Kostenlos seemed to me to be the universal word for "cost-free" in Germany, but I suppose there could be regional differences. I was in the Pfalz.
I'd argue that "frei" doesn't usually mean "freedom" either. For example, the German "no parking" and "no stopping" street signs read "parking frei" and "stoppen frei", respectively, where "frei" means the exact opposite of "freedom". Don't be a German Nazi.
FSF isn't trying to twist the word "free". It's just the english language which is broken and lacks a simple everyday adjective with proper unambiguous distinction between "freedom" and "costless". They're are just trying to make a distinction between two completely different concepts using a language which lacks the proper tools to make that easy. Dude, seriously, what the fuck.
Do you seriously believe that the English language is broken and lacks the tools to explain the FSF's ideas? Or any ideas for that matter. Isn't it more likely that the person who said that just sucks at explaining the ideas and is arrogant enough to blame the language.
I think the whole repurposing of the word free is completely barking mad. Orwellian in fact. Maybe the FSF should go the whole hog and invent a language, say GnuSpeak to make pronouncements in if English is broken.
RMS could post gibberish on the net and his acolytes could then claim that if people would only take the time to learn GnuSpeak they would realise what a genius he was.
Latin languages doesn't have this problem, and there's no "free vs. free" ambiguity. Thus nobody speaking those languages has the impression that FSF is playing with words.
Besides, exFAT still costs money to the user, as Vista SP1's license explicitly requires that the user has bought a valid license for Vista, which almost never costs zero, except if the user got it through some channels as MSDNAA. Well so what. I don't have exFAT on my machine that came with Vista. I download SP1. I have exFAT. According to the non FSF definition of "free" exFAT is free. I didn't have to pay for it.
I think you miss my point. The purpose of the War on Terror is to get rid of the Jihadis. There a bunch of people who fought the Russians in Afghanistan, the Serbs in Bosnia and the Russians in Chechnya. Not that all the people who fought on one side of those conflicts would go on to fight the west.
Now the odd thing is that you can start a war in any majority Muslim country and they will come. And if concentration of jihadis in Iraq increases it has to decrease in the rest of the Muslim world. That's why I used the water table analogy.
So it doesn't matter if they were in Iraq before. If you waste Saddam they will arrive to a) kill infidels and b) try to take over the government and set up a Taliban style state.
The US could have invaded Syria for example and it would have had the same effect.
exFAT isn't 'designed for USB flash devices'. Filesystems in fact don't need to be 'designed for USB flash devices' because those devices (assuming they last more than a couple of days) do wear levelling under the filesystem layer. It's a hacked up version of FAT that works past on drives bigger than 2TB or files bigger than 4GB. Since it's non back compatible and Microsoft have a new found business model of IP licensing I suspect there won't be any third party implementations. Curently there isn't a spec published for exFAT and it would be easier to patent some key part of a new filesystem than one which is back compatible with FAT.
Mind you it's still free in the sense that you don't pay for it. I'm just annoyed by people using "free software" as a synonym of the business model they favour and expect everyone to know what they mean. Microsoft could claim according to the dictionary that exFAT is free and they'd be right. The FSF doesn't own the word and can't define it. But the exFAT specification is not published (the Sun version of Open Systems) and even if it were the standard would most likely not be an open one in the sense that you don't need a license to implement it (the PC industry criteria for an Open System). Maybe it will be of course, I haven't heard a statement from Microsoft on exFAT openness and licensing.
a 1GB retail plus (walmart brand. casing split, but a little electrical tape has held it fine for the past 2 years). Yeah, but women won't fuck you if they see you have a thumb drive like that. I have an Ferrari brand drive. Cost $800 duty free but boy it's got me some tail.
here's exFAT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT , but there's no free software implementation as of yet. It comes with Vista SP1, which is a free download.
So what. There hasn't been a revolution, a coup or a period of dictatorship. The system has evolved sure, but it has kept continuity.
I invite you to study English history, as there has been all three things. Multiple times. I think most people would put the start of the "English system" at 1688, The Glorious Revolution.
Since that date there has been continuity. 300+ years of it.
Most countries in mainland Europe can't say that - they have had numerous and very bloody upheavals.
Most countries in Europe, in their current form, are younger than the US. Well yeah, because their systems have failed numerous times and been replaced by new ones. That's really my point.
