Slashdot Mirror

YET ANOTHER QUALITY STORY fuckdot rejected!

Alcohol sharpens your brain, say researchers
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 01/08/2004)

It is news guaranteed to raise a cheer among those who enjoy a glass or two: drinking half a bottle of wine a day can make your brain work better, especially if you are a woman.

Research to be published tomorrow by academics at University College London has found that those who even drink only one glass of wine a week have significantly sharper thought processes than teetotallers.

Sir Michael Marmot of UCL led the study

The benefits of alcohol, which are thought to be linked to its effect on the flow of blood to the brain, can be detected when a person drinks up to 30 units of alcohol - about four to five bottles of wine - per week.

The researchers were unable to test the effect of higher levels of alcohol consumption, although drunkenness probably negates any positive effects on the brain.

The findings have surprised health officials, who issued yet another warning last week about the dangers of overdrinking.

According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, one in six women now drinks more than the Government's recommended limit of 14 units of alcohol a week - an increase of 70 per cent since the late 1980s. The recommended maximum weekly intake for men is 21 units.

The latest findings on the benefits of alcohol are drawn from a study of the long-term health of 10,000 British civil servants. Known as the Whitehall Study, it was originally set up in 1967 to identify links between health and factors ranging from smoking and obesity to age and social status.

In the latest research, a team led by Sir Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London, gave psychometric tests to more than 6,000 civil servants.

The questions ranged from verbal and mathematical reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. The civil servants' performance was then matched against their drinking habits.

The study took into account all alcohol consumption and was not specific to wine. However, the results showed that those having even a single glass of wine a week scored significantly higher in the tests than more abstemious drinkers. Teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.

The benefits were most marked among women drinkers and, to the researchers' surprise, showed no sign of flattening out with increasing consumption.

Those who downed the equivalent of half a bottle of wine or two pints of beer a day scored best of all. The effects were apparent even after the results had been adjusted to take into account factors such as physical and mental health.

"Our results appear to suggest some specificity in the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive ability," said the team. "Frequent drinking may be more beneficial than drinking only on special occasions."

The team, whose findings are being reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggests that the results may reflect the fact that alcohol can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and increase blood flow to the brain - factors linked to improved mental function.

The researchers also speculate that women might benefit more because of the different way in which they metabolise alcohol. However, they acknowledge that the benefits of alcohol can be outweighed by the increased risks of getting diseases such as cancer and cirrhosis, and that the findings should not be used as an excuse for heavier drinking.

Dr Guy Ratcliffe, the medical director of the Medical Council on Alcohol, said that the study would add to earlier evidence that moderate drinking could be beneficial - offering advantages such as a reduced risk of heart disease and

Well, at least they didn't follow the same procedure that was used by france. Personal, I think we have an historic moment where the politicians actually got something right ... although most likely for the wrong reasons.

"Also, for long distances and high speeds electrical traction is more efficient than any fossile fuel engine, so that's another disadvantage."

Sorry, wrong. At 100% capacity, current Diesel engined cars are more efficient per passenger mile than the current generation of electric trains also at 100% capacity. The trains are also less efficient per passenger mile than a jet airliner. The best thing we could do with the rail system is rip it up and replace it with roads.

With Diesel hybrids coming along and pure electric vehicles now feasable due to improved battery technologies the case for passenger trains (as opposed to freight trains) is becoming poorer and poorer.

You're assuming it was a photoshoot of the packaging. If that were the case, the band wouldn't be anywhere near it. However, if you RTFA (actually, RTF original A that Wired lifted the story from) it was a shoot of the band for Blender magazine.

Last Friday, U2 had their new CD - which they had just finished recording the weekend before - stolen during a photo shoot in the south of France. Only a handful of copies existed but guitarist Edge decided to play his personal CD on the studio stereo during a shoot for Blender magazine.

When they wandered out to take some locations pictures, Edge neglected to press "Eject". Apparently, the band were all posing in an empty swimming pool, 50 metres from the studio, when someone snatched the CD.

The Strident Trident is street legal entry to te Shell Eco-Marathon that has got 534mpg. (Might require registration, google cache left as an exercise for the reader.)

