Slashdot Mirror

These kinds of criminal prosecutions are a uniquely Italian phenomenon, and I'm not surprised at all. One case I remember off the top of my head was Frank Williams, *owner* of the Williams F1 team faced criminal charges in the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article1055305.ece

I was half joking, but you seem to have missed my point: everything you say is right, from a point of morality of fairness it's a horrible dragnet law that would indiscriminately punish plenty of innocent people on the assumption that they might have done something wrong. Of course it's insane.

The (presumably unintended) consequence, however, is that they are making the tacit statement that the monetary value of copyright infringement is £20/household/year. They're admitting that they're unable to stop infringement and thus accepting the money in lieu of the cessation of 'piracy'. Since they (in this hypothetical situation) will choose to charge me £20/year for my downloaded media, I will in turn accept this offer (as I am being forced by law to do) and choose to download for free all the media that I would otherwise have spent money on, and encourage anyone I can get to listen to do the same.

Incidentally, if every household in the UK did pay this fee it would come to about £433,000,000. That's less than half of the music industry's current revenue, and the proposed UK tax includes films too.

Just because an idea is unfair and ridiculous doesn't mean that (in this case) we can't make it work to our advantage!

Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.

If it's not charity, what was the bailout fund they got for? I'm having some trouble sustaining my family, why am I not getting any bailout funds? Even better, if I got it, I could still throw my family in the streets because you know, these are tough times...

Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.

In other news, us Europeans also plotted (for centuries, i might add) to bail out your car industry.

It is far better to cut off a dying limb than to have the infection seep back into the whole body.

If the division was in such a pathetic state that the state had to beg IBM not to cut it in good times, is it any surprise that IBM decided to cut it in the bad times?

Business isn't charity, no matter what those enlightened European countries may believe.

But we're not past the days when you need to reboot Windows for a lot of things you can do in Linux without rebooting.

I agree, but that doesn't make the joke funny again. I'd also point out that reboot prompts happen freqently in OS X, and in distros of linux for things like dbus upgrades, even though the tech savvy user usually knows which initscript to restart.

Some jokes are nearly immortal, because they're just funny. One of my favorites outdates automobiles.

The problem with that analogy is, while I've heard the joke before, I'm not forced to hear it 3 times a week.

A sterotypical example of a joke going bad is the RickRoll. You hated being a victim, but for a week or two it was kind of cool that everyone standardized on a universally accepted terrible video that they wanted to trick people into visiting. After that it got annoying and unoriginal, so other good netizens pointed out when you were getting rolled. Now you go down to your neighborhood bar and the DJ is playing it on the dance floor, and everyone laughs because they're in on the joke. Nevermind that you've been in on the joke for about 8 months now, and the joke was never that good to begin with, and just because you know what's happening doesn't mean we should be subjected to Rick Astley's musical stylings at the local hangout, the ball game, or the thanksgiving day parade

We've also reached that point with "In Soviet Russia..."

About the auto-makers and anti-theft devices, I'd like to share a counter-example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article571088.ece

Don't forget the inner glow of our burning, seething hatred for the English. And the Welsh. And the Japanese. And other Scots. Damn Scots, they ruined Scotland.

The Times reports that "They are freezing the cells taken from the umbilical cord blood of their babies as a possible future cure for cartilage and ligament problems. Stem cells can be used to regenerate damaged organs and tissue because they are the earliest form of cells." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article620835.ece

This happened in 2004 - FBI confiscated its servers in London (how the hell does that work, then? US law enforcement in the UK?

Maybe related to US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

Oh it gets worse then that. Companies are selling health insurance to private individuals in Canada. That's right, in the same country that refuses to allow you to pay for your own health care, people are purchasing health insurance policies because they aren't getting the treatment they deserve.

But to add to the list of things wrong. In some European countries, the governments are Euthanizing it's seniors by denying them life saving treatments after a certain age. This practice extended to some severely injured young people but it recently started getting bad publicity in the UK and they are stopping it. Then there is the 50k limit. It seems if a life saving procedure costs more then 50k, you simply will not get it at all. Now this isn't the cost-effectiveness analysis where they attempt to determine if your life is worth saving or not, it's just the cut off line where you won't get the treatment. And at least in the UK, apparently if you go around them on that 50k limit or bypass their denial from the cost analysis, you lose your government medical rights altogether.

