Those papers don't have politics. They will quite happily set their editorial policies against any government that doesn't do what they want.
"What do they want?" you may ask. They want the right to spy on anyone and everyone without limit. They want the right to get information out of the police and public officials whenever they think it will increase sales. They want Only certain people to be taxed. Who may vary but they generally do not want their owners friends to be taxed for sure...
Basically, they are journalistic sociopaths.Individuals may vary but collectively this seems to be the case.
So 23% of people in the USA do not believe in science. That actually comes to about 1% of humanity. If we allow for the fact that there will be a sizeable chunk of the world that does not know either side of the argument who would have to be discounted in the statistic and even in the most educated countries, there are those who are uninformed and there are those who choose to be.
I suspect that it will be under 5% of the world would admit to this opinion. If that was a political movement, they would be insignificant and out of government. Perhaps it is best that they stay that way...
Add something more to your name. Like "j.smith1997@nowhere.nul",...
That doesn't even work for Twitter. I have a simple handle like @something but people keep sending me stuff for @something1979 @something_a and so on.
Fortunately, Twitter is just a glorified XML feed and I just ignore most things about how I had a really good time at a party and "what was that chicks name?"
Twitter is a souped up alternative to an XML feed.
It used to be useful to keep track of interesting people and organisations. That is better done in Google Plus now.
It is no use for sharing photographs unless you have accounts in othersystems - like facebook or even Flickr.
I still have an account and it's useful for following some organisations that still use it only, They will either catch up or "go under".
Its IM is less useful than even Facebooks. I am obviously because I consider email to be an even more useful tool.
I have seen Hindus who would have had no problems in South Africa at its worst or Saudi Arabia right now. One was fair skinned and had light brown hair. I have also seen others who had really dark skin. Not all Hindus come from India either...
It's surprising that there are still some people in the USA who are surprised that your spooks are generally perceived, all over the world, to be criminals.
If you are talking about monarchs of the type that have not been seen in Western Europe for a long type, then you are probably right. They had the power to make/break treaties, declare war/peace, order executions and do on. The nearest to one of them around nowadays is the Pope and he doesn't seem to declare war often nowadays.
Most European monarchies nowadays are not so powerful. They have things to do but, whether you are talking about Spain, Sweden, the UK or the Netherlands or anywhere else in Europe, they do not declare war, they no not make the treaties and are not known for asking for public beheadings any more. No doubt, the Royal Families spread too wide. As a Brit, I hear a lot that the Queen and immediate family are good but it spreads out too far.
For example, if the Queen was in command, the UK might not have participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq. There was no benefit to this country and there were plenty obvious downsides.
Another example from a bit longer ago. During the 50s or 60s, the KGB were convinced that there would be a military coup in the UK. The reason it didn't happen has been explained by some as due to the fact that the coup would have had to be against the Queen. That is a non-starter. Your commander in chief may be a politician. The CinC around here is the queen.
Not very long ago, after Franco died, Spain found itself on the road back to democracy. The army there did not all like that and some tried to overthrow the government. The fairly new king put on his uniform and walked unarmed into the hostage situation in their parliament and told the Soldiers to stop. They did.
So you have an elected person at the top who a vocal minority think is some sort of foreign, demon, moslem marxist. A large number of the rest don't like him or what he stands for. A good number of them are the ones with money and power.
I know who our head of state is. I know her origins. I know who will replace her for several generations. I didn't need to stand up in school every morning to be brainwashed into giving my allegiance to her. As an adult, I did so freely when I put on a uniform. Every time I saluted, I saluted her. Every order I received came with her authority.
So there is the choice of half of the electorate disliking a leader? No thanks. I will stick to this system.
Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.
There used to be a legal principle that secret laws were invalid. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.
Now admittedly our laws have taken a beating due to the US Economic Hit Men and some of our politicians have shown themselves to be obedient to their masters. Someone is eventually going to point out that secret laws have less validity than unwritten agreements.
After what has been revealed recently, anyone who thinks they are an ally of the USA needs to worry more about the NSA and other criminal organisations than Pakistan. At least they do not tell everyone that they have the divinely given duty to rule over the world. They may think it but, if so, are smart enough not to tell everyone about Pakistani Exceptionalism.
