Walsingham

I'm windproofing the folk's home.

I only regard foreign wars as a bad idea when we start them. Afghanistan government, and their proxy Al Qaeda, attacked us therefore we had the right to annihilate them. We should have brought our full military power against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and focused on them till everyone in those organizations was nothing but a smoldering corpse. Iraq was no threat to the US therfore any military action against them was unjustified. You stole my biscuits! I annihilate you! *chases offender around with nuke on a stick*

Sorry. My sloppy language. I meant the their privacy policy. In short you hand Facebook complete license to: 1) Gather as much information on you as they deem fit 2) Gather information on you by any means they see fit (even outside facebook) 3) Sell said information to any third party they see fit I don't consider this approach to be justifiable by any wholesome business model. Nor does it fit within Parliament's guidelines of what constitutes legal behaviour in the UK*. It's insanely intrusive, and why I will NEVER open a facebook account. *Facebook isn't UK based, but the guidelines are intended to reflect best practice also. Data gathered by any organisation should be specified, and limited to pre-defined and reasonable areas of interest. Your doctor can note how many hours of exercise you do, but not jot down what brands you're wearing so they can sell on the information.

I thought you regarded all foreign wars as evil, including Afghanistan? Anyway, Jags, you're ignoring my central point, either because I haven't explained it properly, or deliberately. None of those methods you mention would seriously hamper an assassination attempt. Re-read my post: "Jags, the jammers are for IEDs not suicide bombers. And even then they don't work against command wires (obviously). I don't think he was remiss to not provide them. I mean it's the kind of trash you could foist on a corporate client as a sort of comp on insurance, but it's just fluff. as for bomb detection equipment, anyone who tells you they have some is selling lead to gold. "But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred." Is completely false." the point is that bomb jammers don't jam, and bomb detectors usually fail to detect. The simple fact of the matter is that just about anyone can be killed if they don't practice a variety of security precautions too long to list in entirety, but very few of which seem to have been actioned. She chose to maximise political effect while running a risk. If it had paid off I've no doubt it would have paid handsomely. However, I believe the odds were extremely poor, and she made a bad choice. If she was indeed shot by a sniper then this opens the floor slightly to other candidates. It could have been govt with an insurance explosion. However, it doesn't change the fact that she was deliberately exposing herself to harm in a predictable slow-moving mass rally. At the very least she was inviting the slaughter of her own supporters!

Jags, the jammers are for IEDs not suicide bombers. And even then they don't work against command wires (obviously). I don't think he was remiss to not provide them. I mean it's the kind of trash you could foist on a corporate client as a sort of comp on insurance, but it's just fluff. as for bomb detection equipment, anyone who tells you they have some is selling lead to gold. "But for the denial of the detonation jammers and bomb detection equipment requested, her death would not have occurred." Is completely false. You correctly say that Musharraf would have to be an idiot to not do all he could to protect her, since it was in his interests. But you conclude this makes him an idiot. I suggest that his continued survival in the toughest political position in the world indicates he is not an idiot. I conclude that in fact he did everything he could, bearing in mind he can't trust his own security intelligence service.

I agree. I get no sense of adventure in most recent games. You may as well be playing whackamole in Jersey.

When young, roast em. When old, stew em.

Following this with interest. I'm sure I speak for all of us in a hearty welcome to the Chinese language fans, and fully support getting this fixed.

As long as you voted you can sleep at night. I only get really annoyed at people who think not voting is a protest. It's not an economic boycott, you dimlows!

Jags, this article argues two points that she was surrounded by her own supporters. The only way she could have avoided suicide bombing is the same one everyone has to use, varying her routes, and applying total secrecy. But she was clearly ignoring the risks in order to raise her profile. Stratfor.com: "Musharraf on his own is unable to deal with a growing crisis of governance in the country, much less with Islamist militancy. The solution was to bring Bhutto

One example of that would be in times of food shortages. When the body has had a lack of food over a period of time, the mind reverts to that of a crazed animal. Instances of cannibalism has shown this. As already been stated in here, man would break down rather fast in the event of a catastrophic event like a nuclear war. Most of the survivors would not possess the knowledge and means to support themselves, we rely far too much on technology. I don't think there's anything wrong with relying on technology. The problem is merely that we don't teach backup procedures. No-one even keeps a larder for pity's sake. And that's both safe and economical.