Most people have some glory minded image of government health care. It's probably engraved into their minds by activists like Michael Moore and their mockumentories. But evidently, it isn't what it seems.

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'

"Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed."

"...locals also said that three children lost their lives."

Attacking sovereign nations and killing children...that's the change Americans voted in, as in, not change at all.

"Please excuse my ignorance but why is UK's current situation so touchy with child abuse?"

Because there was a case here recently of a seventeen months old baby being tortured to death over a long period by his 'care givers'. Despite the fact that he was on the 'at risk register', at no time did the social services notice a broken back. See also here where a mother fakes the kidnapping of her own daughter.

Every so often the nation works itself up into a paedo-panic. Some time back it reached the heights of the absurd where a pediatrician was attacked in his own home. As someone else pointed out, a kid is more likely to be abused by a relative than some total stranger. So, if you're a male of a certain age, don't talk to kids in the street, don't have them in your home, never give your daughter a hug and never let your daughter climb into your lap and under no circumstances be alone in a room with her.

"that's the thing about wasps, they love animals, can't stand people"

Presumably they won't have this problem from March though when everyone using a British ISP will have their Internet activity stored on a government run database.

No we were discussing "tolerance" to people who massacre gays, jews and others. Who do not just say this, but actually do so in many parts of the world.

Muslims today are what the nazi's were in 1939. The "miserable" and "oppressed" "victims" (read some newspapers from the era), who've started the crimes that our children will - if they're not killed by them - forever hold against any politician they don't like, and a headscarf will be about as socially accepted as naming your kid "adolf" and having the "socialist moustache" (which was very popular in the 1930's to show how "you cared")

You were discussing how we should tolerate "islam". Now obviously this means tolerating honor-killings. Tolerating racism. Tolerating religious genocide (and celebrating religious genocide). Tolerating slavery. Tolerate the descrution of the church-state barrier. Tolerate a totalitarian ideology. Tolerate muslims killing ex-muslims. They're all part of the definition of that word.

That's what you're discussing. The only argument that you have is that "islam" is something completely different than history, and their own holy texts, and their behavior around the world, and even in america itself.

"Most religions" : you sound like you would be hard-pressed to even name 3 of them, and their central figures.

Governments do have the choice of being moral and ethical. There is NO CIRMCUMSTANCE AT ALL I would want or expect the British government to shell civilian buildings using white phosphorous, against the terms of the Geneva conventions. Proportionate response is the key.

(Not that I'm saying Hamas is any better - they are deliberately targetting Israeli civilians, just with less effective weapons.)

Bullshit. When it looked like there was a possibility the Germans would win in WWII the British government incinerated whole cities of German civilians with incendiary bombs e.g. Dresden. And they were 100% justified in doing so, IMO. They had to destroy the German war economy and the only way they could do that was by bombing. Technology being what it was, that pretty much implied levelling German cities.

Governments do have the choice of being moral and ethical. There is NO CIRMCUMSTANCE AT ALL I would want or expect the British government to shell civilian buildings using white phosphorous, against the terms of the Geneva conventions. Proportionate response is the key.

(Not that I'm saying Hamas is any better - they are deliberately targetting Israeli civilians, just with less effective weapons.)

This has been the case for AGES

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1871173.ece

Or at least for about a year and a half, I think slashdot reported on it then, too.

Or, indeed, the Fork 'andles sketch by the two Ronnies.

Polish Average IQ: 106, Irish Average IQ: 97

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article697134.ece

Any Questions?

The britts could do it, now it's you turn, Yanks.

Last time I was driving in England/Scotland/Wales, *ALL* of the road signs were show distances and speed limits in miles and MPH.

Web sites like these seem to indicate that nothing has changed in that regard.

In other words, the UK is hardly a good example of a country which has converted to metric measures. Perhaps Canada would be a better choice?

A six-month ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas ended last week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7799593.stm Israel killed several Hamas members, Hamas responded with rockets, Israel responded with airstrikes and an invasion. This seems to be the same tactic Israel has been using for thirty years:

The article is a little unclear on the circumstances. Israel killed them becuase they were on the way to kidnap Israeli soldiers. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5089940.ece

What "tactic" is that?

