Walsingham

NSFW - Pete and Dud discuss endangered animals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZmDsiiXXk

I must have missed the rhino enabled keyboard.

That's company greed at work. They figured out they'll sell more if it doesn't last long so it has to be replaced. I have a black-and-white portable TV that's at least 40 years old, and I must have dropped it a few times. Still works like a charm. The new stuff isn't made to last. Deliberately. And here was me thinking it might be entropy....

You've obviously never come unexpectedly face to face with a baboon. EDIT: I don't want to come across to a bystander as if I'm trying to bash Rosbif. He's a good lad, and to do him credit he's trying to get his head round an opposing viewpoint. How often do I do that? Not very ****ing often. I'd also observe that human perceptions of risk are notoriously borked. Even if Ros accepted logically points about gun safety it's unlikely he'd change his behaviour. I don't pay any attention whatsoever to the statistical likelhood of the things which scare me, in terms of taking precautions. However, I'm not saying we can't try and dscuss this sort of thing rationally when it comes to _national policy_. At that level and where a risk is shared by all, precautions should be oriented on rationalism.

I know that many people have an objection to hunting on the grounds that it isn't sporting. A bear is a mighty foe, but not if you have a rifle powerful enough to perforate a light armoured vehicle. My question is therefore twofold: 1) Would it be acceptable to permit hunting of animals larger than men, if the men were armed with muscle-powered weapons shorter than their arm? 2) Would it be acceptable to permit hunting of smaller animals (foxes etc.) if the hounds were dachshunds? [i attempted to post some adorable pictures of dachhunds, but the goddamn 'dachshund community' regard pictures of these animals as sacred or something, and won't link externally.] [i am inclined to eat the next dachshund I see, with chilli relish, to even the score]

OK, so, my current spec is (partial info I know): Intel Core i7 920@ 2.67 ghz Installed RAM is 6 gig. 64 bit OS Windows 7 pro. Nvidia GTX 470

All right, in that case I do understand. But I personally always worry more about the chance of a weapon in the house doing damage to my family than the extreme off chance that some lunatic breaks in. Well, I guess it's a (relatively) high risk that you can directly mitigate versus a low risk which is less controllable. Which means we differ on our respective faith in being able to manage our kids. My kids are entirely imaginary so they're great. Apart from the giraffes.

Zor, I'm as fond of the Thais as the next man. But I hardly think they have a sound democracy. Oh wait, balls. That's not what you were saying is it?

I will concede that Jadedwolf is fighting his corner well.

We were talking about this last night over a very pleasant meal. I conceded a point which may be interesting. My point is that the warmists assert we have to take radical action or we're apocalypse bound. Since I don't believe radical action is politically possible without a One World State, and I don't want a One World State then I am left with one conclusion: we're going to take expensive but ineffective action. I don't want to take ineffective action at great expense.

Bruce is right, but he can still bugger off.

Excluding oby's lazy trolling it sounds like a good place to go. So should I definitely go to the capital then, or would it make sense to headquarter outside it somewhere?

My point wasn't the pathos. You asked to understand. Speaking from my perspective I'll take my chances with teaching my kids not to be halfwits with deadly stuff. Better bet than someone else teaching their kids not to be rapist fruitcakes.

Running with a hunch, quite interested in maybe living in Estonia for a couple of years. I've been UK bound too long, basically. IIRC we have some Estonians on the forum. Anyone care to do a quick country brief?

Home Invasion More recently, two paroled criminals were each charged with three counts of capital murder during a home invasion into the Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut on July 23, 2007. During the invasion, the mother died of asphyxiation due to strangulation and the two daughters died of smoke inhalation after the suspects set the house on fire. The men were charged with first-degree sexual assault, murder of a kidnapped person, and murder of two or more people at the same time. The state attorney sought the death penalty against the suspects.[25] The first defendant, Steven Hayes, was found guilty of 16 of 17 counts including capital murder on October 5, 2010 and on November 8, 2010 was sentenced to death. His co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, was convicted of all 17 counts against him in October, 2011. Both men were sentenced to death. (See Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders.) ... Many U.S. states (particularly those that endorse the Castle Doctrine) include defending oneself against forcible entry of one's home as part of their definition of justifiable homicide without any obligation to retreat."

A thought occurred to me that a lot of fantasy bad guys/monsters have motivations we can understand. Even if it's something like "chew people's hypothalamus". In Iain M. Banks' Culture books he makes a big deal out of having aliens whose motivations are pretty bonkers or seem nonsensical. I find the approach disconcerting, but thought I'd throw it in there.

I've been scrolling for the entire National Anthem (I had to amuse myself somehow) and I'm still not at Mars. I believe that exploration will require some sort of half way rest stop. EDIT: Still going. You know, maybe if we had a competitive approach to Mars we could have a war with China over it. Which would make the trip more interesting. EDIT2: Or maybe we could just tell the people on the trip we were at war? EDIT3: OK. Done now.

Is anyone else imagining Nep in a setup like Northern Exposure?

Well, Berenice, welcome to the forums. Can't say I agree. You may find it less annoying to look at the attitude differently. A planetary ecosystem is a Bloody Big Thing. By which I mean that while I don't doubt we could **** it up, the odds of doing so by carrying on as we are, are pretty slim. And even if we did the consequences would be reversible by virtue of the damage we'd do to ourselves in the process. Personally I have enough to worry about with religious genocide, nuclear war, and meteorite strikes without worrying about climate change. Indeed, the solutions to most of the former directly contradict the latter.

And we love you too. You racist bastard.

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway. I've stayed at hotels worse than that. It's a bit of an aside, but organised crime definitely 'shops around' for countries with weak state power and 'good' jails. It's one reason why so many drug smuggling routes go through Holland.

If I may say so I think you have hugely underestimated the changes in Japan since the 90s. My understanding is that the 'faith' of the new generation has been sorely tested by all the scandals and economic **** ups. I'm certainly no expert. What little I know comes from studying the yakuza. But I think refusing a dime wager is more than a little pessimistic.

So, OK. What did I get wrong? Are terrorists not going to get drone bombed and detained without trial if they are US cits, or is there some quality to them which makes them different that I didn't list?

Even if somehow the US stopped being reliant on the Mideast for energy, they'd still be supplying China and Japan. You rely on both China and Japan for production and capital flows. Just like Europe, Africa, and the rest of Austral/Asia do. So by extension you'll still have to watch the Mideast like a hawk. I mean this in a kind way, but you chaps really have to stop pretending the rest of the World is going to go away.