You're absolutely right, thanks! My notebook power supply and three rechargers for various gadgets are in fact labelled 100-240V, so the pedal crank should be working for them. And boating or camping shops offer 12V compact flourescent light bulbs in 5-15W, which would also be compatible with the pedal machine.
I love their summary, though: "all the energy comes from YOU, so be prepared to GIVE". There's no better way to introduce people to saving energy, I think. ONE common household fridge, ten years old has an intake of about 1kwh and that requires no less than TEN hours of continous pedalling. An energy efficient, smaller and recently manufactured model takes half of that.
Even better: compact flourescent vs. incandescent lights: continuous high power pedalling for the incandescent vs. intermittent or low level pedalling for the CFL. Still too much for pedalling, especially for the fridge, but the huge scale in difference should be grokked by everyone then.
Tip: imagine pedalling for the most blatant culprit of energy waste, worse than the biggest of SUVs: the no-use stand-by power dissipation of the common household VCR - a steady 15W for flashing "12:00", yay!
My question exactly. My notebook draws around 35W when idle and 40-45W when loaded, including the battery recharging.
This site http://www.windstreampower.com/humanpower/hpgtech. html is claiming for 125W of continuous pedaling power of the average human - and they even sell the equipment needed. But only in 120V US-voltage, which is not quite right for my European 220V appliances. Hmpf.
But nonetheless, one hour of pedalling would yield enough power for two hours of computing - which would ne rather nice to have in not grid-connected cabins to be able to watch some dvds in the evening. Not bad...
Maybe this is a religous belief especially among one very very *ahem* peaceful religion, but if you protect *that* as a "belief", the desire to repeat a 3000-fold murder, you'd be insane.
Yeah yeah, "the minorities" cannot break the law on "hate speech", only the majority can, right? Thank you, we have enough of that. Before the law, all people are equal, nothing else is acceptable. No exceptions, no clauses. One sentence for one crime, regardless of who did it.
As a sidenote: I find your attitude towards speech and law disturbing, to say the least. No one can properly define what "hate" speech actually is, as it's entirely dependent on the victim. And you should NEVER allow the victim to set the sentence for a crime, I hope you'd at least agree on that.
Take for example the dreaded Mohammed cartoons: is this hate speech? Fundamentalist Muslims certainly spell doom and death over this one, like they did over the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The Popetown-Cartoon on MTV were shrugged at by most Christians and no onee burned embassies. Does that make a difference in "hate speech", how the adresses behave? Do you think there's ANY objective measure on what actually constitutes hate other than a) directly influenced actions and b) the amount of "anger" at the target?
If that'd be the case, we better learn to speak only lovingly good of Islam and Mohammed, because *everything* else incites hatred among fundamentalist Muslims. So effectively anyone could turn any argument into hate speech just by acting insulted and seething and whining. For great justice...
I hope now you see why no one can define hate speech, only the victim could, but lawful order prohibits exactly that and for good reason.
"meddling in the middle east" as in "aiding Israel in survival against groups and countries that like to exterminate the Joos (again)"?
Or do you mean "ousting Saddam Hussein from power" (and soon "ensuring that no Islamic group gets the Bomb")? Terrible, terrible, right? Then what do you suggest the US did wrong before that Tuesday in September?
Tamil people are Hindus, Sinhalese are mostly Buddhists. The Tamil Tigers use plenty of suicide bombing and they even killed Gandhi that way. But their conflict is not religiously motivated, it is the usual (if one can call it that) civil war. People of different cultures fight about independence, cultural identity, their own state or whatever.
The LTTE are among the most brutal and merciless terrorist groups of the world, they even murdered all other terrorist or separatist groups of their own people. They followed many ideas of Arafat's PLO in their structure.
But their bloodshed isn't backed by religion. They don't yell "Allahu Ackbar" or something in that vein before chopping people's head off.
And if you avoid Sri Lanke, you're probably one hundred percent safe from their terror. Now compare that to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its incarnations...