I've read E.E. 'Doc' Smith, and I for one am not looking forward to the reign of sci-fi.

Well, i think it would be oversimplifying to say that the morning after they get nukes they be awake before dawn like kids at Christmas, itching to unleash fiery death. But between the years of hatred, and the nature of terrorist politics (like scissor paper stone, with moderation and increased violence as options - increased violence always wins) it would be simply a matter of time. They'd make more and more demands before convincing themselves that we'd not retaliate. They might be right, since the question becomes who are we retaliating against? Altogether not good under such circumstances. But don't fret, chaps. It's all just a neocon scare story. You can sleep safe and sound.

Hoo-ah!

I was discussing this with a lawyer the other day. Apparently in a UK court you can argue that a contract is unreasonable. So if a EULA obliges you to act as surrogate mother for IBM's CEO then our geriatric wig-wearers will see you alright. However, in the bright shiny rational New World* what you sign is what you get. BTW, on this subject has anyone checked the privacy section of Facebook? *This is me being sarcastic about America.

I wasn't being clear. I meant that if the jifascists seized power then they would have the nukes. And, you may still be right, because just like in an ordinary suicide bombing the self-satisfied 'scholar' ordering the nukes to fly will be thousands of miles away when he tells them to go.

She was a kind of womanly dude. I don't know much about her, but she must have been very special to command political respect in such a rambunctious country, being a woman. I don't believe it was Musharraf for two reasons: 1) Strategically Bhutto may well have been an opponent to Musharraf, but she was a firm ally against the Jifascists. She had no real choice in the matter since they had already sentenced her to death before she came back. Besides which, tehre's no way they'd let someone who believed in democracy and women's rights run around. Let alone get into power. 2) Tactically, the use of a suicide bomber implies jifascists. Well, jifascists or Tamil Tigers, but i think we can rule the latter out. My money is on Taleban allied members of the ISI. These guys have some seriously odd notions about being 'clever', like provoking wars with India, financing terrorists in Kashmir, running heroin etc etc. They probably think they win all round with this stupidity. ~~~ Kaft, not to put too fine a point on it, but when you say using nukes would be like committing suicide... we're talking about people who do that all the time. Like, just now.

I am what I eat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7061568.stm I'm sure you're all smart enough to see how.

I'd like to add: Lazy Media Dandies: Charges - Making a living by traducing serious debate to the level of schoolyard insults. Masters of the one line bon mot. Believing that reading a weekend supplement article on a foreign country written by another media dandy qualifies you to criticise it.Vilifying self-appointed moral crusaders in parallel with a moral crusade against poorly organised dinner parties. Telling us we should care more about the economy than celebrities when they neither care about nor understand the economy. Writing witty articles about fire while Rome burns. Being paid for all the above. Evidence: Coverage of the Darfur issue. Sentence: A solid day's proper work.

Assuming I wasn't supposed to I began reading them years ago. It's actually quite an education. My favourite was spybot S&D which insisted I accept the author's girlfriend was the best women in the universe. Luckily I had just split up with mine or there could have been ructions.

That's just bloody silly.

Same here, but that's because they keep poking pine-cones into my eyes.

Paul Bettany. Doesn't look like much, but in person he makes women melt like ice-cream.

They're n00bs, Walsy. However, n00bs = St00pid. Given that St00pid = English commensurate with You-Tube comments, It can be concluded that, n00bs = NO grammar and punctuation. -- We can't change the way there our dear Walsy - a fish will swim, a scorpion will sting, and a n00ber will be st00pid. All we can show is empathy... ...pike off mono-paragraphing n00b! Whereas of course neither of us were ever n00bs?