Walsingham

Some things were badly planned. the superdome idea was good up to a point, but things like the failure of power and water leading to a degree of chaos, and a failure of the sewage system were emminently predictable. A further key concept in dealing with large worried crowds is to quickly set up some means of dissemninating information to prevent rumours and quell anxiety. This is often used in crowd control, but was not done either. Just damn sloppy. Asking around, however, I think a lot of this is down to the relatively poor standard of public officers in NO, rather than some latent racism towards the area from outside.

+10 points for running through the Patriot Act, Ender. Calax, saying your going to kill someone is a threat or possibly intimidation. I am almost certain this has been illegal since forever. "You know, Louie, Jimmy is concerned you haven't paid him his money this year. You don't do it, you gonna be sleeping with the fishes." "You can't extort any money from me." "Who said anything about extortion? This is freedom of speech I'm exercisin' here!" Ender, maybe I'm missing something, but speech is an essential component of many illegal acts. Outlawing some types of speech seems to me only sensible. Moreover as we have demonstrated, in at least the UK, and maybe in the States we have banned certain types of free speech, and neither of us are living in dictatorships. I think this proves it is not an all or nothing deal, here.

i happen to think there is still mileage in the Iraq incident which started this thread. Has anyone seen any reports coming ack as to how the incident will affect the referendum?

Wait... Microsoft are evil, now?

- I believe it is a 'gateway' partly because it brings people [edit: as pointed out by Shryke, below] into contact with the underground, and partly because it is a lighter drug. People tend to drink before taking heroin. Doesn't mean there's a direct connection. - I don't believe marijuana causes mental ill-health in less than unreasonable quantities. Mentally ill people may take it more than others, but this is typical medical research causation/correlation debate. - The British Medical Journal (very staid mainstream medical journal) assessed the health issues of marijuana around 2000. Their conclusion was that there was no medical reason why marijuana should be illegal, especially when compared with alcohol and cigarettes. I concur. - I believe especially that given our capacity to prescribe medical use of opium and cocaine that legalising marijuana is only logical. - The proliferation of addictive substances over the last hundred years has not lead toi a concomitant rise in addicts. I therefore suggest that it is bogus to claim legalisation of marijuana would somehow add to the toll of addicts. This is ignoring the fact that marijuana is so easy to acquire it is almost legal anyway. - Prohibition of marijuana strains law-enforcement resources and drains money into the black economy.remove illegal trade in marijuana and you cut out a drug which is easy to make steady profits on, and easy for youngsters to learn the ropes of dealing on. ~ Ultimately I believe legalisation of marijuana is only logical given certain assumptions. - Human beings enjoy and seek out mind-altering experiences. Church, mountain climbing, laudanum, LSD, dave's Insanity Hot Sauce you name it. - We allow drugs like acohol and nicotine to be used for recreational purposes despite the health and society damage they incur. - We allow drugs like the opiates to be used for medical purposes despite the health and society damage they incur. - The trade in marijuana is strong despite prohibition efforts, and further prohibiton distracts from efforts to stop far worse drugs.

Good luck. Don't forget to pay your bills on time.

Good idea. Except I don't know anything about collectibel card games, and intend to keep things that way.

happened to me today twice. has happened in the past. Am using Firefox, if that helps.

leading on from our recent discussions of animal importance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4210064.stm

I think it is worth noting how hard line these chaps are compared to how our govt would be. Our blokes would be hard pressed to get permission to return fire in a built-up area like that. I'm not saying I want to be different, but a short spell could be refreshing.

Well, anyone else is free to use the idea. I'm too busy. Or rather, I'm time wasting now, but if I start making videos my colleageus may realise and catch me red handed.

ROFL

I was thinking maybe the democrats video. Where we 'dress up' in civvies and make a tedious but obviously hilarious funny and poignant comment or two on how we feel certain ways about things, condemn terrorism, and say how we are about ot NOT give up our lives, nor take anyone elses. this will rely on three things: 1) a video camera 2) a sense of humour 3) talent 4) technical editing skills 5) a face that doesn't turn stomachs. I have none of these.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210238.stm Different view of those who stayed. Seems pretty sensible. Except for the flooding this would not have been so bad in NO. Also, just to shoot myself in the foot... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4211528.stm shows a more calm and collected Bush/govt. Illuminati Last is just me mixing up passive and active grammar. Do it all the time. Illuminati is the finest game ever made for four or more conspiracy tehorist gamers. Goes well with beer and starchy snacks.