Can you tell us an approximate number on deaths caused by various Christian sects for the cause of their view of religion during the last one hundred years? Including suicides and mass-suicides, too, of course.
Would you mind to compare then these numbers with the approximate number of deaths caused by Muslim sects for the cause of their view of religion in the last, say, ten years?
What are the conclusions you'd draw from this comparison?
Tinfoil hat firmly secured: check
Anon SSL-proxy daisy-chained through Sealand, Iran, China and a neighbor's open WiFi: check
read-only-OS-from-triple-AES-encrypted CDROM: check
hidden in bomb-proof basement of someone else's mom: check
M249SAW retrieved from under-the-pillow: check
Super Soaker filled with liquid pork fat and pressurized: check
The Prius gave it away, right? Identify yourself then, sly fox!:)
Then again: how is this different to the a) large shiny SUV in your driveway, b) your custom tailored suits, c) your large shiny house with that luxurious pool or d) the classy display of wealth you show.
You could hide yourself, drive that old rustbucket until it falls apart and build a modest house with all goodies strictly indoors in the basement. You could adapt to the constant threat of crime all around you and keep a low profile, pre-emptively forfeiting your self-determination. Or you could vote for more wealth transfer, more welfare, more spending, more taxes, more government. If everyone's on the dole, nobody needs to steal, right?//just kidding.
Either way: no self-defense gun is of that kind the usual perpetrators cherish. Full-autos are rare in that field and shotguns and rifles are too bulky. Nothing is bad-ass enough for our fellow robbers like that Mac-10 or the saturday night special.
In the end I'd rather have my daughter kidnapped than a crackhead roaming through my house at night. Paying ransom for my daughter is (you asked for it) merely monetary damage while the crackhead in my daughter's bedroom would be the end of my life as I know it. And everyone who collects ransom but still harms my daughter is going to have the absolutely longest and most painful death modern technology and medicine can provide. I'd go that far to take paramedics classes just to let that bastard feel the pain for a few more hours, I swear.
Or better yet: take some real firearms classes. If they visit your house while you're away it's just property damage. A couple of hundred bucks you insurance will gladly repay if you agree to spend your share on improved locks and security measures. You'll feel unsafe for a while after being burglarized, but that goes away with time. After all, it's only a monetary loss, maybe a small insurance quarrel and a sturdier door you get.
But you shouldn't need to worry about money you lose, as 99 out of 100 common burglars don't know jack about teh Intarnet and will visit you anyway, at night if you are away or not. And that's where the hairy part begins and those firearm lessons will come in extremely handy. A burglar in the same house with you, your wife/husband/partner, and kids and grandma and the family dog, is something totally entirely different. Your children may come out unharmed if you bend over and spread, but your dog is either large enough or toast. Think of the dogs, please.
First: put an NRA sticker on your car, if you like and can stand being looked-down-on occasionally. Second: pretend to be interested in guns and order a for-free gun catalogue from somewhere. The resulting self-defense-centered bulk mail you receive might make an impression sometimes. Third: obtain empty rifle and handgun shells and disperse them liberally around your outside property. Not too much, you are no dangerous neighbor, remember. But two or three empty cartridges will make a bold impression on people in the violent businesses. Criminals want easy prey or easy opportunities, otherwise they'd be in the Rat Race like you and me, by the way. And any criminal who sees a clue on a potentially gun-hoarding, concealed-carrying, full-auto-skilled, hard-hitting, M249SAW-under-the-pillow-hiding expert-marksmanly Redneck will wait at least until the house is empty. In which case it's just property damage, again. Not unless you have a vulgar display of wealth in the middle of Somalia...
Excellent list. I'm hard to persuade at an emotional level, but my arguments have run out now, I must admit.