Does the technology that you already have point a gun at you and say "Fuck you asshole?" before shooting you? That's the difference. You know the think I liked about the Terminator is that the Terminator isn't really self aware. Look at the situation when it says that. It's repairing one arm, so actually engaging in combat would be a bad idea. It's programmed to learn useful phrases and in it knows that "Fuck you asshole" makes people back off. So it tries that rather than shooting the guy, at least until it has finisished its self maintainance task. But in Hofstadter terms it has a very "low-huneker" soul. You can imagine this behaviour being an algorithm.
That's not true of the Terminator in T2, which really has a soul. Of course this is a Hollywoodism - movies need to have the Right Message and that means that heros, even robot ones, must have the Right Values. I prefered the minimalist, predatory soul of the original because of the opportunity for black humour whenever it speaks.
The interview contains one of the best descriptions of the Singularity religion that I've heard:
I think Ray Kurzweil is terrified by his own mortality and deeply longs to avoid death. I understand this obsession of his and am even somehow touched by its ferocious intensity, but I think it badly distorts his vision. As I see it, Kurzweil's desperate hopes seriously cloud his scientific objectivity.
Yeah I liked that too. And once you make the connection with being terrified by your mortality the religion link is pretty clear too.
You know what. If Hofstadter started a religion, I'd probably at least attend the services. Mostly because I could meet interesting women.
So, basically, we have Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon or United 93, and two of his spiritual advisers killed and an entire hierarchy who exist just to fuck with us because we invaded Iraq. I don't think invading Iraq was the right thing to do in retrospect, but couldn't it have a "swamp draining" effect on terrorism?
It's a bit like if you were going to conduct a "War on Groundwater" it wouldn't matter where you dug the hole. If you pump fast enough the water table will sink. Similarly it doesn't matter where you fight the terrorists because they will all go there to fight you. If you can kill enough of them you'll drain terrorists from other countries.
It'll work if the US army can kill people in sufficient numbers that they beat the terrorist creation rate. And I actually think that is pretty low - you need to be literally crazy to be a potential suicide bomber. People that crazy are a tiny minority. I have great confidence in the US army's ability to kill people in large numbers, though not necessarily the right people. Now you could argue that this will recruit terrorists, but it doesn't work like that. The Syrians dealt with an Islamist uprising by levelling a couple of cities and killing 20,000 Syrians. That actually stopped the uprising - once people knew that the regime was willing to go that far they backed off support for terrorism and turned in the leaders to be executed. So it doesn't matter if the US army is a bit trigger happy, in fact it probably makes them more effective. Hell the US could nuke a couple of Iraqi cities at random and stop the war overnight if it was ruthless enough. Certainly if Iraq had been invaded by another Middle Eastern power that's would have happened.
If you look at Iraq it does seem to be working like this - the amount of violence is decreasing because the terrorists are being killed off. Once the Iraqi army is confident enough to do this, the US could actually leave. The less lethal Iraqi army could kill people at a rate sufficient to keep the numbers down. Actually I think this is another equilibrium thing - the Iraqi army will disintegrate if faced with large numbers of jihadis. But it can cope with small numbers.
So the metaphor would be the USMC as a very powerful pump. You stick it in the ground and it sucks groundwater very effectively. Meanwhile they build up the Iraqi army into a much less powerful pump. At some point the US can leave and the Iraqis can take over. And voila, the Middle East will stay dry.
Of course if you view things like this it was a terrible mistake to abolish the Iraqi army in the first place. Hell I'd have kept the Baath party, just renamed it and killed the leaders. But it would also be a terrible mistake to pull out troops now, because that means that the Islamists might take over. The Islamists have the same grim logic I have - indiscriminate slaugther to cow their opponents. That's just the way the Middle East works.
And that is why I don't support the invasion any more. Originally I supported it because it would bring democracy to Iraq and hopefully it would spread to other countries. But that doesn't work - Middle Eastern rulers are rulers because they know how to terrorise people into submission. If Iraq works we'll end up with a regime very similar to Saddams. The only difference is that the leaders will pretend to be pro American technocrats rather than pan Arab nationalists. But if you're an ordinary Iraqi it will be much the same. A bunch of corrupt bastards run the place and put down any criticism with extreme brutality. Because that sort of system is the only one that can stop Middle Eastern countries sliding into civil war. Democracy and free societies don't work there.
