"They'd get their asses handed to them pronto in a real firefight due to taking moronic risks and relying on soft cover."
Do you not think that in a real firefight they might not decide to hide behind bushes and act a little more cautiously when they know they really can die ?
Immigrants to the UK already have to carry an ID card, illegal immigrants obviously do not bother with this which is unfortunate since it's the illegal immigrants who we want to control.
The ID Card scheme as it's currently proposed here will be extremely expensive and not provide anyone with value for money or any benefits to justify it's cost.
Everything the government says will benefit from us carrying ID Cards would benefit a lot more from a share of the money we would spend pn ID cards to be allocated to it and spent in a targetted useful fashion rather than relying on an ID card system which is apparently not designed with any clear aim in mind but rather hazily targetted at a number of very different issues.
It's hard to see exactly what benefits we would get from ID cards because any politician who is asked to tie himself down to a discussion about specifcs or facts will dodge the question.
They're trying to push their desires on other people using intimidation and terror tactics which in my eyes makes them terrorists. Just because they're not foreigners or ethincally different to you doesn't mean they can't be terrorists.
They do if they going around committing acts of terrorism, e.g. firebombing peoples houses, intimidating people with threats of violence, digging up dead people to initmidate their families etc etc etc
I were to hand all my current ID capable of being faked with £10 photoshop to a criminal now then I might have problems using the library at some point in the future but my bank accounts, my ability to travel outside the country and my credit card would be safe.
If my credit card is forged then I still have my bank account and my other credit card and my passport to a) get money and b) prove that I am the owner of my account and that I haven't been in Spain spending vast amounts of money.
If my passport is stolen then I'm likely to notice almost straight away and have it cancelled and get a new one before anyone can wreak too much havoc with it and any of my current bank, credit card etc identities will most likely not be known to the theif and unaffected.
The danger with an all purpose ID card is that you will have to use it often and if it's stolen and cloned or whatever then everything built on it is wide open to criminals and you will have trouble proving it's not you who is the criminal.
If people wish to hunt foxes then that's up to them and although I don't think I'd enjoy it myself I can't see any reason why people who do shouldn't do it.
Foxes in the countryside are killed as a matter of course anyway, whether they're hunted with dogs or just shot. There's no danger of foxes becoming an endangered species so I really fail to see why anyone would have a problem with this.
If you ask me anti hunt protesters are the thin end of the rabid, slavering, hypocritical and moronic animal rights movement which seems to be so trendy nowadays.
In much the same way that White Lightening is considered to be "premium" cider throughout the West Country, or Claymore and Jacobite are premium Whiskys in Scotland.
This is true, in fact if anything I would say that the fault lies even more with the writer than with the reader.
When using e-mail it becomes apparent fairly quickly that it's easy for misinterpretations to occur so I think it really is down the writer to express himself in such a way as to cut down on the number of potential misinterpretations.
The trouble is that it takes more time and trouble to plan what you are going write and then make amendments to it than it does to simply hammer away at the keyboard and whack the send button.
Personally I've found that avoiding ambiguous statements and explaining a little more about my thinking or thought processes leading to a particular statement than you might offer in face to face communication can help.
It is somewhat disturbing however to note the sheer number of e-mails I receive from people at work where I'm left at a total loss as to what they have e-mailed me about because they haven't bothered to use any punctuation at all, have apparently cut and pasted some lines of the e-mail in the middle of unrelated ones and have assumed that I will know exactly what they are talking about even if I have never actually met them before or spoken to them.
I imagine that it's perfectly possible to maintain a "radical" or "fundamental" christian interpretation of those paragraphs which clearly show you should slaughter all non believers.
It's all about interpration, moderate muslims would not interpret the Koran as telling them to kill non belivers any more that moderate christians would interpret the above verses as telling them to slaughter non believers.
You have managed to totally misunderstand my point, well done. The fact is that the bible contains numerous examples of violent actions which can be taken against your enemies. Whether or not you count these passages as part of the law which you should follow depends entirely on your interpretation of which parts of the bible are to be taken as laws you must follow and those which aren't. My point was that since it's up to people to make these interpretations they make them in line with their own agendas, be they violent or peaceful.
It says in the bible that anyone attempting to even mention to you that there are other Gods you can worship or telling you not to worship 'the' God should be instantly slain, if you're in a group then apparently you shouldn't wait for others to do the slaying for you but jump in yourself and set a good example. Even your wife or you son should be slain for saying these things to you.
