Klaas
-
Posts
3.116 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Klaas
-
-
I've been collecting WW1&2 stuff for quite some time (stopped 4 years ago). Even have parts of a Canadian pilot that was shot down in front of my house and digged up again 6 years ago. Yep, bones, some skin and hair
Now I "collect" books. Not really collecting, but I just buy and read more books than an average reader I guess.
-
I'm still learning how to drive. In that case in Belgium you have to put a blue sticker with L on it on the back of your car. The purpose of the L is that other drivers know you're a student and to make sure they're for example not driving to close to you. The problem is that most think it's an excuse to cut me off or to leave me no space on small roads and such.
What I also don't like (and it's always people driving in a Mercedes or BMW) is people driving too fast (we have strict limits here). But the worst thing is people who are driving while being drunk.
-
Afaik there are no real proves that he stole the election.
What's sometimes funny is when people are saying some European countries are forming an opposition because they want to be the leader and because some have the syndrom of having been an empire and now just a European country.
Patriotism is in most countries here very rare compared to the US. Most people around here couldn't care less that their country isn't the empire like it was anymore. Perhaps only the French are still patriots, but in most of the other European countries you'll have to search for a very long time before you find one.
And if a European country would like to be the leader, why would they be in the EU? There are many European laws each EU country has to follow, and for the rich ones these laws aren't that positive. So if one of those countries would want to be the world leaders instead of the US that country simply wouldn't be in the EU.
The fuzz about Iraq was in Europe also about oil. It wouldn't be good for France having a war there, because they had some contracts in Iraq. Anyway, doesn't justify being against the war imo, so France never really got my support.
Germany is a different case I think. I guess they were just opposed to a war that wasn't justified, because there weren't any proves of those weapons.
And Belgium was pretty divided. Well we were all against it for sure, but the fat blue "liberals" only because they like to lick French boots and the socialists, greens, nationalists and catholics for the same reason as I think Germany had.
Why isn't the US meddling in stuff all over the world? Bernd made already a nice list, there was Vietnam, Africa, South-America, Russia, even you're meddling with European affairs (yep Bush asked us to remove our minister of foreign affairs from his seat).
And Jordan, I can't really understand you, so I must have missed something. Are you maybe opposed to giving everyone in the world the same standards, or don't you care? If you do care, what's your sollution instead of a UN? (I know this is something impossible, giving everyone the same standards, but I mean in an idealistic perspective).
-
Welkom hier op de forums
-
That's quite contradicting to your views on your own country, that's exactly what the US is doing.
-
I have a task at university for which I need to investigate a certain text we received. The thing we need to know is where the text comes from (book in which the translation is published), who has written it (if it's known), why it was written, etc.
My text is about Amon. It describes who Amon is, in the sense of the "All-god". It also mentions the Ogdoad, Nun, Heliopolis, his unification with Re/Ra, etc.
What I'm pretty sure of is that it's a hymn to Amon. Another thing I found it is that it should be a text coming from the Papyrus of Leyden.
So if anyone here knows something regarding this papyrus or to hymns or Amon in generally it would be great to write it down here. Directing me to some literature (online or books) would also be much appreciated
-
You don't have a "never" option, for my case
-
Why's that Jordan?
I agree though there is something wrong with the UN as Michael pointed out. But I'm not talking about American citizens having more say in the UN, rather citizens of the poor countries like Africa. I believe the US has already most say in the UN, and the UN can't exist without the US. I agree though that US citizens have no say in it, but I don't think those of any country have. Well atleast not here, it's our politicians that decide what to do concerning the UN, not we.
But an international organization built with the meaning to make the world as peacefull as it can get, to help children all over the world, to fight the serious HIV problem, to make sure there will still be enough water in the future for the whole world, that the third world countries also get a chance to get higher up the ladder is a must.
It's not because some UN regulations are bad for the Western nations we should get rid of it. That's pretty egoistic imo (intended as a bad word).
-
Well we're busy with a new site and the one we have up now is just temporary. So you will have to wait a while intul it's online again, so it'll be back
-
Great posts everyone, especially Adam and Jason
Well, as I said that I yet have to see some good arguments regarding Bush I must admit I've seen them now. I'm very happy to hear your sides of the story.
About the hatred I don't really mean everyone in general. It's rather pointed towards the big masses, and I think in both Europe and the US there is some hate towards eachother. I've seen a lot of anti-French stuff in the US and the UK, and as well as anti-US stuff in France and my country (in fact there are monthly anti-American protest marches in Brussels).
