Hah ! I was in Oz for for a month in March and it pretty much rained non-stop. Every time we spent the day driving somewhere the rain stopped and the sun came out - until we got out of the car.
I'm curious exactly what the term anarchy means to you since from what you have said I have drawn the following conclusions:
1) You are happy to have a government making laws 2) You agree the government needs to regulate society 3) Companies, big business and commerce - no problem 4) You may decide to ignore laws you don't like
So far as PBX goes I'm pretty sure that most of the major PBX suppliers will happily supply a VoIP option if the customers want to buy it.
I think most telco companies now offer VoIP solutions it's just that companies are yet to be convinced that it's reliable enough to replace existing infrastructure.
That's nothing, after a good hard 12 hour Tetris session I have to ask to be tied down to prevent me climbing to the top of tall buildings and dropping coloured and shaped pieces of concrete off the top.
On 911 the US was attacked by a group of terrorists who are most likely funded by Saudia Arabia and who's main backer and likely leader is still at large today - probably in Pakistan.
Iraq was not a hot bed of terrorism and had nothing to do with 911.
Iraq now is overrun with terrorists who are flocking there from all the surrounding countries. The terrorists are doing their best to stop Iraq from stabilising and no doubt learning a lot of valuable lessons in how to deal with the Western military and security into the bargain.
Now that the situation in Iraq is what it is we have no choice but to deal with it and make sure Iraq turns into a stable democratic country, lets hope everyone involved sees this through properly.
Yes, there is nothing more annoying than people overtaking on the wrong side pulling in 2ft in front of you and slamming their brakes on and then you running into the back of them and getting blamed because you went into the back of them.
I'd like to take the analogy out a little too far, walk it down the pier and see how it swims.
It's like being kidnapped by pervert doctors who install a large heavy metal device in your skull which when you go shopping is activated and prevents you turning your head to look at the products you want to look at and makes you look at other stuff instead all the time yelling "BUY IT ! BUY IT ! BUY IT !". If you try to leave the store the device becomes impossibly heavy making it almost impossible to leave once you have entered.
This government is worryingly petty when it comes to meteing out revenge on those who don't believe its in the right the whole time.
Take the example of their recent new law to ban unauthorised protesting within a mile radius of parliment ( not sure it's a mile but some distance anyway ) which seems to be purely aimed at getting rid of the guy who has been sat outside protesting about the Iraq war for a few years. They have tried to get the courts and police to get rid of him but failing that they are willing to make up a specific law just to get rid of this one person who disagrees with them.
I think the BBC does collect revenue from selling its programs abroad so thats not an issue but as far as the website goes I am happy that it is accessible by foreigners.
The content has already been produced and paid for and so long as making it available to the world at large doesn't cost an unreasonable amount then it's easier to just let anyone view it rather than implement some kind of daft DRM scheme or impose geographic restrictions. The main thing is that it is primarily geared toward the UK licence fee payer and not foreign interests.
Technically it's the property of the people of the UK who have paid for it through their licence fee so I see nothing wrong in ripping all the content out and hosting it elsewhere.
How on Earth have you managed to modded as a Troll is beyond me.
It's true, the BBC got into the Internet fairly quickly and in a big way which is why they have such an extensive all encompassing and generally excellent web presence, other potential web site operators who came to the party a little later are moaning about their ability to compete with an already established BBC and would like it to remove content which they feel they can provide for a fee.
There is a debate to be had about this, personally I don't mind paying the BBC a licence fee since I believe they do, on the whole, produce some excellent content - I would not like to see any measures which reduced the BBCs independence or watered down the quality of its content.
However I can see that it isn't exactly fair to pay a compulsory licence fee for something which you may choose not to use, I don't think the BBC would lose much revenue by making payment dependant on usage since I am sure most people would still continue to subscribe.
With regard to people moaning about the BBC taking away their potential for making money I have no sympathy, if they could do better than the BBC then they could make money, if they can't then tough luck. In this way the BBC is helping to raise standards across the board which I think is a good thing.
I think I read somewhere ( on the BBC ) that this site actually got the 2nd highest number of hits for a BBC section. Obviously News got the most hits by quite a large margin.
Yes, one of the reasons given for removing this site is that the same content is available commercialy or otherwise elsewhere and it is therefore a waste of money to duplicate the commercial, or otherwise, content.
I had hoped that the BBC would be able to hold out against the corporate whingers who complain about it's content since although it's true that other companies can provide the same content as the BBC website the BBC by and large does a much better job of it than their rivals and it does it more or less for free and doesn't have any particular corporate axe to grind.
I) I can say that Saddams links to Al Qaeda are non existant until there is some proof that there were some links, as yet there is no proof.