There have also been talks of the US selling the Israelis our C-RAM (Counter - Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) systems (based on the naval Phalanx CIWS). It would take one to two dozen of them (Depending on if you wanted redundant backups) to completely cover the Gaza strip, from the outside. This would allow Israeli to intercept rockets, artillery and mortars before they ever leave Palestinian airspace. I find it a tad interesting that a few months before Israel gets near immunity to rocket attacks, they get 'fed up' and invade.

according to this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm Those things have only have 60-70% accuracy at shooting projectiles down. And even then, there is damage from shrapnel , and it really doesnt seem to be in active use anywhere in the world yet.

And even so, if you could go buy it at Wal-Mart and it would magiclally vaporize 100% of incoming projectiles, Israel should just let Hamas shoot at will until Wal-Mart gets it in stock?

XP was an extra cost forced on them when they had already be sabotaged. The demand for OLPC was there before they started the project. A few well placed bribes was all it took to cancel orders for Intel Classmates and other crap not up to the task. Sticking to the mission is always the best answer. It's astounding that OLPC leadership did not realize that they could not agree their way out of being destroyed. The more resources they allocated to dealing with XP and Intel, the fewer resources they had for OLPC and Sugar.

Some helpful corruption links:

• OLPC, it's all about what's good for M$
• M$ giving to influence and threaten
• Times Online summary of M$ Intel destruction of OLPC
• Boycott Novell coverage of same
• Boycott Novell summary of patent and other corruption attacks against OLPC with extensive links and supporting documentation.
• List of global bribery to kill OLPC
• A typical M$ press cover up

As for cover ups, it's surprising to see a Slashdot article about OLPC that does not mention Intel or M$ malice, something that's been documented here in the past.

Full of shit, perhaps.

Gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance genius.

That type of tax is known as an Excise Tax also known as luxury tax. You don't have to pay that tax if you don't buy gasoline.

I will be driving anywhere I want on any chunk of road I choose, because I pay for gas and as a result I pay the excise tax used for roads. Thank you very much for illustrating your lack of knowledge of this subject.

These projects will be paid for with money collected from Direct Tax

Now, lets tackle your statement regarding why I should pay taxes.

Of course, I should pay taxes to pay for two wars that I'm opposed to. I should also pay taxes to fund bail-outs and bonuses for bankers and auto-makers. You would argue that I should pay taxes that are sent to foreign countries.

Do you realize that we (The USA) fought against British taxation and won independence as a result? Perhaps you should move to the jungle where you can build the socialist utopia of your dreams. I'll stay in the USA, the last known address of freedom.

Full of shit, perhaps.

Gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance genius.

That type of tax is known as an Excise Tax also known as luxury tax. You don't have to pay that tax if you don't buy gasoline.

I will be driving anywhere I want on any chunk of road I choose, because I pay for gas and as a result I pay the excise tax used for roads. Thank you very much for illustrating your lack of knowledge of this subject.

These projects will be paid for with money collected from Direct Tax

Now, lets tackle your statement regarding why I should pay taxes.

Of course, I should pay taxes to pay for two wars that I'm opposed to. I should also pay taxes to fund bail-outs and bonuses for bankers and auto-makers. You would argue that I should pay taxes that are sent to foreign countries.

Do you realize that we (The USA) fought against British taxation and won independence as a result? Perhaps you should move to the jungle where you can build the socialist utopia of your dreams. I'll stay in the USA, the last known address of freedom.

The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God."

Really? I can find lots of evidence for God, including personal experiences of myself and others. Where is the evidence for Zeus?

But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.

Then why are so many of the nastiest examples either unconnected with religion (fascism, ethnic nationalism, etc.) or overtly atheist (stalinism, Khmer Rouge, the nastier Maoist groups etc.)?

Religion is far more of a motivating factor for good than for evil. Even rational (i.e. not theophobes like Dawkins) atheists will admit as much.

• 2000: Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned
• 2001: Israeli Missiles Kill Two Kids
• 2002: Panel to look into civilian deaths in 2002 IAF attack on Shehadeh
• 2003: Secrecy over shoot-to-kill fear in Gaza, Two journalists have been gunned down by Israeli troops
• 2004: TOTALS FOR 2004: Israelis: 8 Palestinians: 188
• 2005: Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
• 2006: Teenager killed as missile explodes near school bus
• 2007: Israeli army says three children killed in Gaza were playing
• 2008: Palestinian group says Israelis killed 68 children in Gaza in year
• 2009: Israel Hits Second U.N. School, Blasts Way Into Southern Gaza

That's bullshit. Stating that "It's just the soldier's job" is the same nonsense that it was at the Nuremberg trials. Soldiers are people and they are expected to refuse both immoral and illegal orders.

maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos

As opposed to the Israeli leadership?
Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
The man who would testify against Sharon is blown up. Was this another targeted killing?

