:..used a model which considered the theoretical limits of energy extraction from the wind to postulate some astonishing results. Low-altitude winds near Earth's surface hold at least 400 TW of power. But go higher up to altitudes between 200 m and 20 km and the winds confine a massive 1,800 TW, at least. Such an extraordinary amount of power can sustain an equivalent of 200 Earth habitations (Earth's global energy demand is 18 TW)!
This is a similar statement to ones like "enogh sloar energy hits the Earth's surface in one hour is enough to power the entire world for a year". Just as nobody is planning on covering the world surface for an hour to collect our annual energy needs, nobody is planning on covering the earth with stacked turbines from 200M to 20,000 M.
Bank staff could break their teeth by trying to bite coins. They could also give themselves a sun burn by keeping their hand under the note-testing UV lamp. And now they have the added hazard that they could follow a link on a QR code to an infected site.
My local paper printed a cartoon that was less than kind to Christians. There were weeks worth of letters complaining about it, and demanding they sack the artist.
You're a lying idiot trying to ignore how close your own precious Christians are to the Muslims you despise.
I know you don't want to believe how easy anybody can be incited to violence, but they can be.
Isn't it funny how they always say "you shouldn't judge Islam on the action of a few tens of thousands", but then do a Muzzie when a couple of people make a film that accurately depicts Muhammad as a paedophile warlord.
It looks to me like it's running backwards, there is something uncanny about it's gait. I love the way it does the "flip" at the end when the track gets too fast!
And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to.
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
On reflection this is a simplistic answer. War where a non-conscripted army, or where there is conscription with conscientious objection allowed, is different from attacking people who are not at war. I think I agree with you about not attacking the group whatever percentage - though in some extreme hypothetical cases I might go the other way (like what if there were 100 terrorists who would go free in a plane, and one man who may or may not support them. If you could stop it by shooting it down would you?). Even here it would be a difficult thing for me to do - my beliefs and way of life all support peace, which is why I hate Islam and its teachings.
Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).
Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA......and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.
That's a good point. However the difference is that ultimately their aims were to unite Ireland. Now I know that it is a complex issue, with most people in Northern Ireland not wanting to be reunited - but ultimately the worst that could happen is that Northern Ireland could be lost to the UK. However the stated aim of Islam, as many clerics pronounce, is complete world-wide subjugation of non-Muslims, with imposition of Sharia Law. Under Sharia you won;t be able to testify in court against a Muslim - as in Pakistan if the Muzzies kidnap and rape your daughter her testimony or yours will not count against a straight "I didn't do it" from the lying Muzzie. Also you will be subject to punitive tax, not allowed to express your views open, and if you have any "disagreements" with Muzzies they will just accuse you of blasphemy and you will be killed (obviously not allowed to contradict his claim). This is what happens weekly in Pakistan, Iran, and many other Muzzie states. There is much more to lose from the Muzzie threat than the IRA.
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.
.... and what percentage of Christians though that their actions were fully justified? If you can show that a reasonable number do then obviously the Christians should be monitored too, but I doubt if this is the case.
What some people don't realise is that there are a large number of Muslims. A quarter of these sympathise with terrorists, and six percent saying that bombing the underground in London is completely justified. With 2,869,000 Muzzies that's 172,000 odd who think its fine to commit terrorist acts, and 717,000 odd who would sympathise with them when they do. Obviously wherever possible subservience should be targeted at the Muslims, but we all need to expect some increased level.
In particular white converts should be subject to extra scrutiny, as they seem to be more likely to be involved in extremism. I think it was Robert Spencer who said that maybe hearing Imams calling for murder daily from a young age has an "inoculation's effect" on born Mulsims, many of whom disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.
Slashdot Mirror
:..used a model which considered the theoretical limits of energy extraction from the wind to postulate some astonishing results. Low-altitude winds near Earth's surface hold at least 400 TW of power. But go higher up to altitudes between 200 m and 20 km and the winds confine a massive 1,800 TW, at least. Such an extraordinary amount of power can sustain an equivalent of 200 Earth habitations (Earth's global energy demand is 18 TW)!
This is a similar statement to ones like "enogh sloar energy hits the Earth's surface in one hour is enough to power the entire world for a year". Just as nobody is planning on covering the world surface for an hour to collect our annual energy needs, nobody is planning on covering the earth with stacked turbines from 200M to 20,000 M.
If I link to http://mysite.com/It was the day my grandmother exploded. I sat in the crematorium, listening to my Uncle Hamish quietly snoring in harmony to Bach's Mass in B Minor, and I reflected that it always seemed to be death that drew me back to Gallanach. that could be copyright infringement in a URL.
Do you have specifically purposed machinery I can crush chinks with? Besides communism, I mean.
I prefer poking to crushing. Chrushing is the Cowboyneal approach...
If you think that Android is not full of spyware, I have a bridge to sell you.
But I am only using the pre-installed Apps, straight from the factory in China, Oh Wait.....
Bank staff could break their teeth by trying to bite coins. They could also give themselves a sun burn by keeping their hand under the note-testing UV lamp. And now they have the added hazard that they could follow a link on a QR code to an infected site.
They can start with the Qur'an and hadith
By that account the 2012 olympic logo should have been banned - it was well known that this depicts Lisa Simpson giving someone a blowjob.