I don't think I understand. But I can say I don't believe in astrology. Well, excepting The Onion's astrologer. He is always right on the money. I was implying that this woman was kind implying a retro-phrenological standpoint - i.e. I predicted what your personality would be based on the shape of your skull, but then you got tonked on the noggin and all bets are off; also I can define your personality by tapping your bonce with tiny hammers.

I mean I don't expect US presidents to be 'all there', but this is pretty far out stuff. I'm sure his team will come up with some way to salvage this, in any event. He has the mass media and a team of very clever folk backing him up. Thinks: it has been far too long since I played Illuminati last.

We should make a non-terrorist video on the same lines, culminating in a carefully planned operation where we travel to London and kill no-one.

Sounds good. Now make it so I'm a rum-crazed welshman shooting zulus.

extra hint: if someone tries to kill you with a close quarters weapon, don't stand so close to them.

Hey, its a solid link.... guns, mayhem, guys in kevlar. Proper 11xHooah territory.

The point is, as I say, that acts of crime and or violence of a certain sophistication require groups of people to act in concert. Motivating and mobilising such groups requires speech. Making it difficult to motivate such people makes the acts more difficult to arrange. I'm not just arguing for the sake of it. Al Qaeda just released one of their cute little propaganda videos from one of the london bombers. The families of the dead are justly concerned that it is getting aired all over the place. They say it gives oxygen to the lies contained in it.

Meta: I thought FEMA had responsibility for making sure all the issues you mentioned were taken care of IN ADVANCE. I also saw this on the Beeb, attributed to junior. "When President Bush told "Good Morning America" on Thursday morning that nobody could have "anticipated" the breach of the New Orleans levees, it pointed to not only a remote leader in denial, but a whole political class." Not only could they have anticipated it using standard engineering techniques, but they DID predict the levees would not stand up to a category four or five. The man is conkers. Quite mad.

Shouldn't she have predicted the probe hitting the comet? And if you can change fate by crashing probes into comets I want to know precisely how, and I want a crate or three of probes ready to launch in the next 24 hours.

I think that's a fair summary. It seems to jibe well with the fact that the social contract is not so binding in teh US. for example, most citizens seem to feel it is both a right and a necessity to protect their health and property, be it with guns, mace, or whatever. Whereas however dimly Brits view the police the default is to rely on the State to protect us. Thus, having deferred the burden of protecting ourselves to the govt we get especially annoyed when the govt appears to be dodging its responsibility. I also wonder if there is not some mileage in considering this from a utilitarian perspective. It MAY be an unconscionable philosophical error to abrogate some nutter's freedom to organise and lead his tacky band of fethwits, but should I really care?

213374U, you raise enough points to cause me to re-examine my stance at the next opportunity. However, I stand by my earlier statement for the time being. In particular i question whether we would have the adaptability you tout under the conditions of social anarchy which would accompany such a nuclear disaster. Our greatest achievements rely on complex systems functioning, and such complex systems are inherently vulnerable to disharmony among the human operators concerned. A vault, and its attendant systems, such as hydroponics and recycling, could fail as easily from a mental breakdown as a mechanical one. Just look at the damage a handful of peasants can do to an oil-refinery for illustration. If either of us had hard data on this subject it would be rather stupid to go publishing it online, in any case. Also, bear in mind that weapons aren't the only potential source of nuclear disaster. A reactor core meltdown can be far far worse. You may not be old enough to remember Chernobyl, but that could have been far far worse, and it was very bad. ~ I don't agree about the issue of monopolies. i am not alking about exclusive rights to whole planets, but exclusive rights to areas defined around settlements that could be used for exploitation later. Right now there is noreason for anyone to be the first people to Mars or wherever because they are obliged to help everyone else follow. Europe didn't manage to circle the globe in colonies in barely 150 years by agreeing to share nicely.