But one thing is left to point out, though: terrorism is not caused by something, I seriously don't think so. Many many terrorists had no explanation other than their own loony excuses, even if some of them were based on understandable situations. I don't think it would be far fetched to say McVein and Klebold/Harris had no basis for their actins. And neither had Atta et al. or Osama himself. There's an ideology behind that which I seriously detest.
Going therrorist is an option that defies any real attempts on changing your situation for the better. As long as oppressed Palestinians commit anything against Israel soldiers actually oppressing them, were in a tit-for-tat situation. Which doesn't change anything, but at least real victims retaliate against their perpetrators. Who is who in the Middle East is still up to debate, but at least there's a point in there somehwere.
But most Muslim extremism is not directed towards retaliation, but an attempt at intimidation and coercion of their values to unwilling third parties. Most current attacks happen in Thailand, Indonesia and India, not to forged the south of Sudan. Those aren't retaliatory attacks, it's jihad to broaden the footprint of Islam there.
And if attacks in London, Madrid, New York and Washington were retaliatory in any sense is heavily disputed. Civilians were exclusively targeted with no attempt made on anything of strategic value. Just maximizing the body count. Not to forget that this was before Iraq and Afghanistan, when Iran wasn't even on the horizon and North Korea seemed to be the only military problem to the West. We don't talk about if Bush's course of action worsened the situation or not as the problem was existent and grave way before all that, even before the massacre of Munich 1972. Our views on radical Islam, our questions on the mere existence of really moderate Muslims took place after9-11 and I won't let the political left turn around the facts. Killing civilians is always to be avoided, we vowed and try to, but it happens anyway. Unintentionally. They, to use this word, do the opposite: only civilians, as many as possible, anywhere they are. We cannot allow this to continue and I'm sure you know it yourself. We cannot reasonably condemn Israel when one in every ten Smart Bombs hits only innocent civilians and the other 9 also kills civilian bystanders and be apologetic to Hizb'allah, who fires on anything but clear strategic targets, with metal parts in their munitions to maximize collateral damage. The mere fact that Hizb'allah can't do any better because of a lack of smart bombs doesn't allow them to use the dirtiest tricks they can think of and get away with it. Trust me, if Hizb'allah had carpet bombers, smart munitions and all that, they would use it for maximum casualty producing effect. They have a puny military basis, but their intentions are clear, their actions are clear and they leave nothing out to kill anyone they can possibly reach. Which is the clear antithesis to anything "military", hence "terrorism".
The intentions of most military forces around the globe is securing of something, even if it were "securing" the assets of a neighboring country (for themselves). The intention of Hamas, Hizb'allah and Islamic Jihad something entirely different, not power, money, influence and not peace, freedom, not not even Lebensraum for their race, but clearly stated genocide. Chapter one of all their charters: "itbach al-Jahud", slaughter the Jew. They don't dream of a free Palestine, which they rejected when given the opportunity, but about Khaibar II, an epic mass murder of Jews. Germans for example still get pats on their shoulders when on vacation in Arabia, I've experienced for myself. You know why.
Re:OT: Wikipedia down, what happened?
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and I hang my head in shame.
It was down before I left my workplace today and wasn't up when I logged in at home again, more than two hours later. It's back up right now, write access is slow but possible. Let's see what Wikinews is saying about that...
And there were these, errm, lone gunmen that shot up some random Jewish people (link) , some cases of sudden Jihad syndrome and whatnot. And there is that funny website called http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, that counted more than 5500 Jihad attacks since 9-11 worldwide.
And yes, most weren't on North American soil. And yes, there was that Ryder truck and the daycare school. (You forgot to mention all those school shootings.)
I didn't advocate lax security on everyone else, but the time-consuming probing of all body orifices should be spared for the usual recurring suspects. To reference my useless analogy: the fact that one purple turkey made a large attack ten years ago doesn't make our green snakes any yota less dangerous. 99.9 percent of all attacks are from them, so go figure.
OT: Wikipedia down, what happened?
on
Divine Proportions
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Wikipedia is down ATM with no explanation other than technical difficulties. All subdomains are affected, too.