I make no claims that the Hamas leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but you may want to do some more reseach on Israel. I'm sure you can find at least as many bad things to say about Hamas, but as the saying goes:
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The IDF has always attacked military targets

The UK doesn't have proper health care and just last week two ambulancemen were arrested for letting a man die because "he was not worth saving" ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5420921.ece ) There are far more serious issues the UK should deal with than cutlery.

It does seem slightly unfair to judge the 3rd largest employer in the world based on two individuals - you get nutjobs and morons in every large organization.

I personally know someone who has returned to the UK after 20 years in Florida because they were bankrupted by the cost of cancer treatment, she basically had a choice of come home or die. My mother spent a long time in an NHS hospital after a kidney transplant and she has no complaints. The most I've heard anyone moaning about is waiting times in A&E but then treatment there is prioritized by the urgency of the problem. The only thing in the NHS I would consider unacceptable are the problems of hospital acquired infections in specific hospitals

On the other hand I'd agree that banning kitchen knives would be totally pointless and widely ignored. Most of the gun laws are pretty nuts too - a few years ago they banned privately owned handguns in response to the shooting of a policeman with a shotgun (can't see the connection there really), and they're having to write exceptions into the laws for the 2012 Olympics so that the shooting events can be held. Given that only a tiny fraction of all the gun crime in Britain involves (or ever involved) legally owned firearms it doesn't accomplish anything.

So, uh, then I'll just use a screwdriver and have fun stabbing you or I'll just smash your head in with a stone.
Or how about kicking the shit out of you with a pair of Doc Martens?
How about a nice baseball or cricket bat to the head? A shovel will do just fine as well but STOP! Hammertime!
Why don't I just use a scarf to strangle you?
Where do you want to end this crap?
You might enjoy living with mandatory children's cutlery, I don't.

The UK has potentially more surveillance than North Korea, but it's been useless in preventing crime.
And don't give me that shit about saving lives.
The UK doesn't have proper health care and just last week two ambulancemen were arrested for letting a man die because "he was not worth saving" ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5420921.ece )
There are far more serious issues the UK should deal with than cutlery.

I don't believe any police were ever tried for the murder of that Brazilian electrician, were they?

Tried? Yes, twice. Just not in the right way.

9/11 attacks helped to secure peace in Northern Ireland:

"The terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, played an important part in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland, a leading negotiator in the peace process said."

Obviously there were other factors at play, but that doesn't mean the 9/11 factor wasn't significant in any way.

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

Those same God botherers have been shown in study after study to be far quicker to give a large percentage of their income to charities that directly reach out to the poor and down-trodden than their secular counterparts. Even some atheists have admitted that Christianity is doing wonders in Africa at changing the hearts of millions and bringing them to a point where they can build peaceful, stable societies.

Bloody colonials.

Be nice to us, or we'll start our own language standard. We'll start switching "s" around with "z" and pretty soon you'll have to start calling our version "American English".

By the way, the same thing seems to be happening on your side of the pond.

With that sort of attitude I would recommend shopping elsewhere until they treat their staff properly.

With that sort of attitude I would recommend shopping elsewhere until they treat their staff properly.

Two good things that would prevent cases like this from wasting people's time:

1. Patent reform.
2. Loser pays.

Patent reform only works if unfair cases are being brought to court, argued, and won in a way that is contrary to the intent of the system. It is premature to say that this suit is anything more than a paper tiger. Bring up the patent on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system. Look at the rejections, amendments, and arguments. Significant changes were made to the patent claims, gutting much of their scope. The company bringing these suits is delusional if they think they have a case that can settle for anything more than nuisance tribute, especially from such high profile veterans of more balanced legal battles. What kind of patent reform would keep someone from trying to enforce a weak and narrow patent? Would they be less likely to try to enforce it if it was even weaker and narrower? Should we only allow patents that are strong and broad? Should it matter that many patent applicants only want very narrow patents, and many dont' really care if they would have much valuable in litigation?

As for loser pays...what makes you think that is such a good idea? Record companies use the threat of attorney fees to press defendants into early settlements. Would it be alright for Google or Microsoft to sue smaller companies, or individuals, based on flimsy patent claims, but win because their potential attorneys fees could be astronomical...perhaps significantly more than any reasonable royalty for the patent? How about if they faced smaller companies with strong patents and potentially good cases, but those smaller companies decided not to try to enforce their rights because of the possibility of being bankrupted if the suits failed?