It matters little what any of the 'Gods' or prophets in these religions actually said since it is merely a tool for motivating people to do what 'religious' leaders want them to, or what the people in charge of the religious leaders want.
Religious morons are quite fond of saying that whereas they should say that the majority of stories in the Bible which deal with suposed real characters or events are not backed up by independant evidence whatsoever and that other parts fly so far in the face of our modern understanding of the world that they can at best be described as fairy stories.
That's tragic ! After 12 pints I become extremely chatty, witty and insightful, gain the ability to dance like a sex god and become immeasurably more attractive to the ladies. I think, I rarely have any clear memories to back this up absolutely.
Actually "Noahs Ark" was a franchise, there were millions of arks all over the world. Unfortunately they weren't perfect and millions of animals never made it onto the ark but you wont have heard of them because the ones which weren't fish all died.
In fairness and so as to prevent confusion for some of the stupider/. readers I would have liked to you to add ' although I realise that others may agree' to that statement.
'It is likely that others could be so "lazy" as well'
You should really point out that although you think it might be likely others may not think so and in fact the actual likleyness of this scenario is in fact untested and simply a hypothesis.
'It is certainly clear that leaving off the word "theory" gives ammunition to the freaks who would pollute our brains with crap'
Again I would like to some indication that this statement is in fact simply an idea and that there is no conclusive evidence to back it up.
"The big bang theory" is a technically correct way of referring to the big bang theory and "The big bang fact" would technically be incorrect.
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas. Simply using the phrase "big bang" does not give anyone the false impression we are discussing an absolute fact, you would hope most people would be educated well enough to have at least some grasp of the underlying science and the way language is used and be able to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Instead you would have to suspect that anyone advocating this policy has an ulterior motive and in this case the muppet involved has been so kind as to outline his motive for us. Surprisingly from someone who would seem to be in a position where he was supposed to help scientists present their work clearly and coherently to the public he is instead more concerned with pushing his own private religious agenda than the job he is, presuambly, supposed to be doing.
I don't know the guy but already I don't like him. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant however, I think there is enough evidence here of him abusing his position for him to do the honourable thing and resign, or be fired.
I was walking back from the pub late one night minding my own business and noticed a car driving towards me going very slowly, it passed me by drove a bit further up the street and then turned around and came back past me again still going very slowly. Hmm, I thought, what does this car want ? There's no one else on the road, it's late at night and whoever it is in this car is behaving very strangely. I carried on walking keeping an eye on where the car was going and saw it turn into a car park a couple of hundred metres further on, turn around and sit in the entrance with it's lights on right next to where I'd have to walk past it. I decided to cross the road and walk down the other side and as I went past the car park it turned out and kept pace with me ( driving on the wrong side of the road ) so I thought I don't like the look of this and hopped over a fence into a piece of wasteground where I thought I might take the opportunity to take a call of nature and observe what the car was up to. It carried on very slowly and turned into the next side street where I couldn't see it. I finished my business and carried on walking and after a minute or so it came back out it's side street and screeched to a halt next me.
Some guy popped out and said he was a police officer and that they'd like to ask me why I was behaving so suspiciously. I had to laugh at that, here they were having stalked me in an unmarked car for 10 minutes behaving in what given the time of night was a highly suspicious manner and they want to know why I am behaving suspiciously !
Spammers and Google operate in two entirely different industries, in an entirely different market place, for entirely different customers, using entirely different techniques. You may as well rephrase this as:
So houses must have doors opening inwards, yet car doors must open outwards ?
"Should a company then have to find every single aggregator and opt out of there service."
Yes, if they are placing content on the internet that's exactly what they should. The internet is publically accessible so if you have content which you do not wish to be accessed by anyone else connecting to the internet then you either shouldn't have it on the internet in the first place or make your own arrangements to ensure only the people you want to read it can read it.
I think this was largely the case ( slaves being captured in wars ) and I suspect that this may well have resulted in the African tribes who were profiting from slavery to start as many wars as they could and try to trade their slaves for as much European weaponary as they could.
Slashdot Mirror
"They'd get their asses handed to them pronto in a real firefight due to taking moronic risks and relying on soft cover."
Do you not think that in a real firefight they might not decide to hide behind bushes and act a little more cautiously when they know they really can die ?