Ok, you could argue that all dictatorships are not equally bad and the pro American one that will be set up once the US leaves is better for regional stability and so on. But wouldn't have been in favour of the invasion if it would result in yet another Iraqi dictatorship.
The Party Line is that English System is ancient and well tested, but the reality is the system has changed radically in the last two hundred odd years. It's been much more than patched - it's been refactored and numerous functions and subroutines replaced outright if not radically changed. So what. There hasn't been a revolution, a coup or a period of dictatorship. The system has evolved sure, but it has kept continuity.
Most countries in mainland Europe can't say that - they have had numerous and very bloody upheavals.
It doesn't help their "organization" any that Osama bin Laden is hiding in a cave, or that we keep killing all their officers in that silly, unjustifiable war in Iraq...
"im in ur base, killin ur doodz", as it were.
Well yeah. But the the real problem seems to be the quality of people that volunteer in Europe.
E.g. Richard Reid trying to light Semtex with a cigarette lighter, or the guys that attacked Glasgow Airport and ended literally dieing in a fire but failing to kill a single other person. Someone said "these guys must have ridden the short bus to terrorist school". But they were NHS Doctors. Or the guys that did the 21st July bombings
The detonators worked but the main charge failed. Someone said "I saw an Asian gentleman with an exploded backpack looking very surprised".
Or these guys who bought a load of fertilizer with a traceable card. The guy that sold it guessed they were going to make a bomb and tipped off MI5 who already knew and were listening to everything they said or typed.
The thing is that a run of terrorist attacks all fail to kill any infidels and all the terrorists end up either dead or in jail and it is much harder to recruit more people willing to do suicide bombings.
Killing al Qaeda "number 2" leaders in Afghanistan is no bad thing to do, but the fact is that attacking the West requires that they can recruit people there who are not complete cretins. And they can't, or at least have failed to date. It's like they attract the sort of nutcases that would go postal and then kill themselves and these people are not up to the sort of planning and preparation that terrorism requires.
People start to make jokes about them being incompetent too, and that probably doesn't do recruitment much good.
no, throwing a chair at someone is always bad manners. However, its well known that manners don't apply to rich people, they can be as rude as they like to poor people.
That's pretty much how it's always worked everywhere. Kill yourself.
My time is $60 per hour, according to my payslip. If I do after hours consultancies I charge $150 ph. Exactly how fucking cheap would these groceries have to be, for the same quality?
I loathe shopping. The idea of driving further to do it is just insane. Well it doesn't work for you and for groceries, but that doesn't mean that arbitrage won't become more popular in the whole economy.
You have to learn to generalise from an example and yourself to the broader economic principles. And even if rich people like you don't make money out doing it themselves, they could pay someone else to do it. Or more likely buy services from a business that does that.
Since you hate shopping you might pay a premium for someone to pick up your groceries from the shop and drive them to your house for example. Free fuel would encourage that sort of thing. Essentially it exploits the fact that it's now cheap to buy things where they are cheap and sell them where they are expensive.
Now this example may not apply to you either, but I'm sure now you can think of one that does.
IIRC it is a kuiper belt object that actually isn't on the same plane as the other planets.
I think I actually recall it being found by accident because it isn't where we would expected it to be, most likely it is a captured object not formed by our suns accretion disk. Can we call Kuiper Belt Objects KIBOs? That way people that are knowledgable about internet trolls but disinterested in science have one more thing in this article to snigger at.
I dunno, I think the point of BioFuels is that if something very nasty were to happen to the Opec fuckers, like say nuclear annhilation, then we could all continue to drive to work. This allows for more innovation in foreign policy. Do you think the crusades would have happened if Europe was dependent on the Middle East for something?
Imagine if fuel was free: would you just drive all day, every day, or perhaps you have a life? No, but I bet people would drive more. E.g. if you could drive an extra hour to get cheaper groceries you'd do it. And that can have some drastic effects on fuel usage. People might drive to Canada to buy prescription drugs for example and sell them in the US. It would be like the Internet - if you could make money but driving long distances or paying someone else to do it you would do so.
At least if you look at Skype and MSN and the like, people do use them all the time compared to cell phone calls and SMSs. Hell if they started to charge for slashdot I'd post elsewhere.