How about comparing modern day cars, trains, busses, and planes, on a per-passenger basis?

According to Top Gear a few nights ago, trains get worse mileage than the average car, per passenger(I'm trying to find any info about the study online to see if that's based on maximum capacity of each type of vehicle or real-world average passenger counts) and a high speed train gets worse mileage than a jumbo jet!

For freight there's no doubt that diesel locomotives are the winner. Diesel locomotives are hybrid vehicles: a 2-stroke diesel generator, but electric motors. They are very efficient at moving large loads, not so good at light loads due to the weight of the loco itself (something like 135 tons). That's why passenger trains tend to be purely electric - to keep the huge weight of the generator off the train.

Here are some links:

HowStuffWorks article on diesel locomotives.
A CN Railroad page claiming a diesel locomotive can travel 3.5 times further than a truck on a gallon of fuel (presumably pulling equivalent loads).
A BNSF Railroad page claiming fuel efficiency of approx. 750 GTM (gross ton miles) per gallon. Most high efficiency cars would probably weight a ton or less so a 50 MPG Prius would be about 50 GTM per gallon.

I find it difficult to believ that broadcasters aren't already required to keep records permenently for historical purposes.

Just think of the millions of hours of TV that no one will be able to research. Admittedly most of it isn't of the highest quality, but still, some historian might well be interested in the future.
The cost is nowadays minimal anyway. DivX, 400GB HDDs and backup tapes have made it simple to record everything that gets broadcast. Perhaps an archive of broadcasts should be recorded from all stations. I hardly think this affects anyones rights as we could all view it anyway.

As an aside it's also very sad when brief exposures of a naked human breast are considered indecent.

David Blunkett. British politician, now in charge of Homeland Security for the U.K. I'm sure that in spirit it would be translated to the "John Ashcroft Lifetime Award" for U.Sians, but the position Blunkett holds is probably more akin to Tom Ridge's.

David Blunkett isn't quite John Ashcroft's opposite number (he's Home Secretary, as opposed to Attorney General). However, he does sometimes seem to think he's a judge.

The reason Blunkett is recognised by this award is that he's trying to introduce a compulsory ID card scheme in the UK, which isn't very popular. He's also full of other gaffes, like he forcibly sacked the head of a police force because two girls were killed "on his watch" as it were. Even though the police force and the father of one of the girls opposed him.

Part of the training regime involved sitting in front of what looked like PC screens and focusing on the various images that were displayed (at least that's what it looked like from the TV report!).

Bush went to war in Afghanistan for an oil pipeline. Hey, it's a lie, but you know, that's just an insignificant nitpick.

Oh! Yes, that's a lie

An important point here is that there are quite a few groups of people out there that hate the United States and their allies. These groups, these people, are consumed by their hate. They are hate. So it stands to reason, at least some, hate each other.

Proof of the Al-Qaeda / Saddam relationship.

Still hungry? Iraq is a refuge to terrorists now. Infact, its their staging point. Al-Qaeda associate Zarqawi did a little damage today in Baghdad.

And remember, theres a little difference between map geography and ideology. In the middle east, as we all know, polar opposites sit in close proximity (so don't blame the country of Saudi Arabia). Although I think the kind of policies they institute foster the environment that breeds terrorism and western hate.

Don't take our countries word against Saddam. Putin warned us of Saddam's regime planning (terrorism? This would be a declared war i'd think) attacks against us.

Was he trying to grow a bigger mustache than Hitler? Lets not forget what an evil man he was, and how the media quickly forgets the attrocities and in some cases, covering up for him.CNN Exec Admits Covering Up 'Maniac' Saddam's Atrocities / Access of Evil. READ THIS ARTICLE. Be thankful we are in a country of freedom.

We are only scratching the surface of this demon. Remember, not much was known about the gassing of the Jews until well after it happened (and they didn't have CNN burying it)

!!!Osama Bin Laden Had Nothing To Do With Iraq!!!!