Immigrants to the UK already have to carry an ID card, illegal immigrants obviously do not bother with this which is unfortunate since it's the illegal immigrants who we want to control.
The ID Card scheme as it's currently proposed here will be extremely expensive and not provide anyone with value for money or any benefits to justify it's cost.
Everything the government says will benefit from us carrying ID Cards would benefit a lot more from a share of the money we would spend pn ID cards to be allocated to it and spent in a targetted useful fashion rather than relying on an ID card system which is apparently not designed with any clear aim in mind but rather hazily targetted at a number of very different issues.
It's hard to see exactly what benefits we would get from ID cards because any politician who is asked to tie himself down to a discussion about specifcs or facts will dodge the question.
They're trying to push their desires on other people using intimidation and terror tactics which in my eyes makes them terrorists. Just because they're not foreigners or ethincally different to you doesn't mean they can't be terrorists.
They do if they going around committing acts of terrorism, e.g. firebombing peoples houses, intimidating people with threats of violence, digging up dead people to initmidate their families etc etc etc
I were to hand all my current ID capable of being faked with £10 photoshop to a criminal now then I might have problems using the library at some point in the future but my bank accounts, my ability to travel outside the country and my credit card would be safe.
If my credit card is forged then I still have my bank account and my other credit card and my passport to a) get money and b) prove that I am the owner of my account and that I haven't been in Spain spending vast amounts of money.
If my passport is stolen then I'm likely to notice almost straight away and have it cancelled and get a new one before anyone can wreak too much havoc with it and any of my current bank, credit card etc identities will most likely not be known to the theif and unaffected.
The danger with an all purpose ID card is that you will have to use it often and if it's stolen and cloned or whatever then everything built on it is wide open to criminals and you will have trouble proving it's not you who is the criminal.
If people wish to hunt foxes then that's up to them and although I don't think I'd enjoy it myself I can't see any reason why people who do shouldn't do it.
Foxes in the countryside are killed as a matter of course anyway, whether they're hunted with dogs or just shot. There's no danger of foxes becoming an endangered species so I really fail to see why anyone would have a problem with this.
If you ask me anti hunt protesters are the thin end of the rabid, slavering, hypocritical and moronic animal rights movement which seems to be so trendy nowadays.
Me too, and so are a few other people I know as well.
In much the same way that White Lightening is considered to be "premium" cider throughout the West Country, or Claymore and Jacobite are premium Whiskys in Scotland.
I think the best method is in a warhead attached to an ICBM
This is true, in fact if anything I would say that the fault lies even more with the writer than with the reader.
When using e-mail it becomes apparent fairly quickly that it's easy for misinterpretations to occur so I think it really is down the writer to express himself in such a way as to cut down on the number of potential misinterpretations.
The trouble is that it takes more time and trouble to plan what you are going write and then make amendments to it than it does to simply hammer away at the keyboard and whack the send button.
Personally I've found that avoiding ambiguous statements and explaining a little more about my thinking or thought processes leading to a particular statement than you might offer in face to face communication can help.
It is somewhat disturbing however to note the sheer number of e-mails I receive from people at work where I'm left at a total loss as to what they have e-mailed me about because they haven't bothered to use any punctuation at all, have apparently cut and pasted some lines of the e-mail in the middle of unrelated ones and have assumed that I will know exactly what they are talking about even if I have never actually met them before or spoken to them.
I imagine that it's perfectly possible to maintain a "radical" or "fundamental" christian interpretation of those paragraphs which clearly show you should slaughter all non believers.
It's all about interpration, moderate muslims would not interpret the Koran as telling them to kill non belivers any more that moderate christians would interpret the above verses as telling them to slaughter non believers.
You have managed to totally misunderstand my point, well done. The fact is that the bible contains numerous examples of violent actions which can be taken against your enemies. Whether or not you count these passages as part of the law which you should follow depends entirely on your interpretation of which parts of the bible are to be taken as laws you must follow and those which aren't. My point was that since it's up to people to make these interpretations they make them in line with their own agendas, be they violent or peaceful.
It says in the bible that anyone attempting to even mention to you that there are other Gods you can worship or telling you not to worship 'the' God should be instantly slain, if you're in a group then apparently you shouldn't wait for others to do the slaying for you but jump in yourself and set a good example. Even your wife or you son should be slain for saying these things to you.