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia is the primary source of information right now and there are circulating rumors Cogent cut them off because of a DMCA complaint.
Some questions: who was responsible for the majority of all terror attacks in the last 20 years? 80-year old grannies from India? White kids aged 12? Hindu priests? Roman catholics? Soccerfans of FC Real Madrid? Maybe it was Barney the dinosaur?
When a terror attack, especially one involving an airplane, does happen, the names of the perpetrators did not include ones as Jerry, Frank, Adam, Guillaume, Francois, Julia, Maria, David, Kim - and not Chang, Svensson or Yamamoto either.
We do know what the motives of most current terrorists are, we know their religion, we know what their names typically sound like, we know how they look and we can definetly say if they eat pork meat or not. We can pretend we don't, but that doesn't change the terrorists.
To senselessly apply a recently popular meme: if the only thing that constantly threaten our lives are green snakes on a plane, I don't want our airport security wasting their time anally probing striped kittens, grey dogs and yellow ducks, so to speak. I want them to search for green snakes, painted snakes, snakes in disguise and something in that general direction.
They won't kill anything they cannot under no circumstances possibly swallow whole. And it takes them more than a month to even *get* hungry. Snakes held as pets need about one mouse per month.
But hey, vibration and air pressure changes on an airplane may be enough to make snakes feel threatened, who knows:)
Whoever still runs IE other than the non-compliant or ActiveX-required-crap-sites, has had enough incentive to change already. I have no mercy with those who still get bitten by IE security problems. Everyone knows about IE now, substitutes numerous and most of them downloadable free of charge - who sticks with IE, well, tough luck.
Slashdot Mirror
Please try to ignore my "trespassers will be shot on sight", I dare you.
You're absolutely right, thanks! My notebook power supply and three rechargers for various gadgets are in fact labelled 100-240V, so the pedal crank should be working for them. And boating or camping shops offer 12V compact flourescent light bulbs in 5-15W, which would also be compatible with the pedal machine.
I love their summary, though: "all the energy comes from YOU, so be prepared to GIVE". There's no better way to introduce people to saving energy, I think. ONE common household fridge, ten years old has an intake of about 1kwh and that requires no less than TEN hours of continous pedalling. An energy efficient, smaller and recently manufactured model takes half of that.
Even better: compact flourescent vs. incandescent lights: continuous high power pedalling for the incandescent vs. intermittent or low level pedalling for the CFL. Still too much for pedalling, especially for the fridge, but the huge scale in difference should be grokked by everyone then.
Tip: imagine pedalling for the most blatant culprit of energy waste, worse than the biggest of SUVs: the no-use stand-by power dissipation of the common household VCR - a steady 15W for flashing "12:00", yay!
My question exactly. My notebook draws around 35W when idle and 40-45W when loaded, including the battery recharging. This site http://www.windstreampower.com/humanpower/hpgtech. html is claiming for 125W of continuous pedaling power of the average human - and they even sell the equipment needed. But only in 120V US-voltage, which is not quite right for my European 220V appliances. Hmpf.
But nonetheless, one hour of pedalling would yield enough power for two hours of computing - which would ne rather nice to have in not grid-connected cabins to be able to watch some dvds in the evening. Not bad...
Maybe this is a religous belief especially among one very very *ahem* peaceful religion, but if you protect *that* as a "belief", the desire to repeat a 3000-fold murder, you'd be insane.
Yeah yeah, "the minorities" cannot break the law on "hate speech", only the majority can, right? Thank you, we have enough of that. Before the law, all people are equal, nothing else is acceptable. No exceptions, no clauses. One sentence for one crime, regardless of who did it.
As a sidenote: I find your attitude towards speech and law disturbing, to say the least. No one can properly define what "hate" speech actually is, as it's entirely dependent on the victim. And you should NEVER allow the victim to set the sentence for a crime, I hope you'd at least agree on that.