I am sure plenty of other people have told you but here it is anyway...
If you goto a shop and put something into your bag, the shop is unable to sell it. You have deprived someone from selling that object. Getting a replacement will cost something - either them, their insurers or the customers. Even if you would have never bought it, you have cost them.
If you copy a file, CD/DVD or.ISO, the original item still exists. They can still sell it to all the people who want it. If you would never have bought it they have not lost a penny. They will still be able to sell just as many copies to just as many people for the same overhead. They may even sell more because someone might hear that you think it is a really good game and decide to buy it for themselves.
Most people have a limited amount of disposable cash and buy as much as they think they can afford to. What they download after that causes no marginal loss whatsoever.
That aside, the only use I have made of BT was to download Linux.ISOs and similar nerdy things.
There is an illusion that it costs more for you than the rest of us. It is caused by very artificial exchange rates. These rates also make you think that you are more highly paid in comparison to us.
For example, 1 UK pound exchanges for about $1.60 but you cannot buy as much with $1.60 as I can with a pound. A more realistic exchange rate is from $2 to as much as $2.50 to the Pound.
If you compare your prices and your wages using this, you get a different view about comparisons.
Why would a centre right president have a gang of socialists?
There are very few socialists in the USA. The politics are so distorted that some people assume that "liberal" means left wing. It doesn't. It means politically right in the middle.
If right in the middle is way to your left, where does that mean you are?
Slashdot Mirror
The bee "box" you talk about has a technical name.
It's called a beehive.
If English is not your first language, I hope this is a useful comment and your English is better than any non-first languages I speak.
Don't forget patents, copyrights, tax regulations, extradition and many many more.
Another problem?
When it does happen, enough official lies will be told that we won't know the real cause for a long time...
Or Daily Wail.
Those papers don't have politics. They will quite happily set their editorial policies against any government that doesn't do what they want.
"What do they want?" you may ask. They want the right to spy on anyone and everyone without limit. They want the right to get information out of the police and public officials whenever they think it will increase sales. They want Only certain people to be taxed. Who may vary but they generally do not want their owners friends to be taxed for sure...
Basically, they are journalistic sociopaths.Individuals may vary but collectively this seems to be the case.
KY jelly you mean?
So 23% of people in the USA do not believe in science. That actually comes to about 1% of humanity. If we allow for the fact that there will be a sizeable chunk of the world that does not know either side of the argument who would have to be discounted in the statistic and even in the most educated countries, there are those who are uninformed and there are those who choose to be.
I suspect that it will be under 5% of the world would admit to this opinion. If that was a political movement, they would be insignificant and out of government. Perhaps it is best that they stay that way...
Add something more to your name. Like "j.smith1997@nowhere.nul", ...
That doesn't even work for Twitter. I have a simple handle like @something but people keep sending me stuff for @something1979 @something_a and so on.
Fortunately, Twitter is just a glorified XML feed and I just ignore most things about how I had a really good time at a party and "what was that chicks name?"
And will never bee in a million years.
Twitter is a souped up alternative to an XML feed.
It used to be useful to keep track of interesting people and organisations. That is better done in Google Plus now.
It is no use for sharing photographs unless you have accounts in othersystems - like facebook or even Flickr.
I still have an account and it's useful for following some organisations that still use it only, They will either catch up or "go under".
Its IM is less useful than even Facebooks. I am obviously because I consider email to be an even more useful tool.
I have seen Hindus who would have had no problems in South Africa at its worst or Saudi Arabia right now. One was fair skinned and had light brown hair. I have also seen others who had really dark skin. Not all Hindus come from India either...
Hindu is not an ethnicity.
It's surprising that there are still some people in the USA who are surprised that your spooks are generally perceived, all over the world, to be criminals.
Having the Queen as my head of state seems to be better than what people in the USA put up with.
It depends on what you mean by "the top".
If you are talking about monarchs of the type that have not been seen in Western Europe for a long type, then you are probably right. They had the power to make/break treaties, declare war/peace, order executions and do on. The nearest to one of them around nowadays is the Pope and he doesn't seem to declare war often nowadays.
