i'm 26. i never attended university. depending on how you measure it i never completed highschool.
i own more books than, from memory, my father has bought in his Life, even after getting rid of half my collection at one point ( it amounted to about 1/4th or less of what i currently have and was mostly old children's books).
my mother's collection is also noticeably smaller than my own.
I'll grant that slightly over half of my collection is actually manga volumes rather than novels, now, but a substantial chunk of the remainder is non-fiction on various subjects. (linguistics mostly, but also economics, history, religion, warfare, and a number of other things, if not many on each).
i used to read a LOT of library books, as well. i'd frequently borrow the maximum allowed, or almost, and, allowing that in any given set of 20 2-5 would be comics of one sort or another and another 2-3 i'd end up deciding were't quite as interesting as they first looked, i'd get the lot read in a couple of weeks, take 'em back as soon as possible, and borrow new ones. it got to the point where the main thing holding me back was the fact that the city-wide library network was Running Out of books that actually interested me, fiction wise. (i probably read most of the sci-fi and All the alternate history that was to be had, for one thing). these days, that library habit has been replaced with a mix of buying my own books and reading fanfiction online.
I don't think the text book explanation really covers it.
the ease of access to communities discussing subjects of interest so that people can point out books you might actually Want to read probably contributes a lot. as does the ability to buy from online shops which are far less limited in their selections than the traditional book-shop.
i've long since stopped watching broad-cast television*, mind you. that reading, in addition to computer and console games, dvds - mostly series rather than movies - various board and card games with friends and family, wargaming... they're all a Lot more interesting.
*('cord cutting' is a lot less significant here... we never had cable companies. cable TV at ALL is a New thing with the fiber-optics being installed for better 'net access, and even then it's basically just the terrestrial broadcast and satellite channels with better reception and, in the latter case, a lower price due to the bundle deal. but NZ's telecommunications situation's always been a bit odd.)
*laughs* well, I'm from New Zealand, not the UK, which means the system's a Bit different.
it's kind of astounding how many problems and abuses could have been avoided here simply by going with a Feudal model (which all the random weirdness actually would have fit into) rather than trying to be all modern and democratic... (even if the various feudal sub-entities had been required to be constitutional-whatevers in their own rights.)
... ... NZ is weird. heh.
no, our problem here is that we had a few bad governors followed by actually having a parliament and the governors then abdicating all responsibility. while the monarchy's powers in Practice are fairly limited here, all the documentation actually leaves it open for them to, if they have enough personal power (which NO governor general has had, to my knowledge, though that has nothing to do with the post itself), actually run the place as an absolute monarchy in every way but the budget. requires a couple of cludges and work-arounds here and there, but still. (and all it would really take to get popular support for such a move would be for the current monarch/governor to Actually Say No (which they're SUPPOSED TO DO) when parliament attempts to make yet another dick move.)
also: NZ's parliament only has one house. this would be FINE if the GG actually did their job, as a lot of the monarch's powers here are a lot of the various things an 'upper house' would normally do (the rest being the responsibility of parliament).
the Westminster system isn't actually about the separation of powers at ALL, to our detriment, leading to Parliament having usurped, in practice if not in name, most of the power of the monarch these days.
... Not actually a citizen or resident of the US here.
just ever hopeful that you'll finally clean up your own mess before my own country is next on the list of places your system destroys. we have enough of our Own problems, thank you very much.
you're probably right, there. i'm just having a hard time seeing most of those countries considering such an act worthwhile over New Zealand.
also, i have a hard time seeing the US government NOT going all 'fire AAAALL ze missiles!' on the world if such a war actually reached the point of enemy troops on their soil... and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see them being unwilling to sue for peace under any other circumstances.
yeah, I'm something of a pessimist when it comes to these things.
not that they were following Those rules properly in that particular case either.
nevermind that said 'rules' seem to go out the window when the individual in question is not a citizen of the USA. (and the rules when you Are apparently now include the President being able to order you assassinated with no further proceedings involved, unless i misunderstood.)