Even if you ignore the 1998 State Department Indictment charging an Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed the Al Qaeda terrorist group Anasr al-Islam within Iraq, and Abu Wa'el, who is a known Al Qaeda terrorist who was on the Baghdad payroll, and the fact that Mohammed Atta was trained by Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Even if you ignore all of these facts, military action in Iraq was still justified, and very necessary.

We declared war on terrorism. Iraq has been on the State Department list of States Sponsoring Terrorism for over 20 years. Saddam supported the following terrorist organizations: Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Abu Nidal, Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. Russia is now telling us that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. I don't how it could be any more clear. We are fighting against terrorism and terrorist threats against us, not just Osama Bin Laden. Iraq clearly displayed a support for terrorism over the past two decades. If we did not eliminate this threat, we would be missing a crucial element in the war on terrorism. I'm glad that the leader of this country can see the threat, and has the balls to act on it without fear of political recourse.

!!!Osama Bin Laden Had Nothing To Do With Iraq!!!!

Even if you ignore the 1998 State Department Indictment charging an Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed the Al Qaeda terrorist group Anasr al-Islam within Iraq, and Abu Wa'el, who is a known Al Qaeda terrorist who was on the Baghdad payroll, and the fact that Mohammed Atta was trained by Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Even if you ignore all of these facts, military action in Iraq was still justified, and very necessary.

We declared war on terrorism. Iraq has been on the State Department list of States Sponsoring Terrorism for over 20 years. Saddam supported the following terrorist organizations: Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Abu Nidal, Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. Russia is now telling us that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. I don't how it could be any more clear. We are fighting against terrorism and terrorist threats against us, not just Osama Bin Laden. Iraq clearly displayed a support for terrorism over the past two decades. If we did not eliminate this threat, we would be missing a crucial element in the war on terrorism. I'm glad that the leader of this country can see the threat, and has the balls to act on it without fear of political recourse.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." don't they understand?

I don't actually give a crap 'what' the effect will be, all I'm saying is that weapons like this, in the hands of heartless pscyho-criminals like the ones the U.N. War Machine is producing, would be a bad thing, whatever the use.

Justify it however you want, but the U.N. is producing stupider and stupider humans faster than it is producing smarter and smarter weapons.

Im sorry. But stupid people exists everywhere. Take your US hatred and go to Iran.

German plans to invade US in WWI

this girl has "the perfect face" as proclaimed by newsweek magazine:

Her name is Saira Mohan and she is a 26-year-old New York supermodel. I met her while filming a Channel 4 documentary of my book, Mutants, which considers, among other topics, the nature of physical beauty. She'd appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine above the legend "The Perfect Face".

I don't think anyone I know knows anyone who's been mugged...


FWIW... England and France both have higher crime rates than either Canada or America.

More info from England herself Here

1. Mr Gardner also recalled an incident in 1968 in which he was slightly wounded, causing Sen Kerry to abort the boat's mission. "I said: 'Lt Kerry, I'm fine, nothing's wrong. I got a little flesh wound here.' But Kerry was already backing out of the canal, getting ready to run for it,"

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, we would know where the WMDs are. He didn't comply. That alone is a violation of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War and justification for military action. I know I am in a minority, but I still firmly believe that the WMDs will be found.

President Bush never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US- on the contrary he was very clear that we must act before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.

The executive branch has claimed that Saddam had ties with terrorism, not just al Qaeda. This is not a new claim- Iraq has been on the State Department's list of terrorism supporting states for 15 years.

That said, there is some strong evidence that Saddam did work with al Qaeda

Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists

How? Allow me to quote from the President's (excellent) speech last night:

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region.

This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, we would know where the WMDs are. He didn't comply. That alone is a violation of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War and justification for military action. I know I am in a minority, but I still firmly believe that the WMDs will be found.

President Bush never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US- on the contrary he was very clear that we must act before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.

The executive branch has claimed that Saddam had ties with terrorism, not just al Qaeda. This is not a new claim- Iraq has been on the State Department's list of terrorism supporting states for 15 years.

That said, there is some strong evidence that Saddam did work with al Qaeda

Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists

How? Allow me to quote from the President's (excellent) speech last night:

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region.