Here it did start since the Kyoto and the International Court problems. During 9/11 and the months after it people cooled down a little, until we heard about an invasion in Afghanistan.
What I just don't really get in some people's reasoning is why everything should be in the interest in the US? Imo it should be in the interest of the whole world.
Another thing is democracy. This should have been done a lot earlier you know, making all those countries democratic. But that's not really the mistake of the US (well for some it was), it was Europe's. After the decolonisation many countries weren't stable anymore and ready for dictatorships. Europe just left all those people which were once vitrually slaves to dictatorships. If at the beginning we would have made sure things like this didn't happen it wouldn't be needed to start all these wars.
What we actually did was supporting all those dictators which favored Europe and the US. Pinochet is the best known example, Mobutu is the best known one here.
Actually I wouldn't think so highly about your own nation (including to most European nations). We did some really aweful stuff in the recent past and are still contributing to it. It's quite easy why. Because most countries do actions out of their own interest. Also France, Germany or Belgium.
I also think it's quite strange how many look at terrorism. I simply don't understand why it would be a bigger threat then the Sovjets were. They weren't really civilised you know. Yep, in some way they were, but remember how many people died in the camps in Siberia. The Nazis are peanuts compared to that.
Terrorism is indeed a bad thing, but it's something of all ages. If we would just calm down a little and don't start polishing our swords when another attack happens it might stop faster. Just like at the conflict between Israel and Palestina. There are tons of terrorist attacks in Israel, and in return Israel sends soldiers. As you see, it doesn't help, it only makes things worse.
I think though that the US is at some part doing a good job by getting rid of Saddam's regime or the Taliban. But we should also try to understand (not tolerate!!) why there are terrorists. In Palestina it's quite obvious. If you see Israeli soldiers killing children in cold blood (just as some terrorists do) or all the other innocent casualties, and if some crazy nuts make you believe being violent in return is good many people will become terrorists.
The thing is that most of those terrorist attacks are not directed by nations but by individual groups. You don't need any support from nations to be able to do this. Ever heard of what the RAF did in Germany or the CCC in Belgium? They also did some pretty nasty terrorist attacks. It would rather be better to have good intelligence and motivated police forces to handle such cases (which what we're doing now) and make sure that things like that don't happen anymore by removing the sources of hatred (poverty, Europe and the US abusing less powerful countries out of own interest).
About Kyoto. Yep I heard Russia is also opposing it. I don't see why that would be an argument to say that Bush didn't do something wrong by opposing it. I also never said that Putin is a good leader or Russia a good nation (Chechnya, tons of poor people in Russia, and some very rich people). I'm not suprised by this anyway and it wouldn't surprise me if some European countries (including my own) would start opposing it too. It would make me critisize my own country as much as I do it towards Bush.
About the Democratics. Yep, same thing here with some of the opposition. Just seems that politics in our Western society are more and more becoming a tv show.
-
Yep, no open positions right now.
-
Just before you know, I'm not an anti-American. I criticise my own country a lot too. Example: Our Liberal party (aka the blue fascists) which is governing together with the socialists (the red fascists) made it so that for the next election a party has to get a certain percantage of national votes in order to be able to get in parliament or the senate. So even if a member of a certain party got the votes needed to become a senator he/she will not be able to have the seat of his/her party doesn't get the percentage. Democratic? no
CO, ever saw the images after one of the many attacks on US soldiers? I also see many Iraqis dancing around. The Iraqis never asked the US to free their country from Saddam.
However, Saddam's regime was bad and imo it was needed to get rid of it. But then only through the UN with valid arguments, not lies. And not for oil and influence in the region. And btw, why not North-Korea? Isn't that country a bigger threat than Iraq was. Or why not many of the African nations? Aren't people there suffering a lot more than the Iraqis did? Or what about the Pope and his silly cardinals and bishops? Aren't they telling the Africans not to use a condom because otherwise they will be sent to hell? All those things are a lot worse than Saddam imo.
Anyway, it's not because a politician can act calm and charismatic he's a good politician. People in my country now judge politicians on their appearances, on stuff like winning a debate on tv, or promising to lower taxes. That's not the way how it works though. A politicians should be judged on what he did, on his intellectual abilities, on his experience.