... i kinda wonder how long that would last if the US did actually attack us, to be honest. I mean, there's the Commonwealth, but the strongest members of That are all but in the US's pockets... China might take issue with such a situation, but probably not and the outcome of Them coming to our defence in such a manner would be as bad as just rolling over for the US, i think. our relations with Japan are... weird. (oddly close in some regards for how hostile they are in others...) we get on fairly well with Korea, as i understand it, but they can't really afford to get on the US's bad side... we don't really get on with France... the various pacific nations hardly count as 'strong', Canada really couldn't afford a war with the US, i don't know if we even Interact with Mexico, i can't see Chile being much help... I've got No idea what South Africa would do (there's another weird relationship if you look at the history of it)
Australia's a toss up depending on it's government and public sentiment at the time ('Help NZ almost instinctively' vs 'getting in a war with the US is not really healthy' basically), the UK seems to be putting serious effort into being a US... well, not quite a Puppet... client state? not much hope of help there. I don't think Indonesia likes us... India would probably have no reason to get involved...
seriously, NZ vs the US? with our navy and air force basically gutted of actual combat capacity and the vast majority of our cities being on the coast i don't really see how we'd win such a war, or even drag it out all that long.
become a quagmire after the fact? sure. but not actually defend the place. (i've heard some surprisingly cheap, logical, Viable ideas for defending NZ properly... but they all come at the expense of Any power-projection. ... ... so instead we have a couple of frigates and some dodgy transport ships for an army Designed almost from the ground up purely to serve as auxiliaries for other countries in their wars. ... this isn't even actually helping our allies for mutual gain, or hiring out our troops as mercenaries to keep their experience levels up. it's us paying to send troops to fight other people's battles and wars which we get NOTHING out of. it's stupid!)
NZ troops were quite happy under similar restrictions, to my understanding.
'course, that was due to a combination of the war in question generally being considered to be a dumb idea and the fact that helping with the rebuild and NOT being party to the original destruction tends to lead to the locals being quite friendly.
there's a lot of places you can go where US soldiers would be spat upon (well, were it not for the risk of them shooting you, legality be damned) while NZ troops are greeted with smiles and gifts.
... being the 'good cop' has it's advantages.
(also, the Australian and New Zealand practice of pacifying an area by way of what amount to less brutal versions of the old Japanese sword-hunts is generally a HELL of a lot more effective than the US method of arming everyone who even MIGHT be on their side with better weapons. tends to lead to a situation where they can turn things over to local police types a heck of a lot quicker, too.)
... this is less a specific reply than thoughts in response to the entire comment thread to this point.
(also, seriously? who the hell thinks Australian troops are cowards? I've heard that of US troops often enough, though it's not the Most common derogatory statement about them, but Australians? really? *sigh*)
i was considering more the fact that there is nothing that would compel the USG to actually pay up rather than simply ignoring the ruling if it comes from a foreign court...
the NZG will do crap-all. the current administration basically Wishes they were the US government.
the courts as a whole deciding that any extradition request by the US will be automatically turned down regardless of any other factors? ... I'm not even sure how that would work.
not sure how far that one would get them.
has decent odds of losing them the vast majority of their allies, actually.
...
possibly including Canada.
depends on a bunch of stuff i don't really know about, but a LOT of the US's allies have closer ties with us than them, ya know?
'course, the nature of the situation is that it'd have to be a group effort, as i don't think any of them would be willing to be the first to do it by themselves.
... side effect of being a western, commonwealth, democratic (however dysfunctional representative democracy may be, NZ's one of the better examples of it) 'capitalist' nation with no strategic resources (save claims to large parts of Antarctica which the US refuses to recognize anyway, and being the main access point to said continent... but going to war with us, or something of that nature, would be the only way to Lose that access anyway... seriously, there is NOTHING worth having here that wouldn't be destroyed in the process of taking the place by military force... and NZ's terrain is A: damn near impossible to defend (our government's attitude towards our navy is INSANE) and B: almost as hard to secure once you've captured it. ... mountains and the bush are kind of hard to secure... then there's the fiords (and yes, that's spelled right) and the fun of active volcanoes just for giggles... and 3000 dollar cruise-missiles built from off the shelf civilian parts...)