Next, why not simply use gas to put all passengers to sleep? Terrorists in the back threatening to kill passengers? Hit the button and "good night". Fly to your destination in your unusually quiet plane, land, and have the police handle the rest. Because there are no knockout gasses. Their are gasses that will kill you. A skilled anesthetist can keep you alive but unconscious but that is not a stable state. The stable states with anesthetics are awake and dead.
Look at Beslan for what happens when you try to use anesthetics like this. And remember in Beslan the gas was pumped in and people were immediately brought out and given medical attention. Even then a lot of them died. Now the Russian spooks characteristically fucked up by not preparing things, but from what I can tell even with immediate medical attention and the right antidote they would still have lost a few people. Your "gas the plane and fly on" is much worse than this - people need to be asleep but not dead with no medical attention for much longer.
I think you're better off having an air marshall shoot all the terrorists and hope that he doesn't kill too many civillians. There will be a few holes in the plane but with the right ammunition the plane won't explode or anything, at least according to Myth Busters.
Actually shooting the terrorists dead and writing off the collateral damage is a disincentive to future terrorist attacks I think.
The reason for the worry about terrorism was not the number of people they killed it's that as Tony Blair put it about 9/11, "Does anyone doubt that if they could have killed ten or a hundred or a thousand times as many people they would not have done so".
Though in retrospect it seems like 9/11 and the bombings around that time were a high point in death tolls from Islamist terror. But that's mostly because they are disorganised on a level that was hard to believe around that time.
Yeah I think it's funny too. It's like Smeaton cut the Gordian Knot by kicking that burning terrorist arsehole in the nuts while shouting "fucking come on then".
If there was one incident that sums up why I think British liberal civilisation will defeat the Islamist scum, it is this.
Looks like they didn't do their homework, if they're trying to bring a religious war to Glasgow. That's like pissing in an ocean of piss;-)
There was a funny article in some tabloid with the excellent headline
"I kicked a burning terrorist in the balls so hard I tore a tendon in my foot"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smeaton_(baggage_handler) John Smeaton QGM (born Bishopton, Renfrewshire in 1976) was a Scottish baggage handler at Glasgow International Airport. He became involved in thwarting the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack. Smeaton lives in Erskine, Renfrewshire,[4] a town outside the city and near the airport. Brought up in Erskine, he was educated at Park Mains High School.
Smeaton was a general bystander when he first witnessed the incident. He later recalled his first thoughts on being confronted by the two desperate suspects in a burning car as he smoked a cigarette during his break: "What's the score? I've got to get this sorted."
He added "I thought, 'That's not right,' and ran over to assist. All that was going through my mind was I've got to help the policeman, I'm not letting these guys get away with this."
It was reported that Smeaton shouted "fucking come on, then" and aimed a kick at Kafeel Ahmed, who later died from his 90% burns following the attack.
During the incident Smeaton also helped drag Michael Kerr to safety after Kerr, another person to intervene in the event, had been left lying with a broken leg beside the burning jeep after kicking Mr Ahmed himself.
The incident has been described as inspiring others to take the law into their own hands. Newsagent and former policeman Mohammed Afzah cited Smeaton as inspiration for his facing down and repelling a would-be armed robber.
In late July, Smeaton returned to his old job as a baggage handler at the airport. Later in the year he accepted a job as head of security at a nearby company.
On 18 December 2007, it was announced that Smeaton was to be awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his actions; this was presented by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 4 March 2008.
Actually the whole Wikipedia is full of priceless Glasgowisms
Asked by ITV News what his message to terrorists was, he said: "Glasgow doesn't accept this. That's just Glasgow; we'll set about ye."
"If any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: We'll rise right back up against you. New York, Madrid, London, Paisley... we're all in this together and make no mistake, none of us will hold back from putting the boot in."
So essentially you're saying it is like Microsoft Windows. That should go down well here.
Well, let's rewrite the analogy in more/. terms. The Americans - and many other countries - have monolithic constitutions. Ours is modular - a mass of different reform acts and statutes and precedents, on top of the Monarch E2 microconstitution. Britain's running on Hurd, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that "frei" doesn't usually mean "freedom" either. For example, the German "no parking" and "no stopping" street signs read "parking frei" and "stoppen frei", respectively, where "frei" means the exact opposite of "freedom". Don't be a German Nazi.