I know this isn't really apropiate but Hitler could make great speaches, which earned him most of his votes. Doesn't make him a good politician doesn't it
-
Man you forgot John Travolta, my all time favorite
-
Yep I agree. I don't know Bush in person and the things people say about him don't reveal much. The only things that are revealed is that he makes many childish mistakes regarding his intellectual abilities. We also know he doesn't write his speaches himself. But I have to admit Bush isn't the first one in this case. But there are enough proves to show Bush is not an intellectual person.
This and what Bernd said makes me conclude the same thing, he's just a puppet in the hands of some pretty evil people.
Just look at what's happening internationally. More and more there are quarels between Europe and the US, more and more people come on the streets. You can't ignore these things, you can't ignore the simple facts that there is again more and more hatred. And we all know when that turning point was. Not 9/11, it was when Bush became president (eg. Kyoto, International Court and the space defence system, all pre 9/11 diplomatic problems).
But probably my biggest problem here, is just as Bernd stated, is the lack of arguments people can give in supporting Bush. First steps in historical critisism is checking your sources and never neglecting the sources that speak against your opinion. If you don't that you end up with dogmas. So if you want to build up a good argumentation it needs to be done by examined facts, based on true sources, not on your personal feelings or emotions.
-
But why did he have to talk about that in court anyway? And what would you have done if you were in his place? I mean, opening your sex life to the broad public, as a president of the US, isn't something that's really easy. It's humiliating for him and even a lot more for his wife and daughter.
And frankly I don't see what this has to do with his political abilities. The thing with the weapons is of course something different which is indeed related to political abilitities.
-
I wouldn't say that about Bush if it wasn't true. The proof is pretty relieable, Belgium's own prime minister when he first talked to Bush. Now Bush knows us all too well, enough incidents have happened for that. (International court quarel, belgian genocide law, belgium supporting France and Germany during the Iraq crisis)
I'm not a supporter of China or communism either. But in fact China may look communist, in reality things are pretty different. Their social and economical system has changed a lot during the past few years and I'm sure they will eventually become a big capitalistic nation.
Anyway, where do you get the idea China has an aggressive stance towards the US? It's not the 60s anymore you know and Mao is dead. I think it's good China is an ally of the Western nations. Or do you rather want the cold war period back?
The thing with your war on terrorism is that frankly it's not as many people show it. When did all this started? 9/11, a very aweful action that left a mark on all US citizens. But just take a look at the years before 9/11. There were many of those terrorist attacks too you know, in Japan for example, even close to my door in Brussels. These were indeed, just like 9/11 terrorist attacks, although 9/11 was a lot worse.
But what makes Kosovo, or for example Chechnya related to terrorism? In Kosovo it was a civil war due to radical nationalism, in Chechnya it's resistance fighting the Russians, not terrorists. Ever read the details on what happened in Moskow in that theatre, when Chechnian "terrorists" hostaged all those people? That's a very different story, and not so nice. In fact all those so-called terrorists were shot on sight. If you watch the security videos when the Russian police entered the theatre you can see very easily that most Chechnians dropped their weapons and put their hands in the air. In return for surrendering they got a bullet in their head.
I also don't agree that Iraq has something to do with terrorism. Saddam had no relations with Bin Laden, it hasn't been proven and it's pretty obvious because Saddam was anti Muslim extremists, in fact he even murdered tens of thousands of them. That was just a real war, not a war against terrorism.
I agree though, something severely needs to be done against terrorists, but not the way it's done. The first steps should be a functioning international court, the second one is cooperation between nations through the UN (so no ignoring of international law anymore), and then we can take a step further. Otherwise this is going back to a pre-WW2 period and you know in what that resulted.
I don't understand why people make such a problem of Clinton's sex scandal. Imo it's his private life and nobody has anything to say about it except his wife and his daughter. It's not because he cheated on his wife he's a bad president. That way I could also say Bush had an alcohol problem, which is a lot worse than that.
And Bush isn't really a president of the people, one word: Kyoto. If he would think about the future about his people he wouldn't do the way he's doing now. He's rather thinking about the big industrials, not the people. The US is the largest polutioner (bad word I think
) in the world so it's essential they take part in Kyoto. You know, in Belgium we don't have all that free unpoluted space. In fact Belgium is full of industry. But we're taking part in Kyoto, although it costs us tons of money.
-
Nope DA is right:
- accessibility problems for users with images turned off, text browsers or blind people (although that's nothing you should worry about)
- not so structured and hard to navigate
- long load times: bad for the server and the good ol' 56k user (that's most important).