This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

Heard of the European Rapid reaction force? Still in the planning stages but they just set up a headquarters. It's been seen a nascent European Army.

It's not really a question of bigger militaries, but some people/countries do want to see a unified (and therefore more powerful) force independent of the US.

As for political pressure, you can always rely on Rumsfeld for a quote, or here's another link I imagine there's quite a lot going on behind the scenes though. Understandably the US are worried about losing control of EU actions.

they want to replace secularism with a system where everyone is forced to obey one brand of Islam
Extremism is always bad regardless of what it refers to, hence the word EXTREMISM. I'm sure John Ashcroft (who spent $7000 of tax-payer money to cover up the breast of a naked statue of Lady Liberty, because it offended his religious beliefs) and George Bush (who supports public schools teaching Creationism - one of the most ridiculous fairy tales ever written - as well as school prayer) would have no problem supporting a constitutional amendment making Christianity the state sanctioned religion.

do not worship the Muslim god

Same god, different prophet.

It may frustrate you, but it is quite true.

Not so fast, buster. Sure, they don't like the fact that we're technically open to other religions, despite printing "In God We Trust" on our currency and making witnesses swear on the Bible in courts of law, and we change a pledge to include the words "under God".
But guess what! Turns out former President George H. W. Bush is so full of religious tolerance, he states that Atheists are not citizens and not patriots.
And he's not even the religious one in the family!

Here's a very simplified list of why they hate us:
1. US Foreign policy has always been: "what's in it for us?" and we make many deals and decisions that affect the middle east negatively.
2. We claim to love democracy, but we help overthrow democratic governments if we think the replacement will be more benefitial to us, even when the replacement is a dictator deals with terrorists in order to get our oil fix.
4. We don't want to seem soft, so when we're hit by an ally, we strike back at a former ally who's now an enemy with a debilitated military which made him an easy target. In the words of Chris Rock: "If they were such a threat to us, how come it only took us two weeks to take over the whole f**king country?!"

Recommended reading: Why do they hate us?

... and totally unbelieveable according to Bjørn Lomborg (Whom you should know if you pay any kind of attention to world affairs)

Article mentioning 50% of people not noticing that they're talking to a different stranger after being interrupted.

Anyway why it's easy:
1) Most people are trusting and not paranoid.
2) Most people are too busy doing their main jobs.
3) Most people aren't observant.
4) Most people aren't very smart.
5) It's hard to be polite to people especially customers while at the same time be suspicious/wary of them. For most businesses it's better to err on the side of politeness. Let insurance etc take care of the other stuff. Remember if customers don't buy anything coz you pissed them off, the creditors come and take everything ;).

6) High staff turnover is bad for security - makes things even harder - as a worker you can't stop every new face you see whilst trying to get you job done so that you don't lose your job. By the time you get around to training newbs about security they're already on their way out - you're lucky if you even managed to finish training them how to do their main jobs.

7) The people who aren't easily fooled aren't cheap and plentiful. Plus they probably got sacked or changed jobs coz they weren't easily fooled by management ;).

Maybe it's not AP, but how about this?

British troops ordered: hand over all Iraq photos

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Of course Europeans think Israel is the most dangerous threat in the world, so I guess their opinions are no measure of the truth either.

AstroDrabb has made the contention five or so different times in this forum (mostly below this one) that Linux maintains a 2.8% share of the desktop, thoughtfully providing a link to ITfacts, a IT news outlet of dubious reliability in some of its other assertions. Following the link given by IT Facts, the 2.8% figure is actually from a story in Telegraph.co.uk, which is itself citing a new study by the research and marketing firm IDC. A pretty convoluted chain of evidence, to say the least.

If you actually care to read the study on which the whole house of cards rests, which AstroDrabb evidently has not, you would find that it relied in its figures on a survey administered to a geographically isolated population in North America, and does not claim that the 2.8% figure is extensible to the global market; rather, it is provided to demonstrate Linux's proliferation over time in a very circumscribed market. Moreover, the survey relied on self-reports, and admits that its results are not empirically sound; they are intended to provide a "snapshot of Linux's market presence." Finally, the study does not discriminate between various implementations of Linux, nor does it even differentiate well between Linux and UNIX users in its questionaire. The authors concede that the sample "may include some UNIX platforms as well."