On the post: Debunking The Myth That The Internet Generation Doesn't Buy Or Read Books
Re:
i own more books than, from memory, my father has bought in his Life, even after getting rid of half my collection at one point ( it amounted to about 1/4th or less of what i currently have and was mostly old children's books).
my mother's collection is also noticeably smaller than my own.
I'll grant that slightly over half of my collection is actually manga volumes rather than novels, now, but a substantial chunk of the remainder is non-fiction on various subjects. (linguistics mostly, but also economics, history, religion, warfare, and a number of other things, if not many on each).
i used to read a LOT of library books, as well. i'd frequently borrow the maximum allowed, or almost, and, allowing that in any given set of 20 2-5 would be comics of one sort or another and another 2-3 i'd end up deciding were't quite as interesting as they first looked, i'd get the lot read in a couple of weeks, take 'em back as soon as possible, and borrow new ones. it got to the point where the main thing holding me back was the fact that the city-wide library network was Running Out of books that actually interested me, fiction wise. (i probably read most of the sci-fi and All the alternate history that was to be had, for one thing). these days, that library habit has been replaced with a mix of buying my own books and reading fanfiction online.
I don't think the text book explanation really covers it.
the ease of access to communities discussing subjects of interest so that people can point out books you might actually Want to read probably contributes a lot. as does the ability to buy from online shops which are far less limited in their selections than the traditional book-shop.
i've long since stopped watching broad-cast television*, mind you. that reading, in addition to computer and console games, dvds - mostly series rather than movies - various board and card games with friends and family, wargaming... they're all a Lot more interesting.
*('cord cutting' is a lot less significant here... we never had cable companies. cable TV at ALL is a New thing with the fiber-optics being installed for better 'net access, and even then it's basically just the terrestrial broadcast and satellite channels with better reception and, in the latter case, a lower price due to the bundle deal. but NZ's telecommunications situation's always been a bit odd.)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: interesting
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's kind of astounding how many problems and abuses could have been avoided here simply by going with a Feudal model (which all the random weirdness actually would have fit into) rather than trying to be all modern and democratic... (even if the various feudal sub-entities had been required to be constitutional-whatevers in their own rights.)
... ... NZ is weird. heh.
no, our problem here is that we had a few bad governors followed by actually having a parliament and the governors then abdicating all responsibility. while the monarchy's powers in Practice are fairly limited here, all the documentation actually leaves it open for them to, if they have enough personal power (which NO governor general has had, to my knowledge, though that has nothing to do with the post itself), actually run the place as an absolute monarchy in every way but the budget. requires a couple of cludges and work-arounds here and there, but still. (and all it would really take to get popular support for such a move would be for the current monarch/governor to Actually Say No (which they're SUPPOSED TO DO) when parliament attempts to make yet another dick move.)
also: NZ's parliament only has one house. this would be FINE if the GG actually did their job, as a lot of the monarch's powers here are a lot of the various things an 'upper house' would normally do (the rest being the responsibility of parliament).
the Westminster system isn't actually about the separation of powers at ALL, to our detriment, leading to Parliament having usurped, in practice if not in name, most of the power of the monarch these days.
On the post: Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police
Re:
also: exactly.
On the post: Yes, Friends Can Share Your Facebook Profile With The Police
Re:
other than adding a line-break type dealy there...
did you actually change anything that i'm missing?
because it looks like you just repeated what Mike said there.
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: Why would Obama start respecting people now?
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re:
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
drones and smart-bombs you run away or hide from.
or, you know, use something that's Not a Shotgun.
(seriously, you can build a short range cruise missile with off the shelf consumer parts for under $3000. it's been done.)
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just ever hopeful that you'll finally clean up your own mess before my own country is next on the list of places your system destroys. we have enough of our Own problems, thank you very much.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: To New Zealand Goverment & New Zealand Courts
our government refused to even consider investigating that when it came up...