Take for example the dreaded Mohammed cartoons: is this hate speech? Fundamentalist Muslims certainly spell doom and death over this one, like they did over the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The Popetown-Cartoon on MTV were shrugged at by most Christians and no onee burned embassies. Does that make a difference in "hate speech", how the adresses behave? Do you think there's ANY objective measure on what actually constitutes hate other than a) directly influenced actions and b) the amount of "anger" at the target?
If that'd be the case, we better learn to speak only lovingly good of Islam and Mohammed, because *everything* else incites hatred among fundamentalist Muslims. So effectively anyone could turn any argument into hate speech just by acting insulted and seething and whining. For great justice... I hope now you see why no one can define hate speech, only the victim could, but lawful order prohibits exactly that and for good reason.
Nothing for kill, battle or war either. What is Klingon without these words?
I admit, they have it. And when Musharraf drops out, we are in deep shit. But luckily he's still alive and kicking.
"meddling in the middle east" as in "aiding Israel in survival against groups and countries that like to exterminate the Joos (again)"?
Or do you mean "ousting Saddam Hussein from power" (and soon "ensuring that no Islamic group gets the Bomb")? Terrible, terrible, right? Then what do you suggest the US did wrong before that Tuesday in September?
Tamil people are Hindus, Sinhalese are mostly Buddhists. The Tamil Tigers use plenty of suicide bombing and they even killed Gandhi that way. But their conflict is not religiously motivated, it is the usual (if one can call it that) civil war. People of different cultures fight about independence, cultural identity, their own state or whatever.
The LTTE are among the most brutal and merciless terrorist groups of the world, they even murdered all other terrorist or separatist groups of their own people. They followed many ideas of Arafat's PLO in their structure.
But their bloodshed isn't backed by religion. They don't yell "Allahu Ackbar" or something in that vein before chopping people's head off.
And if you avoid Sri Lanke, you're probably one hundred percent safe from their terror. Now compare that to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its incarnations...
Can you tell us an approximate number on deaths caused by various Christian sects for the cause of their view of religion during the last one hundred years? Including suicides and mass-suicides, too, of course.
Would you mind to compare then these numbers with the approximate number of deaths caused by Muslim sects for the cause of their view of religion in the last, say, ten years?
What are the conclusions you'd draw from this comparison?
And would you mind to tell the Grand Jury for how long the accused Mr. Bush has been in office at that time?
Tinfoil hat firmly secured: check
:)
Anon SSL-proxy daisy-chained through Sealand, Iran, China and a neighbor's open WiFi: check
read-only-OS-from-triple-AES-encrypted CDROM: check
hidden in bomb-proof basement of someone else's mom: check
M249SAW retrieved from under-the-pillow: check
Super Soaker filled with liquid pork fat and pressurized: check
The Prius gave it away, right? Identify yourself then, sly fox!
Could've been me :) - protecting the environment, twice.
Then again: how is this different to the a) large shiny SUV in your driveway, b) your custom tailored suits, c) your large shiny house with that luxurious pool or d) the classy display of wealth you show.
//just kidding.
You could hide yourself, drive that old rustbucket until it falls apart and build a modest house with all goodies strictly indoors in the basement. You could adapt to the constant threat of crime all around you and keep a low profile, pre-emptively forfeiting your self-determination. Or you could vote for more wealth transfer, more welfare, more spending, more taxes, more government. If everyone's on the dole, nobody needs to steal, right?
Either way: no self-defense gun is of that kind the usual perpetrators cherish. Full-autos are rare in that field and shotguns and rifles are too bulky. Nothing is bad-ass enough for our fellow robbers like that Mac-10 or the saturday night special.
In the end I'd rather have my daughter kidnapped than a crackhead roaming through my house at night. Paying ransom for my daughter is (you asked for it) merely monetary damage while the crackhead in my daughter's bedroom would be the end of my life as I know it. And everyone who collects ransom but still harms my daughter is going to have the absolutely longest and most painful death modern technology and medicine can provide. I'd go that far to take paramedics classes just to let that bastard feel the pain for a few more hours, I swear.