It matters little what any of the 'Gods' or prophets in these religions actually said since it is merely a tool for motivating people to do what 'religious' leaders want them to, or what the people in charge of the religious leaders want.
Not really but it's always a good idea to add "unsubstantiated idea" whenever you mention God or His Religion.
"...so far the Bible has not been proved wrong."
Religious morons are quite fond of saying that whereas they should say that the majority of stories in the Bible which deal with suposed real characters or events are not backed up by independant evidence whatsoever and that other parts fly so far in the face of our modern understanding of the world that they can at best be described as fairy stories.
That's tragic ! After 12 pints I become extremely chatty, witty and insightful, gain the ability to dance like a sex god and become immeasurably more attractive to the ladies. I think, I rarely have any clear memories to back this up absolutely.
Actually "Noahs Ark" was a franchise, there were millions of arks all over the world. Unfortunately they weren't perfect and millions of animals never made it onto the ark but you wont have heard of them because the ones which weren't fish all died.
'I think I respectfully disagree'
/. readers I would have liked to you to add ' although I realise that others may agree' to that statement.
In fairness and so as to prevent confusion for some of the stupider
'It is likely that others could be so "lazy" as well'
You should really point out that although you think it might be likely others may not think so and in fact the actual likleyness of this scenario is in fact untested and simply a hypothesis.
'It is certainly clear that leaving off the word "theory" gives ammunition to the freaks who would pollute our brains with crap'
Again I would like to some indication that this statement is in fact simply an idea and that there is no conclusive evidence to back it up.
"The big bang theory" is a technically correct way of referring to the big bang theory and "The big bang fact" would technically be incorrect.
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas. Simply using the phrase "big bang" does not give anyone the false impression we are discussing an absolute fact, you would hope most people would be educated well enough to have at least some grasp of the underlying science and the way language is used and be able to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Instead you would have to suspect that anyone advocating this policy has an ulterior motive and in this case the muppet involved has been so kind as to outline his motive for us. Surprisingly from someone who would seem to be in a position where he was supposed to help scientists present their work clearly and coherently to the public he is instead more concerned with pushing his own private religious agenda than the job he is, presuambly, supposed to be doing.
I don't know the guy but already I don't like him. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant however, I think there is enough evidence here of him abusing his position for him to do the honourable thing and resign, or be fired.
Not to mention his concerts in Brazil which will cost £50 to see.
Didn't Jesus have something to say about this, the widows mite ?
I was walking back from the pub late one night minding my own business and noticed a car driving towards me going very slowly, it passed me by drove a bit further up the street and then turned around and came back past me again still going very slowly. Hmm, I thought, what does this car want ? There's no one else on the road, it's late at night and whoever it is in this car is behaving very strangely. I carried on walking keeping an eye on where the car was going and saw it turn into a car park a couple of hundred metres further on, turn around and sit in the entrance with it's lights on right next to where I'd have to walk past it. I decided to cross the road and walk down the other side and as I went past the car park it turned out and kept pace with me ( driving on the wrong side of the road ) so I thought I don't like the look of this and hopped over a fence into a piece of wasteground where I thought I might take the opportunity to take a call of nature and observe what the car was up to. It carried on very slowly and turned into the next side street where I couldn't see it. I finished my business and carried on walking and after a minute or so it came back out it's side street and screeched to a halt next me.
Some guy popped out and said he was a police officer and that they'd like to ask me why I was behaving so suspiciously. I had to laugh at that, here they were having stalked me in an unmarked car for 10 minutes behaving in what given the time of night was a highly suspicious manner and they want to know why I am behaving suspiciously !
How is this "Interesting" ?
Spammers and Google operate in two entirely different industries, in an entirely different market place, for entirely different customers, using entirely different techniques. You may as well rephrase this as:
So houses must have doors opening inwards, yet car doors must open outwards ?
"Should a company then have to find every single aggregator and opt out of there service."
Yes, if they are placing content on the internet that's exactly what they should. The internet is publically accessible so if you have content which you do not wish to be accessed by anyone else connecting to the internet then you either shouldn't have it on the internet in the first place or make your own arrangements to ensure only the people you want to read it can read it.
I think this was largely the case ( slaves being captured in wars ) and I suspect that this may well have resulted in the African tribes who were profiting from slavery to start as many wars as they could and try to trade their slaves for as much European weaponary as they could.