First of all, it's always great to see new people getting into webdesign. That's basicly how I started, so if you like doing it you'll improve a lot.
Now, there's a lot to improve, although nothing much you should worry about yet.
Graphics:
I asume you use MS Paint or something like that. You better get something like Adobe Photoshop (pretty expensive), Jasc Paint Shop Pro (cheap, but not as good, but that should be suffecient for you) or Gimp (free, bad interface, a bit hard to use for a beginner).
So instead of drawing your text type it. With photoshop for example you can accomplish stuff like this with text (made this just to test some effects, for my gf):
html/css software
I also started out using WYSIWYG editers (what you see is what you get), Dreamweaver most of the time. Actually it's a bad habit using them, you should better try to code it yourself. Html isn't hard at all, you just have to start and continue so you get the hang of it.
Best thing you can do now is using the split view of dreamweaver so you can see both the code and the layout. Next step would be writing the html yourself while checking out how it looks in the split view. Once you're used to that switch over to code view only or switch over to a text only editor (notepad for example, very primitve but good enough for html).
layout design
It's important you have a clean and fast loading layout. Most important is the navigation. Make it so the navigation is displayed on every page and also that it doesn't use too much of the screen (a left navbar for example is good or some top links next to each other).
Also watch out with using colors. Imo dark colors aren't that good for a website, you better go with some neutral or light ones. Just pick a base color and go further on that. Choose one or two colors that fit with your base color. You can also use variations of the base color like in these forums for example (many blue-ish variations).
That's about it, but there's a lot to learn and you're never finished.
A good start is this site:
check out the html and xhtml tutorials. After that do some css stuff. While you do that learn working with some graphics software like photoshop or paint shop pro. Once you can manage all the very well learn a web programming language like php or asp and some SQL (for communication with db systems).
That should take you about 2-3 years, but once you're that far you can design some pretty neat stuff.
That isn't all though. Next to know the technologies you also need to know when, why and how to use the properly. A good site for this information is:
http://www.sitepoint.com (some good articles on navigation and such)
Designing websites is an exciting job, and you learn a lot more than just designing a website. If you like doing it I really encourage you to go on. Never feel bad if something doesn't work as you want, just move on and try more. Eventually you'll get the hang of it. And remember, basicly it's all about experimenting, so many things will go wrong, but if you do your best you'll accomplish what you want.
-
Welcome to the forums x-master!
-
Well just read some tutorials and experiment a little. Doesn't matter if it doesn't look too good, what counts is that you tried and that's what deserves respect
Have a look at this site to get you going:
-
And maybe you should also say which kind of program should be used like a 3D program or a graphics program like photoshop. I think you best go for photoshop, psp, gimp, fireworks, etc. instead of 3D applications since there are probably more people who can work with those.
-
Man I wish I still knew everything I learned in maths. It's a lot more interesting when you don't see it in school
-
Btw it's Klaas, not Klass
-
Sorry but bad grammar and bad spelling = stupid in the case of a president of the most powerful country in the world. Face it, my grammer and spelling is probably as good or better than Bush's while it's not my mother tongue, nor do we see it in detail at school. Bush doesn't even know Belgium is a country, so if you're a bit open-minded the conclusion here is very obvious.
I think there's a big difference between an intelligent president who had a sex scandal and a president who doesn't know anything about international politics. So the conclusion is again very easy and has only to do with facts, not opinions.
-
Btw, I think it would be handy if you also added the context to certain quotes. For example the one by Charles De Gualle. Imo he's one of the greatest politicians of all time so I would like to know in which context he said that rediculous quote.
Collecting - What Is Your Addiction ?
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Yep, he was a canadian major (he was in the British RAF). In my town there's a Canadian war cemetry. Actually he was already burried there, but eventually they found out the person in that grave was someone different.
I have only found very small parts though, the 'official' archeologists found much more. But they weren't really professionals, they were digging up the plane with a huge crane resulting in damage to it (major damage, a lot of stuff was smashed into little pieces). They only took the big parts (also of the pilot
) like the engine for example and all the rest was left there.
Quite silly actually since I've found his teeth, while they didn't find any, and stuff like toxic pills and such.
Funny thing is that my father was already talking to me about that plane when I was able to understand. That's what he remembers best of the war, a plane was flying above their house and suddenly shot down by the Germans. It crashed down in front of our house (well approx 100 meters away from it) in a little pond. So it dissapeared quickly in the mud. Anyway, I couldn't have imagined they would dig it up around 50 years later.