon, to improve the quality of the exchange.

 

[BrianShaw]

Explain??

I think he is implying that in that case there would only be American, Australian, Candian and New Zealand English to debate because UK would be speaking German. But I could be mistaken.

 

[Diapositivo]

If the US had hesitated in entering WWI or WWII any longer than we did, or if we had pondered the "rightfulness" of one side or another, this discussion would not be about the English language.

I beg to differ. For what I know, the US begun deploying their army in Europe during WWI very late in the war and not in such numbers as to have a real impact on the war. The front which broke was the Italian one, the Vittorio Veneto battle (the Austrians surrender on October 29th and the last day for the Austrian troops to leave Italy before being made prisoners is November 4th), in which no American soldier ever fought (they had 1 dead in the back lines, a road accident or something like that). After the Austrian front broke, Italy offered the invasion of Germany through Bavaria.

The Austrian collapse made the German defeat certain. Communist revolutions begun anywhere not just in Austria, but also in Germany. By November 4th the German fleet raises the red flag!

The Germans surrendered "hastily", although their position was relatively strong, because they had the internal "enemy" making the revolution and they would have faced an invasion in the South (that means moving many troops away from the western front, again weakening the position and altering the equilibrium of forces).

It should be said that, in any case, the US were deploying, by late autumn 1918, 100.000 men per month. That meant that in spring 1919, let's say in may, the Germans would have seen an attack with something like 1 million fresh troops which would have altered the front equilibrium very likely. This certainly was another consideration in the sudden German surrender. Even without the breaking of the front in Italy, the Germans would have not easily survived the eventual push in Summer 1919.

The Germans knew that after failing in taking Anvers their war was sooner or later lost. After the three "pushes with the shoulder" against the western front failed the Germans knew victory was not possible and begun thinking about how to reduce damages.

That's what I know at least. The role of the US in 1918 was not determinant although it can be said that its ingress in the war alone was certainly instrumental in Germany decision to surrender. Remember that when Germany surrendered the front was still in France!

As far as WWII is concerned, I think what happened can be explained by this simple statistics:
The Germans lost 2.200.000 soldiers, of whom 2.000.000 on the Eastern front (against the Soviet Union) and 200.000 in all other fronts (first western front, African front, Italian front, second western front). The Soviet Union lost 6.000.000 soldiers.

If one thinks a bit about these numbers he can easily realise that WWII was actually a huge, epic clash between the Soviet Union and Germany. The clash was won by the Soviet Union. The other fronts were almost "ancillary" in respect to the Eastern front (for those who did not die or suffer in them, that is).

It can be said that 91% of WWII was fought on the Eastern front.

The contribution of the US to the Eastern front was only economic (sending of materials). That contribution, certainly important but possibly not determinant on the final outcome, could have been carried on without a war declaration.

The contribution of the US to the African front, the Italian front and the second western front was certainly decisive but, again, those fronts had a little weight in the great scheme of things.

WWII begins as an attempt to save the Polish independence. It matures through a combined German-Sovietic attack to Poland. It ends with half Europe having basically lost independence. Side effects: British empire in pieces, US and Soviet raise. The Soviet Union, sharing half of the Poland invasion with Germany, which caused the war, is the main motor of victory and the main "ally" (although not so defined) of the British who declared war to Germany to defend Poland.

I suspect Churchill is NOT going to be remembered as a great statesman by historians of centuries to come.

 

[Steve Smith]

But there might have been a new type... German English.

Actually, most English comes from German anyway. We just added vowels and spaces between words!


Steve.

 

[blansky]

I think he is implying that in that case there would only be American, Australian, Candian and New Zealand English to debate because UK would be speaking German. But I could be mistaken.

I love those arrogant bullshit statements that are something like "if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German now."

 

[lxdude]

There is no way I would want to live in a country where ordinary citizens are allowed to have guns.


Steve.

There is very little to fear from ordinary citizens.

 

[BrianShaw]

... but back to the topic (originally) at hand. Y'know what always confused me: the similarity between a C-clamp and a G-cramp.

 

[Steve Smith]

WWII was actually a huge, epic clash between the Soviet Union and Germany.

That's what I have always thought.

I suspect Churchill is NOT going to be remembered as a great statesman by historians of centuries to come.

My grandfather had no time for Churchill, referring to him as a warmonger.


Steve.

 

[Leigh B]

You must be aware that nothing short of correct English will get past Steve.

Considering how low 'correct English' is in the first place,
something short of it must be incredibly low indeed.

- Leigh

 

[BrianShaw]

Ah - itler - em.

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[cliveh]

That's what I have always thought.



My grandfather had no time for Churchill, referring to him as a warmonger.


Steve.

In terms of remembering people, why was Alan Turing not given a posthumous Nobel Prize for his contribution to computation?