Do you seriously believe that the English language is broken and lacks the tools to explain the FSF's ideas? Or any ideas for that matter. Isn't it more likely that the person who said that just sucks at explaining the ideas and is arrogant enough to blame the language.
I think the whole repurposing of the word free is completely barking mad. Orwellian in fact. Maybe the FSF should go the whole hog and invent a language, say GnuSpeak to make pronouncements in if English is broken.
RMS could post gibberish on the net and his acolytes could then claim that if people would only take the time to learn GnuSpeak they would realise what a genius he was. Latin languages doesn't have this problem, and there's no "free vs. free" ambiguity. Thus nobody speaking those languages has the impression that FSF is playing with words.
Besides, exFAT still costs money to the user, as Vista SP1's license explicitly requires that the user has bought a valid license for Vista, which almost never costs zero, except if the user got it through some channels as MSDNAA. Well so what. I don't have exFAT on my machine that came with Vista. I download SP1. I have exFAT. According to the non FSF definition of "free" exFAT is free. I didn't have to pay for it.
I think you miss my point. The purpose of the War on Terror is to get rid of the Jihadis. There a bunch of people who fought the Russians in Afghanistan, the Serbs in Bosnia and the Russians in Chechnya. Not that all the people who fought on one side of those conflicts would go on to fight the west.
Now the odd thing is that you can start a war in any majority Muslim country and they will come. And if concentration of jihadis in Iraq increases it has to decrease in the rest of the Muslim world. That's why I used the water table analogy.
So it doesn't matter if they were in Iraq before. If you waste Saddam they will arrive to a) kill infidels and b) try to take over the government and set up a Taliban style state.
The US could have invaded Syria for example and it would have had the same effect.
exFAT isn't 'designed for USB flash devices'. Filesystems in fact don't need to be 'designed for USB flash devices' because those devices (assuming they last more than a couple of days) do wear levelling under the filesystem layer. It's a hacked up version of FAT that works past on drives bigger than 2TB or files bigger than 4GB. Since it's non back compatible and Microsoft have a new found business model of IP licensing I suspect there won't be any third party implementations. Curently there isn't a spec published for exFAT and it would be easier to patent some key part of a new filesystem than one which is back compatible with FAT.
Mind you it's still free in the sense that you don't pay for it. I'm just annoyed by people using "free software" as a synonym of the business model they favour and expect everyone to know what they mean. Microsoft could claim according to the dictionary that exFAT is free and they'd be right. The FSF doesn't own the word and can't define it. But the exFAT specification is not published (the Sun version of Open Systems) and even if it were the standard would most likely not be an open one in the sense that you don't need a license to implement it (the PC industry criteria for an Open System). Maybe it will be of course, I haven't heard a statement from Microsoft on exFAT openness and licensing.
Does it support SDHC, i.e. SD cards greater than 4GB?
I invite you to study English history, as there has been all three things. Multiple times. I think most people would put the start of the "English system" at 1688, The Glorious Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
Since that date there has been continuity. 300+ years of it.
Most countries in Europe, in their current form, are younger than the US. Well yeah, because their systems have failed numerous times and been replaced by new ones. That's really my point.
That's not true of the Terminator in T2, which really has a soul. Of course this is a Hollywoodism - movies need to have the Right Message and that means that heros, even robot ones, must have the Right Values. I prefered the minimalist, predatory soul of the original because of the opportunity for black humour whenever it speaks.
You know what. If Hofstadter started a religion, I'd probably at least attend the services. Mostly because I could meet interesting women.
It's a bit like if you were going to conduct a "War on Groundwater" it wouldn't matter where you dug the hole. If you pump fast enough the water table will sink. Similarly it doesn't matter where you fight the terrorists because they will all go there to fight you. If you can kill enough of them you'll drain terrorists from other countries.
It'll work if the US army can kill people in sufficient numbers that they beat the terrorist creation rate. And I actually think that is pretty low - you need to be literally crazy to be a potential suicide bomber. People that crazy are a tiny minority. I have great confidence in the US army's ability to kill people in large numbers, though not necessarily the right people. Now you could argue that this will recruit terrorists, but it doesn't work like that. The Syrians dealt with an Islamist uprising by levelling a couple of cities and killing 20,000 Syrians. That actually stopped the uprising - once people knew that the regime was willing to go that far they backed off support for terrorism and turned in the leaders to be executed. So it doesn't matter if the US army is a bit trigger happy, in fact it probably makes them more effective. Hell the US could nuke a couple of Iraqi cities at random and stop the war overnight if it was ruthless enough. Certainly if Iraq had been invaded by another Middle Eastern power that's would have happened.