Or better yet: take some real firearms classes. If they visit your house while you're away it's just property damage. A couple of hundred bucks you insurance will gladly repay if you agree to spend your share on improved locks and security measures. You'll feel unsafe for a while after being burglarized, but that goes away with time. After all, it's only a monetary loss, maybe a small insurance quarrel and a sturdier door you get.
But you shouldn't need to worry about money you lose, as 99 out of 100 common burglars don't know jack about teh Intarnet and will visit you anyway, at night if you are away or not. And that's where the hairy part begins and those firearm lessons will come in extremely handy. A burglar in the same house with you, your wife/husband/partner, and kids and grandma and the family dog, is something totally entirely different. Your children may come out unharmed if you bend over and spread, but your dog is either large enough or toast. Think of the dogs, please.
First: put an NRA sticker on your car, if you like and can stand being looked-down-on occasionally. Second: pretend to be interested in guns and order a for-free gun catalogue from somewhere. The resulting self-defense-centered bulk mail you receive might make an impression sometimes. Third: obtain empty rifle and handgun shells and disperse them liberally around your outside property. Not too much, you are no dangerous neighbor, remember. But two or three empty cartridges will make a bold impression on people in the violent businesses. Criminals want easy prey or easy opportunities, otherwise they'd be in the Rat Race like you and me, by the way. And any criminal who sees a clue on a potentially gun-hoarding, concealed-carrying, full-auto-skilled, hard-hitting, M249SAW-under-the-pillow-hiding expert-marksmanly Redneck will wait at least until the house is empty. In which case it's just property damage, again. Not unless you have a vulgar display of wealth in the middle of Somalia...
Excellent list. I'm hard to persuade at an emotional level, but my arguments have run out now, I must admit.
But one thing is left to point out, though: terrorism is not caused by something, I seriously don't think so. Many many terrorists had no explanation other than their own loony excuses, even if some of them were based on understandable situations. I don't think it would be far fetched to say McVein and Klebold/Harris had no basis for their actins. And neither had Atta et al. or Osama himself. There's an ideology behind that which I seriously detest.
Going therrorist is an option that defies any real attempts on changing your situation for the better. As long as oppressed Palestinians commit anything against Israel soldiers actually oppressing them, were in a tit-for-tat situation. Which doesn't change anything, but at least real victims retaliate against their perpetrators. Who is who in the Middle East is still up to debate, but at least there's a point in there somehwere.
But most Muslim extremism is not directed towards retaliation, but an attempt at intimidation and coercion of their values to unwilling third parties. Most current attacks happen in Thailand, Indonesia and India, not to forged the south of Sudan. Those aren't retaliatory attacks, it's jihad to broaden the footprint of Islam there.
And if attacks in London, Madrid, New York and Washington were retaliatory in any sense is heavily disputed. Civilians were exclusively targeted with no attempt made on anything of strategic value. Just maximizing the body count. Not to forget that this was before Iraq and Afghanistan, when Iran wasn't even on the horizon and North Korea seemed to be the only military problem to the West. We don't talk about if Bush's course of action worsened the situation or not as the problem was existent and grave way before all that, even before the massacre of Munich 1972. Our views on radical Islam, our questions on the mere existence of really moderate Muslims took place after9-11 and I won't let the political left turn around the facts. Killing civilians is always to be avoided, we vowed and try to, but it happens anyway. Unintentionally. They, to use this word, do the opposite: only civilians, as many as possible, anywhere they are. We cannot allow this to continue and I'm sure you know it yourself. We cannot reasonably condemn Israel when one in every ten Smart Bombs hits only innocent civilians and the other 9 also kills civilian bystanders and be apologetic to Hizb'allah, who fires on anything but clear strategic targets, with metal parts in their munitions to maximize collateral damage. The mere fact that Hizb'allah can't do any better because of a lack of smart bombs doesn't allow them to use the dirtiest tricks they can think of and get away with it. Trust me, if Hizb'allah had carpet bombers, smart munitions and all that, they would use it for maximum casualty producing effect. They have a puny military basis, but their intentions are clear, their actions are clear and they leave nothing out to kill anyone they can possibly reach. Which is the clear antithesis to anything "military", hence "terrorism".