II) The person I was responding to was talking about Al Quaeda, I accept that Iraq was sponsoring other terrorist groups but then a lot of other countries are doing the same thing in the same way he was doing.
III) The war in Iraq hasn't brought the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden any closer and as such is unrelated to the original intention of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice which is where all this began. In that sense yes the original intention has been ignored. I'm not saying that the US is not still looking for Bin Laden but the main thrust of their actions are not related to tracking him down.
IV) The UK didn't create the Ireland situation in order to prevent terrorism, once the situation had developed into terrorism the UK dealt with it. The peace process through which we have dealt with it in the main seems to be going fairly well. The situation in Iraq is different in that you took action in Iraq in part to stop terrorism despite numerous warnings that your actions would have the opposite effect - this is in no way comparable to the situation with the UK & Ireland.
Well thanks for trying to help me but your help is similar the help a drowning man can offer to a man safe on the shore.
The GP is stating the same facts in the same way you are, without any evidence to back them up. I was using the UK as an example of a randomly picked country which does not even remotely fit his terrorist profile. In the Middle East the majority of terrorist groups are Islamic which is hardly surprising considering that most of the Middle East is Islamic in the same way that Ireland is mainly Catholic & Protestant.
The great grandparents point seemed to be suggesting that Islam is more likely to create terrorists than Christianity which is clearly not the case as evidenced by countries such as the UK.
Iraq was no more harbouring terrorists than the US or the UK are harbouring terrorists now. His links to Al Quaeda are not unclear, they are non existant.
Your point about Germany & Ireland is simply nonsense, neither of those situations were created by a desire to stop terrorism.
Yes I remember the US going into Afghanistan but I don't see Osama Bin Laden in prison yet and by all accounts Al Quaeda is still just as big threat as it ever was so whatever it was that you think has been done to stop Al Quaeda doesn't seem to have been especially successful does it ?
Your two sentances don't seem to based on anything I have written so it's interesting to consider what has prompted them.
Slashdot Mirror
A little bit of what you fancy does you no harm.
I live in the UK, you insensitive clod.
Hah ! I was in Oz for for a month in March and it pretty much rained non-stop. Every time we spent the day driving somewhere the rain stopped and the sun came out - until we got out of the car.
So much for suncsreen !
Well it's a nice idea but it's never going to work.
What is an idiological organisation ? Is this something you have just made up ?
Is spelling a part of the correct use of language ?
What is idiology ?
I'm curious exactly what the term anarchy means to you since from what you have said I have drawn the following conclusions:
1) You are happy to have a government making laws
2) You agree the government needs to regulate society
3) Companies, big business and commerce - no problem
4) You may decide to ignore laws you don't like
So far as PBX goes I'm pretty sure that most of the major PBX suppliers will happily supply a VoIP option if the customers want to buy it.
I think most telco companies now offer VoIP solutions it's just that companies are yet to be convinced that it's reliable enough to replace existing infrastructure.
That's nothing, after a good hard 12 hour Tetris session I have to ask to be tied down to prevent me climbing to the top of tall buildings and dropping coloured and shaped pieces of concrete off the top.
On 911 the US was attacked by a group of terrorists who are most likely funded by Saudia Arabia and who's main backer and likely leader is still at large today - probably in Pakistan.
Iraq was not a hot bed of terrorism and had nothing to do with 911.
Iraq now is overrun with terrorists who are flocking there from all the surrounding countries. The terrorists are doing their best to stop Iraq from stabilising and no doubt learning a lot of valuable lessons in how to deal with the Western military and security into the bargain.
Now that the situation in Iraq is what it is we have no choice but to deal with it and make sure Iraq turns into a stable democratic country, lets hope everyone involved sees this through properly.
... but the sun is not a planet
"per-mile pricing is a good thing"
I agree and the fairest way of doing it is through fuel tax, which is the way it's done now.
Just because you are a cretin doesn't mean everyone else is !
Yes, there is nothing more annoying than people overtaking on the wrong side pulling in 2ft in front of you and slamming their brakes on and then you running into the back of them and getting blamed because you went into the back of them.
if you said the rhyme you committed the crime
I'd like to take the analogy out a little too far, walk it down the pier and see how it swims.
It's like being kidnapped by pervert doctors who install a large heavy metal device in your skull which when you go shopping is activated and prevents you turning your head to look at the products you want to look at and makes you look at other stuff instead all the time yelling "BUY IT ! BUY IT ! BUY IT !". If you try to leave the store the device becomes impossibly heavy making it almost impossible to leave once you have entered.
This government is worryingly petty when it comes to meteing out revenge on those who don't believe its in the right the whole time.
