Well yes I was going for humour (note the spelling) but I was also correct. You may have been correct for where you were. But in the UK you are responsible for having your instrumentation working correctly.

I can just see this being argued in court -

"I was only over the speed limit because I changed my tires. "

Anyone who calls Borneo the 'Amazon of the southern hemisphere' hasn't got much idea of geography. Both are near the equator, but if anything Borneo is overall slightly further north than the Amazon basin.

If it is effective on female skin, it is probably also effective on male skin. But maybe not as effective; male skin is thicker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Skin_and_hair) so it may need a stronger dose?

About two years into my current job, I was able to guess which of my longer serving colleagues had written or contributed to various anonymous documents and reports floating around the office. The processes are easy; learning what words they use misuse or confuse, who writes in a more formal or a more chatty style, those who seem to be unable to leave out detail or write a precis when appropriate, et.c. What confuses this is copy-editing and the numerous copied passages that are typically found in such documents.

And that Facebook protester was arrested for burning a poppy on Facebook which could have set Facebook on fire. And possibly caused millions of people using Facebook to catch fire. And who knows what else?

Presumably the hospital still manages to make a profit otherwise it would close, so they can still function with the the 40 or 50% discount. Does that not mean that the uninsured individual is effectively overcharged?

Posting as you suggested above is what Apple should have done first time around; not act like a five year old, sticking up their finger while apologising. You make five year olds apologise in order to teach them how to function in society. Companies (and other organisations) can easily find themselves acting like five year olds since they don't have the same instinctive inhibitions that individuals have.

And "their judges are looking to deceive them" - are you saying that the judges are in Samsung's pocket?

You know, the classic answer to 'why do bullies bully?' Because the victim allows it.

And obviously you did not get any of this 'liberal arts' education, since you could not be bothered to start sentences with capital letters, and use obscenities liberally and unnecessarily in your writing,

A man was convicted of a minor offence for refusing to obey a police instruction to leave a green space on which an olympic practice pitch was to be built. He was then served a further order banning him from going anywhere near anything connected with the Olympics.

"The asbo, which will be either confirmed or overturned by magistrates at the start of May, prohibits Moore from going within 100 yards of any Olympic-related venue, "route" or the home of participants, officials or spectators, or approaching any road where the Olympic torch will pass that day."

That means a pretty large area. Since he lives in London and cannot possibly know where the homes of all these numerous people are, it seems to mean that he can be arrested for leaving his house.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/17/protester-receives-olympic-asbo

They set up a sting that bought just 16 items. Did they also ensure that the purchases were made from sources that they expected to get fakes from or did they carry out a genuine 'best value' procurement? If they did the former, this sounds trivial. Any good purchasing decision should ensure a check on the reputation and record of the vendor.

This argument can go on forever of course. The convention on the rights of the sea only exist in peacetime. Wikipedia cannot be considered reliable by itself of course, but since you have used it, I will also. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements]

Further that as a state of war still existed with the Arab nations, the Arab League was not hindered in their right to deny Israel the freedom of navigation through the Arab League waters.

This myth of peace loving Israel that only acts in self defence is deeply engrained in its apologists (which includes much of the west). In addition to the other actions quoted above, lets provide some obvious ones.

Egypt, 1956.in response to the nationalisation of the Suez canal. Yes, this set the Israeli standard for what is considered offensive action by its neighbours,
Egypt, Syria and Jordan 1967. Although it is widely alleged that this was in response to a joint plan by these countries to attack Israel, the military offense was all Israeli and without warning or any actual attack.
Egypt and Syria, 1973. Note that while Egypt and Syria had attacked Israeli positions, these were to reoccupy land occupied by Israel in 1966 and Israel's borders were never threatened; the Syrians even stopped on the Golan when they could have carried on.

No economic activity at 100%? The citizenry may not be spending money but the government will still be doing so; if the money is not spent it will be a meaningless concept. If in this hypothetical situation the government spends the money to to cater adequately for all citizens needs (i.e. the nation becomes an utopian socialism), then there is in theory no problem. It is not necessary for the government to spend the money itself, it is perfectly possible for the government to give every citizen an allowance to spend according their wishes. Don't ask for examples; this is just a rebuttal of the quoted statement, which is not 'obviously correct'. I appreciate it might make more sense in the context of monetarist economics. But that comes with a whole load of preconceptions, which you have taken for granted.