There are advocates of loser-pay, but loser-pay skeptics seem to be well-versed in the pros and cons of loser-pay systems. While loser-pay could have a positive effect on the American legal system, it is by no means a common-sense no-brainer.

I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally. Certainly far better than Fox News etc.

Sure, set the bar high.

The BBC is incredibly left-wing and biased. After yet another BBC diatribe, the public outcry was so great they were forced to investigate how biased they are. It was called the Balen report.

The BBC has spent over £200,000 in the courts fighting the release of their own report documenting how biased they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balen_Report
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1575543.ece

If you want a good laugh, read http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

The Tribune group collapsed because of a load of toxic debt they could not refinance.

It is quite fashionable for failing businesses to ignore their own poor performance. Instead they blame it on unforseen circumstances and present themselves as innocent victims of a global cataclysm.

A side effect of this fashion is that some commenators, like this article, are writing off whole industries and business models. They augur from the business collapses. Unfortunately these auguries ignore the more mundane reasons, too much debt, bad profit projections, in favour of some system wide collapse.

IMO the last few years, say 2005 have been mainly credit driven. So although there is undeniable shrinking of advertising revenues, this shrinking is dwarfed by the awful reality of spending shrinking back to sensible levels.

you people are paying a fortune for almost anything that is sold for much cheaper in any other country. even, the SAME corporations are selling same products for much cheaper in europe

Well, recent currency fluctuations aside, it has certainly been the case that historically UK prices were well above those of the US, hence coining of the phrase Rip-off Britain. Stuff like the Tesco-Levi jeans battle, where an independent retailer was barred from importing and re-selling goods from the US, reinforced the perception that British consumers get a tough deal.

Things seem to be better now - partly due to more competition, particularly from online dealers and Ebay, where the traditional good communication links from Hong Kong to the UK mean you can often get fast shipping at Chinese domestic prices. I mean, £10 for a 2GB iPod nano clone including shipping, delivered in 3 days... amazing really.

The big issue now is that we seem to be paying much more than our European neighbours for energy costs. Apart from petrol at the pump, this has nothing to do with taxes - the UK has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe, and domestic energy VAT of only 5%, so there is really no reason why energy companies can't deliver lower prices. I blame lack of competition in the market - if we paid for energy the same way we paid for (unlocked) mobile phone service, the costs would come crashing down.

Addressing scientists on Dec 17 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Vavrus and colleagues John Kutzbach and Gwenaëlle Philippon provided detailed evidence in support of a controversial idea first put forward by climatologist William F. Ruddiman of the University of Virginia. That idea, debated for the past several years by climate scientists, holds that the introduction of large-scale rice agriculture in Asia, coupled with extensive deforestation in Europe began to alter world climate by pumping significant amounts of greenhouse gases -- methane from terraced rice paddies and carbon dioxide from burning forests -- into the atmosphere. In turn, a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming.......Thus, the accumulation of greenhouse gases over the past few thousands of years, the Wisconsin-Virginia team argue, is very likely forestalling the onset of a new glacial cycle, such as have occurred at regular 100,000-year intervals during the last million years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm

, you may see that in fact mankind does influence the climate, perhaps in ways incidentally beneficial to the species. The fact is that nobody is doing research into the positive effects of Global Warming, because a lot of Scientists are engaged at the moment in the process of policy based evidence making . It's a good way to secure grants from Government for your institution and thereby increase your chances of getting tenure (excuse my cynicism) or indeed today, of winning yourself a nobel prize!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5367941.ece

In case anyone is wondering this seems to be a variation on this Letter to the Times.

My personal experience is that Muslims who grew up in western culture are much LESS likely to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others than fundamentalist Christians are.

That's because they aren't actually Muslims. Because Islam defines a complete culture, legal system and all, people are Muslims if they're born in a Muslim culture .. and the required punishment for apostasy being death helps to keep them from claiming to be anything else.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2426314.ece

If they want their religion to continue getting respect, they need to police their own.

Er, how? The moderates usually have no authority over the extremists, so how should they police them? In what sense are the extremists the moderates' "own"? Your logic is like saying that I am responsible for the murder and torture of Baby P because as a British subject I am responsible for policing my own. Just how might I have done that?