If you look at Iraq it does seem to be working like this - the amount of violence is decreasing because the terrorists are being killed off. Once the Iraqi army is confident enough to do this, the US could actually leave. The less lethal Iraqi army could kill people at a rate sufficient to keep the numbers down. Actually I think this is another equilibrium thing - the Iraqi army will disintegrate if faced with large numbers of jihadis. But it can cope with small numbers.
So the metaphor would be the USMC as a very powerful pump. You stick it in the ground and it sucks groundwater very effectively. Meanwhile they build up the Iraqi army into a much less powerful pump. At some point the US can leave and the Iraqis can take over. And voila, the Middle East will stay dry.
Of course if you view things like this it was a terrible mistake to abolish the Iraqi army in the first place. Hell I'd have kept the Baath party, just renamed it and killed the leaders. But it would also be a terrible mistake to pull out troops now, because that means that the Islamists might take over. The Islamists have the same grim logic I have - indiscriminate slaugther to cow their opponents. That's just the way the Middle East works.
And that is why I don't support the invasion any more. Originally I supported it because it would bring democracy to Iraq and hopefully it would spread to other countries. But that doesn't work - Middle Eastern rulers are rulers because they know how to terrorise people into submission. If Iraq works we'll end up with a regime very similar to Saddams. The only difference is that the leaders will pretend to be pro American technocrats rather than pan Arab nationalists. But if you're an ordinary Iraqi it will be much the same. A bunch of corrupt bastards run the place and put down any criticism with extreme brutality. Because that sort of system is the only one that can stop Middle Eastern countries sliding into civil war. Democracy and free societies don't work there.
Ok, you could argue that all dictatorships are not equally bad and the pro American one that will be set up once the US leaves is better for regional stability and so on. But wouldn't have been in favour of the invasion if it would result in yet another Iraqi dictatorship.
Most countries in mainland Europe can't say that - they have had numerous and very bloody upheavals.
It doesn't help their "organization" any that Osama bin Laden is hiding in a cave, or that we keep killing all their officers in that silly, unjustifiable war in Iraq...
"im in ur base, killin ur doodz", as it were.
Well yeah. But the the real problem seems to be the quality of people that volunteer in Europe.E.g. Richard Reid trying to light Semtex with a cigarette lighter, or the guys that attacked Glasgow Airport and ended literally dieing in a fire but failing to kill a single other person. Someone said "these guys must have ridden the short bus to terrorist school". But they were NHS Doctors. Or the guys that did the 21st July bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings
The detonators worked but the main charge failed. Someone said "I saw an Asian gentleman with an exploded backpack looking very surprised".
Or these guys who bought a load of fertilizer with a traceable card. The guy that sold it guessed they were going to make a bomb and tipped off MI5 who already knew and were listening to everything they said or typed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6610000/newsid_6610700/6610737.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm
The thing is that a run of terrorist attacks all fail to kill any infidels and all the terrorists end up either dead or in jail and it is much harder to recruit more people willing to do suicide bombings.
Killing al Qaeda "number 2" leaders in Afghanistan is no bad thing to do, but the fact is that attacking the West requires that they can recruit people there who are not complete cretins. And they can't, or at least have failed to date. It's like they attract the sort of nutcases that would go postal and then kill themselves and these people are not up to the sort of planning and preparation that terrorism requires.
People start to make jokes about them being incompetent too, and that probably doesn't do recruitment much good.
That's pretty much how it's always worked everywhere. Kill yourself.
I loathe shopping. The idea of driving further to do it is just insane. Well it doesn't work for you and for groceries, but that doesn't mean that arbitrage won't become more popular in the whole economy.
You have to learn to generalise from an example and yourself to the broader economic principles. And even if rich people like you don't make money out doing it themselves, they could pay someone else to do it. Or more likely buy services from a business that does that.
Since you hate shopping you might pay a premium for someone to pick up your groceries from the shop and drive them to your house for example. Free fuel would encourage that sort of thing. Essentially it exploits the fact that it's now cheap to buy things where they are cheap and sell them where they are expensive.
Now this example may not apply to you either, but I'm sure now you can think of one that does.