Most European monarchies nowadays are not so powerful. They have things to do but, whether you are talking about Spain, Sweden, the UK or the Netherlands or anywhere else in Europe, they do not declare war, they no not make the treaties and are not known for asking for public beheadings any more. No doubt, the Royal Families spread too wide. As a Brit, I hear a lot that the Queen and immediate family are good but it spreads out too far.
For example, if the Queen was in command, the UK might not have participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq. There was no benefit to this country and there were plenty obvious downsides.
Another example from a bit longer ago. During the 50s or 60s, the KGB were convinced that there would be a military coup in the UK. The reason it didn't happen has been explained by some as due to the fact that the coup would have had to be against the Queen. That is a non-starter. Your commander in chief may be a politician. The CinC around here is the queen. Not very long ago, after Franco died, Spain found itself on the road back to democracy. The army there did not all like that and some tried to overthrow the government. The fairly new king put on his uniform and walked unarmed into the hostage situation in their parliament and told the Soldiers to stop. They did.
So you have an elected person at the top who a vocal minority think is some sort of foreign, demon, moslem marxist. A large number of the rest don't like him or what he stands for. A good number of them are the ones with money and power.
I know who our head of state is. I know her origins. I know who will replace her for several generations. I didn't need to stand up in school every morning to be brainwashed into giving my allegiance to her. As an adult, I did so freely when I put on a uniform. Every time I saluted, I saluted her. Every order I received came with her authority.
So there is the choice of half of the electorate disliking a leader? No thanks. I will stick to this system.
Why are European politicians involved in "negotiations" at all? They could save their time and just sign a document written by the U.S. government. Same result with less effort.
There used to be a legal principle that secret laws were invalid. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only valid when the laws are available.
Now admittedly our laws have taken a beating due to the US Economic Hit Men and some of our politicians have shown themselves to be obedient to their masters. Someone is eventually going to point out that secret laws have less validity than unwritten agreements.
That may be why...
What on earth is infamous about it?
Most of us wish our highway system was as good.
No, there's no way a Citation could hit 132 MPH
The ones from Cessna can.
After what has been revealed recently, anyone who thinks they are an ally of the USA needs to worry more about the NSA and other criminal organisations than Pakistan. At least they do not tell everyone that they have the divinely given duty to rule over the world. They may think it but, if so, are smart enough not to tell everyone about Pakistani Exceptionalism.
To complexify it for you then...
120 years ago, you could take one ounce of gold, convert it at the "going rate" to your currency of choice and buy a nice suit.
Today, you can take an ounce of gold and convert it at the current rate to your currency of choice and buy a nice suit.
How's that?
I am sure plenty of other people have told you but here it is anyway...
If you goto a shop and put something into your bag, the shop is unable to sell it. You have deprived someone from selling that object. Getting a replacement will cost something - either them, their insurers or the customers. Even if you would have never bought it, you have cost them.
If you copy a file, CD/DVD or .ISO, the original item still exists. They can still sell it to all the people who want it. If you would never have bought it they have not lost a penny. They will still be able to sell just as many copies to just as many people for the same overhead. They may even sell more because someone might hear that you think it is a really good game and decide to buy it for themselves.
Most people have a limited amount of disposable cash and buy as much as they think they can afford to. What they download after that causes no marginal loss whatsoever.
That aside, the only use I have made of BT was to download Linux .ISOs and similar nerdy things.
Socialists as found over here since WWII.
Read about what happened in the postwar election in the UK to see what they do if not prevented by vested interests.
Some of those actions need done again.
There is an illusion that it costs more for you than the rest of us. It is caused by very artificial exchange rates. These rates also make you think that you are more highly paid in comparison to us.
For example, 1 UK pound exchanges for about $1.60 but you cannot buy as much with $1.60 as I can with a pound. A more realistic exchange rate is from $2 to as much as $2.50 to the Pound.
If you compare your prices and your wages using this, you get a different view about comparisons.
Why would a centre right president have a gang of socialists?
There are very few socialists in the USA. The politics are so distorted that some people assume that "liberal" means left wing. It doesn't. It means politically right in the middle.
If right in the middle is way to your left, where does that mean you are?
Ah, rookie mistake. Everyone forgets that traffic drives on the left once you cross the Channel.
It drives on the left everywhere that has not been culturally recalibrated by the French.