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re:
also, i have a hard time seeing the US government NOT going all 'fire AAAALL ze missiles!' on the world if such a war actually reached the point of enemy troops on their soil... and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see them being unwilling to sue for peace under any other circumstances.
yeah, I'm something of a pessimist when it comes to these things.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nevermind that said 'rules' seem to go out the window when the individual in question is not a citizen of the USA. (and the rules when you Are apparently now include the President being able to order you assassinated with no further proceedings involved, unless i misunderstood.)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
with This government? i wouldn't even guarantee it wasn't their idea.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
I mean, they seem to be doing everything they can to generate More of it, as is...
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re:
Australia's a toss up depending on it's government and public sentiment at the time ('Help NZ almost instinctively' vs 'getting in a war with the US is not really healthy' basically), the UK seems to be putting serious effort into being a US... well, not quite a Puppet... client state? not much hope of help there. I don't think Indonesia likes us... India would probably have no reason to get involved...
seriously, NZ vs the US? with our navy and air force basically gutted of actual combat capacity and the vast majority of our cities being on the coast i don't really see how we'd win such a war, or even drag it out all that long.
become a quagmire after the fact? sure. but not actually defend the place. (i've heard some surprisingly cheap, logical, Viable ideas for defending NZ properly... but they all come at the expense of Any power-projection. ... ... so instead we have a couple of frigates and some dodgy transport ships for an army Designed almost from the ground up purely to serve as auxiliaries for other countries in their wars. ... this isn't even actually helping our allies for mutual gain, or hiring out our troops as mercenaries to keep their experience levels up. it's us paying to send troops to fight other people's battles and wars which we get NOTHING out of. it's stupid!)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NZ troops were quite happy under similar restrictions, to my understanding.
'course, that was due to a combination of the war in question generally being considered to be a dumb idea and the fact that helping with the rebuild and NOT being party to the original destruction tends to lead to the locals being quite friendly.
there's a lot of places you can go where US soldiers would be spat upon (well, were it not for the risk of them shooting you, legality be damned) while NZ troops are greeted with smiles and gifts.
... being the 'good cop' has it's advantages.
(also, the Australian and New Zealand practice of pacifying an area by way of what amount to less brutal versions of the old Japanese sword-hunts is generally a HELL of a lot more effective than the US method of arming everyone who even MIGHT be on their side with better weapons. tends to lead to a situation where they can turn things over to local police types a heck of a lot quicker, too.)
... this is less a specific reply than thoughts in response to the entire comment thread to this point.
(also, seriously? who the hell thinks Australian troops are cowards? I've heard that of US troops often enough, though it's not the Most common derogatory statement about them, but Australians? really? *sigh*)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: love it
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: Re: Re:
hint: it's fixing this sort of bullshit.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re:
non-extradition of Kim Dotcom.
and... what?
the NZG will do crap-all. the current administration basically Wishes they were the US government.
the courts as a whole deciding that any extradition request by the US will be automatically turned down regardless of any other factors? ... I'm not even sure how that would work.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re:
has decent odds of losing them the vast majority of their allies, actually.
...
possibly including Canada.
depends on a bunch of stuff i don't really know about, but a LOT of the US's allies have closer ties with us than them, ya know?
'course, the nature of the situation is that it'd have to be a group effort, as i don't think any of them would be willing to be the first to do it by themselves.
... side effect of being a western, commonwealth, democratic (however dysfunctional representative democracy may be, NZ's one of the better examples of it) 'capitalist' nation with no strategic resources (save claims to large parts of Antarctica which the US refuses to recognize anyway, and being the main access point to said continent... but going to war with us, or something of that nature, would be the only way to Lose that access anyway... seriously, there is NOTHING worth having here that wouldn't be destroyed in the process of taking the place by military force... and NZ's terrain is A: damn near impossible to defend (our government's attitude towards our navy is INSANE) and B: almost as hard to secure once you've captured it. ... mountains and the bush are kind of hard to secure... then there's the fiords (and yes, that's spelled right) and the fun of active volcanoes just for giggles... and 3000 dollar cruise-missiles built from off the shelf civilian parts...)
Next >>