In short: The 2.8% figure AstroDrabb has posted over, and over, and over again in this forum is simply incorrect. It relies on a information collecting method that the surveyors conceded is unsound and certainly not globally extensible, and embraces not only mutually incompatible implementations of Linux, but some UNIX users as well.

Well-meaning Slashdotters should check their data more thoroughly before relying on it as naively as AstroDrabb has. Or perhaps he did so because it was simply what he wanted to hear.

There's a lot of contention among surveys. For example, while AstroDrabb's precious study found that 25% of the new servers bought ran Linux, The Register reports that the figure among servers actually in use is 8.6%. (The author of the piece is a NewsForge columnist and a Linux user herself.

My point is simply to remind everyone of Benjamin Disraeli's famous aphorism: "There are three kind of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." You can always find a percentage that makes you right and/or happier, but that doesn't make it true. Linux is a fine OS that is on the grow, but Apple is quite right not to consider it a direct rival to its core business at this stage. All of the percentages in the world aren't going to change that.

I squeezed in just before the polls closed at 5:00 PM in Bangalore. I was a little rushed because all the security people kept telling me to hurry up so that they could go home. However the election in my constituency was very peaceful, unlike some other areas.

Interestingly Indian media is not as vocal about the relatively small incidents of violence when compared to the international media.

The electronic voting machines felt a little awkward. There was no feedback to tell me that I had actually voted for the right person, and no mechanism that I could tell to correct myself had I pressed the wrong button. In fact one of the instructions for voters that came out in the Times of India today mentioned that we should make sure the election commission employees monitoring the election didn't "accidentally" press one of our buttons for us.

I would have liked the machine to somehow tell me (either through a display or by printing a little paper receipt) that I had voted for the right person.

Also, one of the women election commission workers was looking down on my machine as I proceeded to push my button. I had to give her a really ugly look, "Do you mind?". She shrugged and went and sat down on her chair. There were representatives from all the political parties contesting for the seat from my constituency.

What's probably not as common in the West is that there were about 10 people contesting from my constituency alone. One each from the major national parties (BJP/NDA, Congress), a couple from the major state parties and a few independents. I think the choice in the West is usually never more than 3 or 4.

After voting each voter is marked with a small drop of ink between the nail and the skin on the forefinger of the left hand. Not sure what they do if you are handicapped.

A state-wide holiday was declared to encourage people to vote. However in some areas it was just too hot in north of the state so the turnout was quite poor (40%-ish) whereas in my state on average I think it is around 60%. I'm sure there were many other factors that affected the voter turnout.

The national parties are promising between 10-12% economic growth, which has probably never been achieved in India's post-independence history. Let's see how things pan out, although it appears the ruling BJP-led alliance will dominate. The question is by how much.

All in all, it still felt good to cast a vote, although numerically the bigger the democracy the smaller the net value of each vote.

There are dozens of Cricket strategy games, including plenty of PBEM ones. Also, "fantasy cricket leagues" are quite popular.

Indeed there are. Here is a good place to start looking.

As for fantasy cricket, here are some links:
- http://www.fantasycricket.telegraph.co.uk/
- http://www.fiso.co.uk/cricket.htm
- http://www.cricketweb.net/fantasycricket/
- http://www.fantasycricketclub.com/
- http://www.ggiddings.freeserve.co.uk/fcm.htm
- http://www.cricketinc.com/
- http://www.dreamcricket.com/dreamcricket/home.asp

And there are many more

Chimps rarely kill each other out of the blue, and don't conduct wars.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong Answer!

The french are flying somewhere else all right considering the treatment of air france foreign born cabincrew members

• Email the government, check if is real and if it is a plan. The treasury public email address is public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk. If real, move on to the next step.
• Contact a news source, giving details, URLs, any reply you got from the Treasury, whatever. I recommend The Independent and The Telegraph, they seem less likely to reject something like this.