Christians don't try to kill people over a film? Really?
And look at how they got condemnation and not support from all major Christian denominations. Look at how most Muslims support murder over a film.
My local paper printed a cartoon that was less than kind to Christians. There were weeks worth of letters complaining about it, and demanding they sack the artist.
You're a lying idiot trying to ignore how close your own precious Christians are to the Muslims you despise.
I know you don't want to believe how easy anybody can be incited to violence, but they can be.
If you think that writing nasty letters to the editor is equivalent of murdering the US Ambassador and other consulate staff then you must be a Muslim.
Sure, right after all muslims move to Mars.
Isn't it funny how they always say "you shouldn't judge Islam on the action of a few tens of thousands", but then do a Muzzie when a couple of people make a film that accurately depicts Muhammad as a paedophile warlord.
On what frequency band is it deployed?
Hey, is that you Kenneth?
that my pension pot could become worthless in 0.005 seconds due to a programming error
For it to be "terrorism", it would have to be in some way terrifying. It wasn't.
Attempted terrorism, if you must - and even if you mustn't, that's still only your opinion. I'm sure plenty of people were terrified at the time.
A burning car full of propane gas canisters crashing through the glass doors of a public building would do it for me.
It looks to me like it's running backwards, there is something uncanny about it's gait. I love the way it does the "flip" at the end when the track gets too fast!
And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to.
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
On reflection this is a simplistic answer. War where a non-conscripted army, or where there is conscription with conscientious objection allowed, is different from attacking people who are not at war. I think I agree with you about not attacking the group whatever percentage - though in some extreme hypothetical cases I might go the other way (like what if there were 100 terrorists who would go free in a plane, and one man who may or may not support them. If you could stop it by shooting it down would you?). Even here it would be a difficult thing for me to do - my beliefs and way of life all support peace, which is why I hate Islam and its teachings.
Wow. Your source of information is 8 years old. Way to quote a random survey that backs up your point.
Taken shortly after the attack, so people knew exactly what they were answering to.
And, you shouldn't attack a group of people for any percentage of them doing something you object to.
So you're a 100% pacifist as far as war is concerned then.
Hell, I bet if you were honest, you would say that you sympathize with his actions (without condoning them).
Don't be ridiculous, for one thing I cannot comprehend why he attacked a labour party camp, apparently all non-Muslims. Secondly even if he had attacked Muslims, this would be descending to their level. As I said, many Muslims disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal. The security services should be ruthless in dealing with those supporting terror, people certainly shouldn't attack a mass group for the actions and belief of 6% of them.
The Glasgow airport "attack" wasn't terrorism, it was two drunk Asian kids crashing a car. It happens all the time in Renfrew, it's a rough area.
I suppose they all plant car bombs in London before-hand, fill their cars with petrol and propane tanks, and that if they survive are Jailed for life for planned mass murder?
We've never had any bother from the Muslims here, at all.
Apart from the 77 bombings, the Glasgow Airport attack, the Exetrer bomb attack, shoe bomber and dozens of failed attempts and arrests.
There are also a large number of Irish people, a significant fraction of which used to sympathise with the the IRA..... .and we managed to resolve that issue without panopticon surveillance and giving up our human rights.
That's a good point. However the difference is that ultimately their aims were to unite Ireland. Now I know that it is a complex issue, with most people in Northern Ireland not wanting to be reunited - but ultimately the worst that could happen is that Northern Ireland could be lost to the UK. However the stated aim of Islam, as many clerics pronounce, is complete world-wide subjugation of non-Muslims, with imposition of Sharia Law. Under Sharia you won;t be able to testify in court against a Muslim - as in Pakistan if the Muzzies kidnap and rape your daughter her testimony or yours will not count against a straight "I didn't do it" from the lying Muzzie. Also you will be subject to punitive tax, not allowed to express your views open, and if you have any "disagreements" with Muzzies they will just accuse you of blasphemy and you will be killed (obviously not allowed to contradict his claim). This is what happens weekly in Pakistan, Iran, and many other Muzzie states. There is much more to lose from the Muzzie threat than the IRA.
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, both terrorists and both Christians, so by your "logic" we should watch Christians as well.
.... and what percentage of Christians though that their actions were fully justified? If you can show that a reasonable number do then obviously the Christians should be monitored too, but I doubt if this is the case.
Your noting has been noted.
And your noting my noting has been noted
What some people don't realise is that there are a large number of Muslims. A quarter of these sympathise with terrorists, and six percent saying that bombing the underground in London is completely justified. With 2,869,000 Muzzies that's 172,000 odd who think its fine to commit terrorist acts, and 717,000 odd who would sympathise with them when they do. Obviously wherever possible subservience should be targeted at the Muslims, but we all need to expect some increased level.
In particular white converts should be subject to extra scrutiny, as they seem to be more likely to be involved in extremism. I think it was Robert Spencer who said that maybe hearing Imams calling for murder daily from a young age has an "inoculation's effect" on born Mulsims, many of whom disobey the Qur'an and Hadith by living peacefully with non-Muslims and treating them as equal.
Nope. Freedom of Speech? Nope.
This has been noted in your file ...