It happens in the UK with postal votes,

"There is obviously a terrible problem with intimidation. When I went to Yorkshire and the North West last June, I found people in vulnerable communities routinely forced to show their postal vote to bullies to prove who they voted for. This could be a frail girl who is physically intimidated, or a Pakistani man who speaks no English and has been ordered by his boss to vote Labour or be sacked."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article437746.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Jay Leno wrote a column on it a while ago, he was asked but turned it down. Partly because he didn't have time, and also because he expected it to be not as good as the UK version.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article3638037.ece

"3) Rocket fuel costs essentially nothing. The Space Shuttle costs half a billion per flight or so, the propellant costs are a few tens of millions. A good rule of thumb is that LEO is $20/kg in propellant"

Assuming what you say is true, all that shows is just how bad the space shuttle is for putting satellites up. The shuttle is good for capturing, taking satellites down intact (and publicity stunts) and that's probably why the US military wanted it, but most companies would just leave the stuff up, and so most companies don't use the Shuttle to launch their stuff.

The Ariane 5's purported USD120 million/launch charge (not cost - i.e. there should be profit in there somewhere) is already making some companies flinch. See:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3828181.ece

But it can take 8 tonnes to geostationary, and the Shuttle can only take about 4 tonnes.

USD120 million commercial charge vs 2 x USD500 million cost.

If the propellant costs really are a few tens of millions it shows the Ariane isn't that inefficient.

While that rocket fuel may relatively cost "nothing" for Shuttle launches it clearly costs a lot for commercial launches.

I wonder how many people clap hands when the Ariane 5 launches. I think they still do.

It's a sign of mature tech when after a normal successful launch, people don't claps hands but read the newspaper or eat some peanuts (clearly labelled: "Warning: May contain nuts").

I read the article, asshole. this page said, and I quote, "In the constellation of Cassiopeia, he clearly made out what appeared to be an entirely new star, brighter even than Venus, that had not been there before."
I'm sorry if that eluded you.

Gripe? I'm stating an opinion: That surgery should be done properly, no matter who the person is. Thankfully, this time it -was- done properly, despite a bad decision on the part of the doctors involved.

You call it a "bad decision." I call it the only decision available at the time.

Also, you have no idea just how much information he needed at what point, yet you insist that the choice to use text messages was wrong. While he'd never done this particular surgery before, the man was obviously not an unskilled and inexperienced doctor to be able to pull it off in the conditions he was working with. He's a 52 year old vascular surgeon, not some fresh out of med school intern. You complain that he didn't bother to get "instant feedback," but who (other than your holy highness) says he actually *needed* it instead of just some general guidelines? Apparently, all he needed was two long messages before starting surgery to know enough to do it himself without assistance. (See this version of the story.)

In other words, you're talking out of your ass -- armchair quarterbacking someone with superior knowledge of what they actually needed and raining venom all over someone who saved a doomed young boy's life because he didn't meet the expectations of some internet jackass sitting in comfort and ignorance in his own home in a well-to-do country.

You? You're saying that it's okay to give them cut-rate surgery because the doctor is volunteering his time.

Now who makes who sick?

I bet you're the kind of person who sneers at someone for "only" putting a dollar in the holiday Red Cross donation buckets instead of twenty while walking on by yourself without giving a damned thing. It is a mark of privilege to sneer at all assistance rendered if it is not done to one's own exacting and unrealistic standards and to suggest that someone would be better served by having nothing. If you had your way, people like this boy would simply be dead from lack of volunteers to help.

Lucky Italians. Here, in Bulgaria, there are no convictions of corrupt politicians. And this by far does not mean that there aren't any.

The parliament also needs reform, greater visibilty and greater accountability.

A few years back we seemed to be headed towards a European constitution. The text was horribly formatted, there was no declaration of values as in most constitutions, it was so long no one could reasonably expected to read all that, and there was endless bitching from the Catholic church and their lackeys about inserting a paragraph about the continent's Christian roots, conveniently forgetting that modern democracy in Europe is mostly due to anti-clericals and that the Church has opposed pretty much any progress in civil rights (yesterday's news: they support killing gays in Iran and other religious cesspits).

However, that constitution was still better than nothing. Among other things, it finally gave power to the EU parliament, but who shot down the constitution? The French, in a national referendum. So, if anything, they are getting what they asked for—continued unaccountability of Brussels bureaucrats.