I think I actually recall it being found by accident because it isn't where we would expected it to be, most likely it is a captured object not formed by our suns accretion disk. Can we call Kuiper Belt Objects KIBOs? That way people that are knowledgable about internet trolls but disinterested in science have one more thing in this article to snigger at.
I dunno, I think the point of BioFuels is that if something very nasty were to happen to the Opec fuckers, like say nuclear annhilation, then we could all continue to drive to work. This allows for more innovation in foreign policy. Do you think the crusades would have happened if Europe was dependent on the Middle East for something?
At least if you look at Skype and MSN and the like, people do use them all the time compared to cell phone calls and SMSs. Hell if they started to charge for slashdot I'd post elsewhere.
South America has lots of rainforests and WMDs. Do the math.
Look at Beslan for what happens when you try to use anesthetics like this. And remember in Beslan the gas was pumped in and people were immediately brought out and given medical attention. Even then a lot of them died. Now the Russian spooks characteristically fucked up by not preparing things, but from what I can tell even with immediate medical attention and the right antidote they would still have lost a few people. Your "gas the plane and fly on" is much worse than this - people need to be asleep but not dead with no medical attention for much longer.
I think you're better off having an air marshall shoot all the terrorists and hope that he doesn't kill too many civillians. There will be a few holes in the plane but with the right ammunition the plane won't explode or anything, at least according to Myth Busters.
Actually shooting the terrorists dead and writing off the collateral damage is a disincentive to future terrorist attacks I think.
The reason for the worry about terrorism was not the number of people they killed it's that as Tony Blair put it about 9/11, "Does anyone doubt that if they could have killed ten or a hundred or a thousand times as many people they would not have done so".
Though in retrospect it seems like 9/11 and the bombings around that time were a high point in death tolls from Islamist terror. But that's mostly because they are disorganised on a level that was hard to believe around that time.
Yeah I think it's funny too. It's like Smeaton cut the Gordian Knot by kicking that burning terrorist arsehole in the nuts while shouting "fucking come on then".
If there was one incident that sums up why I think British liberal civilisation will defeat the Islamist scum, it is this.
There was a funny article in some tabloid with the excellent headline
"I kicked a burning terrorist in the balls so hard I tore a tendon in my foot"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smeaton_(baggage_handler)
John Smeaton QGM (born Bishopton, Renfrewshire in 1976) was a Scottish baggage handler at Glasgow International Airport. He became involved in thwarting the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack. Smeaton lives in Erskine, Renfrewshire,[4] a town outside the city and near the airport. Brought up in Erskine, he was educated at Park Mains High School.
Smeaton was a general bystander when he first witnessed the incident. He later recalled his first thoughts on being confronted by the two desperate suspects in a burning car as he smoked a cigarette during his break: "What's the score? I've got to get this sorted."
He added "I thought, 'That's not right,' and ran over to assist. All that was going through my mind was I've got to help the policeman, I'm not letting these guys get away with this."
It was reported that Smeaton shouted "fucking come on, then" and aimed a kick at Kafeel Ahmed, who later died from his 90% burns following the attack.
During the incident Smeaton also helped drag Michael Kerr to safety after Kerr, another person to intervene in the event, had been left lying with a broken leg beside the burning jeep after kicking Mr Ahmed himself.
The incident has been described as inspiring others to take the law into their own hands. Newsagent and former policeman Mohammed Afzah cited Smeaton as inspiration for his facing down and repelling a would-be armed robber.
In late July, Smeaton returned to his old job as a baggage handler at the airport. Later in the year he accepted a job as head of security at a nearby company.
On 18 December 2007, it was announced that Smeaton was to be awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his actions; this was presented by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on 4 March 2008.
Actually the whole Wikipedia is full of priceless Glasgowisms
Asked by ITV News what his message to terrorists was, he said:
"Glasgow doesn't accept this. That's just Glasgow; we'll set about ye."
"If any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: We'll rise right back up against you. New York, Madrid, London, Paisley
Well, let's rewrite the analogy in more /. terms. The Americans - and many other countries - have monolithic constitutions. Ours is modular - a mass of different reform acts and statutes and precedents, on top of the Monarch E2 microconstitution. Britain's running on Hurd, thank you very much.
Yeah, exactly.this technology is not already in Windows say I can still say what a bunch of
[Bad manners deleted]