The intentions of most military forces around the globe is securing of something, even if it were "securing" the assets of a neighboring country (for themselves). The intention of Hamas, Hizb'allah and Islamic Jihad something entirely different, not power, money, influence and not peace, freedom, not not even Lebensraum for their race, but clearly stated genocide. Chapter one of all their charters: "itbach al-Jahud", slaughter the Jew. They don't dream of a free Palestine, which they rejected when given the opportunity, but about Khaibar II, an epic mass murder of Jews. Germans for example still get pats on their shoulders when on vacation in Arabia, I've experienced for myself. You know why.
Yes, and I hang my head in shame.
It was down before I left my workplace today and wasn't up when I logged in at home again, more than two hours later. It's back up right now, write access is slow but possible. Let's see what Wikinews is saying about that...
And there were these, errm, lone gunmen that shot up some random Jewish people (link) , some cases of sudden Jihad syndrome and whatnot. And there is that funny website called http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, that counted more than 5500 Jihad attacks since 9-11 worldwide.
And yes, most weren't on North American soil. And yes, there was that Ryder truck and the daycare school. (You forgot to mention all those school shootings.)
I didn't advocate lax security on everyone else, but the time-consuming probing of all body orifices should be spared for the usual recurring suspects. To reference my useless analogy: the fact that one purple turkey made a large attack ten years ago doesn't make our green snakes any yota less dangerous. 99.9 percent of all attacks are from them, so go figure.
Nah, it's back up since five minutes and still not writable, so cut me some slack, okay? http://www.thewritingpot.com/wikistatus/
Wikipedia is down ATM with no explanation other than technical difficulties. All subdomains are affected, too.
irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia is the primary source of information right now and there are circulating rumors Cogent cut them off because of a DMCA complaint.
Anyone has more info on that?
Some questions: who was responsible for the majority of all terror attacks in the last 20 years? 80-year old grannies from India? White kids aged 12? Hindu priests? Roman catholics? Soccerfans of FC Real Madrid? Maybe it was Barney the dinosaur?
When a terror attack, especially one involving an airplane, does happen, the names of the perpetrators did not include ones as Jerry, Frank, Adam, Guillaume, Francois, Julia, Maria, David, Kim - and not Chang, Svensson or Yamamoto either.
We do know what the motives of most current terrorists are, we know their religion, we know what their names typically sound like, we know how they look and we can definetly say if they eat pork meat or not. We can pretend we don't, but that doesn't change the terrorists.
To senselessly apply a recently popular meme: if the only thing that constantly threaten our lives are green snakes on a plane, I don't want our airport security wasting their time anally probing striped kittens, grey dogs and yellow ducks, so to speak. I want them to search for green snakes, painted snakes, snakes in disguise and something in that general direction.
They won't kill anything they cannot under no circumstances possibly swallow whole. And it takes them more than a month to even *get* hungry. Snakes held as pets need about one mouse per month.
:)
But hey, vibration and air pressure changes on an airplane may be enough to make snakes feel threatened, who knows
That's a bonus. Lets see how long anyone is allowed to board a plane *without* having to eat some pork first.
Whoever still runs IE other than the non-compliant or ActiveX-required-crap-sites, has had enough incentive to change already. I have no mercy with those who still get bitten by IE security problems. Everyone knows about IE now, substitutes numerous and most of them downloadable free of charge - who sticks with IE, well, tough luck.
Your comment no verb.