Take the example of their recent new law to ban unauthorised protesting within a mile radius of parliment ( not sure it's a mile but some distance anyway ) which seems to be purely aimed at getting rid of the guy who has been sat outside protesting about the Iraq war for a few years. They have tried to get the courts and police to get rid of him but failing that they are willing to make up a specific law just to get rid of this one person who disagrees with them.
I think the BBC does collect revenue from selling its programs abroad so thats not an issue but as far as the website goes I am happy that it is accessible by foreigners.
The content has already been produced and paid for and so long as making it available to the world at large doesn't cost an unreasonable amount then it's easier to just let anyone view it rather than implement some kind of daft DRM scheme or impose geographic restrictions. The main thing is that it is primarily geared toward the UK licence fee payer and not foreign interests.
Technically it's the property of the people of the UK who have paid for it through their licence fee so I see nothing wrong in ripping all the content out and hosting it elsewhere.
How on Earth have you managed to modded as a Troll is beyond me.
It's true, the BBC got into the Internet fairly quickly and in a big way which is why they have such an extensive all encompassing and generally excellent web presence, other potential web site operators who came to the party a little later are moaning about their ability to compete with an already established BBC and would like it to remove content which they feel they can provide for a fee.
There is a debate to be had about this, personally I don't mind paying the BBC a licence fee since I believe they do, on the whole, produce some excellent content - I would not like to see any measures which reduced the BBCs independence or watered down the quality of its content.
However I can see that it isn't exactly fair to pay a compulsory licence fee for something which you may choose not to use, I don't think the BBC would lose much revenue by making payment dependant on usage since I am sure most people would still continue to subscribe.
With regard to people moaning about the BBC taking away their potential for making money I have no sympathy, if they could do better than the BBC then they could make money, if they can't then tough luck. In this way the BBC is helping to raise standards across the board which I think is a good thing.
I think I read somewhere ( on the BBC ) that this site actually got the 2nd highest number of hits for a BBC section. Obviously News got the most hits by quite a large margin.
Yes, one of the reasons given for removing this site is that the same content is available commercialy or otherwise elsewhere and it is therefore a waste of money to duplicate the commercial, or otherwise, content.
I had hoped that the BBC would be able to hold out against the corporate whingers who complain about it's content since although it's true that other companies can provide the same content as the BBC website the BBC by and large does a much better job of it than their rivals and it does it more or less for free and doesn't have any particular corporate axe to grind.
I) I can say that Saddams links to Al Qaeda are non existant until there is some proof that there were some links, as yet there is no proof.
II) The person I was responding to was talking about Al Quaeda, I accept that Iraq was sponsoring other terrorist groups but then a lot of other countries are doing the same thing in the same way he was doing.
III) The war in Iraq hasn't brought the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden any closer and as such is unrelated to the original intention of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice which is where all this began. In that sense yes the original intention has been ignored. I'm not saying that the US is not still looking for Bin Laden but the main thrust of their actions are not related to tracking him down.
IV) The UK didn't create the Ireland situation in order to prevent terrorism, once the situation had developed into terrorism the UK dealt with it. The peace process through which we have dealt with it in the main seems to be going fairly well. The situation in Iraq is different in that you took action in Iraq in part to stop terrorism despite numerous warnings that your actions would have the opposite effect - this is in no way comparable to the situation with the UK & Ireland.
Wimps, what would they do if they saw a really big fish ?
Having said that I get scared by pike when I'm diving so I probably shouldn't be commenting.
Well thanks for trying to help me but your help is similar the help a drowning man can offer to a man safe on the shore.
The GP is stating the same facts in the same way you are, without any evidence to back them up. I was using the UK as an example of a randomly picked country which does not even remotely fit his terrorist profile. In the Middle East the majority of terrorist groups are Islamic which is hardly surprising considering that most of the Middle East is Islamic in the same way that Ireland is mainly Catholic & Protestant.
The great grandparents point seemed to be suggesting that Islam is more likely to create terrorists than Christianity which is clearly not the case as evidenced by countries such as the UK.
Iraq was no more harbouring terrorists than the US or the UK are harbouring terrorists now. His links to Al Quaeda are not unclear, they are non existant.
Your point about Germany & Ireland is simply nonsense, neither of those situations were created by a desire to stop terrorism.
Yes I remember the US going into Afghanistan but I don't see Osama Bin Laden in prison yet and by all accounts Al Quaeda is still just as big threat as it ever was so whatever it was that you think has been done to stop Al Quaeda doesn't seem to have been especially successful does it ?
Your two sentances don't seem to based on anything I have written so it's interesting to consider what has prompted them.