The reason why your laptop is so much more expensive in the UK is partly because of rip-off Britain but mainly because the people who imported the laptop in the first place have paid the UK's import duty, VAT and any other taxes as well as shipping costs.

If you import goods into the UK yourself, you are also expected to pay those VAT and tax charges for anything over the value of 250. If you try to avoid it, or lie to customs officials about the nature of the goods you're carrying, they'll not only seize the goods but slap on a hefty fine. For something expensive like a laptop this is a big risk. You can't necessarily get away with saying that it was your property and you brought it with you; they can still seize it while they wait on you to provide proof (receipts or a letter from the retailer) indicating you owned it.

In the UK these customs and excise folks absolutely do not dick about. I read a story about a woman who (probably innocent of the regulations) filled up her car with cheap wine, beer and spirits from France and drove it back across on a ferry (some people are under the misapprehension that there is unrestricted alcohol trade between EU member states - but without a trading license, the booze must be "for personal consumption"). Not only did customs seize the booze, but they also fined her and worst of all - seized the car she was driving at the time.

read about another example

Here is a recent story about one such case.

Why CD's are slipping down the charts

From the article: "Have you noticed that the singles and albums charts increasingly seem to bear almost no relation?"

and

"The music industry is being sustained by middle-aged men who can't use the internet."

I think there's a lot of truth there.

It would still just be from a martian tap

It gets even funnier:

Coca-Cola's bottled water is from the mains

No, he reportedly died in 2002, so he no longer existed.

Yes; killed in Iraq because he rejected Saddam's requests to reactivate his terrorist networks in Saddam's service, specifically to include attacking the United States.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

That's the same Saddam you claim wasn't a threat.

Hussein was giving $25K to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and harboring a former terrorist. But there's no evidence he was promoting terrorism.

News flash; giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is promoting terrorism!

These people MUST realize that the "War on Terrorism" is a necessarily perpetual one.

Strangely enough, CIA director George Tenet made that exact point only yesterday:

"CIA chief predicts war with no end
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 25/02/2004)

America's assault on al-Qa'eda has scattered its terrorist expertise across the globe, meaning that the United States will be menaced by Islamic extremism "for the foreseeable future", the CIA director, George Tenet, said yesterday.

He offered the Senate intelligence committee a bleak vision of a war on terrorism without end, in which even the destruction of al-Qa'eda would not make America safe."

CIA chief predicts war with no end

Why the hell do they need helmets?

Also, the article says: "Then their craft will parachute back to Earth, bouncing down swaddled in airbags in the outback of Australia."
Won't that screw up the mice?

I read this article on BBC a last week. If you would like to, you can read it here.

CNN also carried a story on this.

Some more news sites that carried this news are
How do homing pigeons navigate ?

Pigeons navigate 'by following roads'

Pigeons take the highway

The homing pigeon's ploy: follow that road

Pigeons home in on the roads

I was a little surprised that out of all the news sites, someone picked it up on Al jazeera... Not that I have anything against any news channel....

I do believe the reason the Chairman and Chief Executive resigned is because of how they backed and defended Andrew Gilligan against all reason. Had they fired him for his own goofups themselves, there would be no reason for them to resign.

Oh, and the BBC still isn't doing too well

Will they ever learn their lesson?

I do believe the reason the Chairman and Chief Executive resigned is because of how they backed and defended Andrew Gilligan against all reason. Had they fired him for his own goofups themselves, there would be no reason for them to resign.

Oh, and the BBC still isn't doing too well

Will they ever learn their lesson?

The parent isn't informative, it's wrong. The nomination was by Gordon Brown.
It doesn't take a lot to do just a little research you know.

No this is

You're right. 12 years of diplomacy isn't enough. Yeah right.

There were very many links to terrorists, you just refuse to believe them, not the least the fact he had for years been paying the families of suicide bombers $10K-$25K each. Also Saddam did have WMDs and programs, try reading the Kay report for a change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/ terrorism/raid_ansar_al-qaida.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/27/iraq/mai n551246.shtml

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.htm l

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq/

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003 /0430trrpt.htm