Executions have never really worked as a deterrent, and they don't in the US today. The most thorough research where pairs of counties all over the US were compared, a slight (non significant) brutalising effect were all that could be shown. (I.e. the death penalty tends if anything to lead to worse crime, not less.)

But sure, those were where executions weren't public. In the bad old days in England when pick-pockets were hanged for their crimes, who were busy working the audience of the hangings? Pick-pockets...

For those of us for which deterrence works, prison and social condemnation has already maxed out our unwillingness to commit crime. For the rest, the chair is as abstract, and useless a deterrent, a punishment as a long prison sentence.

What? Are you going to force anaesthesiologists to perform executions? How? By threatening them with the death penalty if they don't do it?

Nope. If you consistenly could find your car at the top of the hill for no extra effort, that would be great. And should be included in the efficiency (why not?).

It's not as if a heat pump has to put the heat back into the ground/air/water after you're done heating your house, like you would have to with the car if you ever drove it down the hill, so not a good car analogy, but points for trying.

Who said that the taxpayers funded the network? It was funded by those that chose to connect. If not enough people connect, then no fibre for the area. In my case it was the local district heating company that also lay fibre when they dug up the streets anyway. Cheap and effective.

But, sure, we have (had) people who aren't "interested" in high-speed (aka "only speed") access. Like I'm sure was the case with electrification and city water and sewage treatment. They've mostly come crawling back with their tail between their legs when/if they get the chance to get connected. So I have no fundamental problem with taxpayers footing some of the bill. Much like I don't have a problem when I have to pay for railways I don't personally use, roads I don't travel on, schools I (no longer) send my kids to, etc. etc.

One reason we Swedes manage to stay competitive is undoubtedly our infrastructure, which internet connectivity is a recent part of.

Fun fact: The buildout of fibre connectivity is faster in rural areas, where many communities band together in co-ops to get fibre as it's seen as one way to get young people to stay, instead of moving to the city. So they're fighting hard not only for schools, and groceries these days, but mostly for fibre.

That's how we do it in most of "socialist" Sweden. I.e. I have an "open city network" fibre to my house. ISPs are free to sell service on that fibre/network (for a small access fee that pays for the network infrastructure, now less than 10% of my montly fee). So I have a choice of eight different ISPs and pay about $40/month for 100/100Mbps + IP telephony (no subscription fee, but charged calls). I also get cable TV over the same fibre from a different company but that's extra, about $25 for the channels I get.

That's how you'd actually want it organised to enable a free market.

Yes, but that was long before chips were ever fielded, in the eighties and nineties. And the setting wasn't credit card fraud but debit card ATM "ghost" or "phantom" withdrawals.

Now, in the US the government said to the banks, "it's your problem, you fix it". In the UK the banks managed to say to the government "It's the customer's defrauding us, we'll nail them". Yes, it was a hard time being a customer in the UK, actually being convicted of attempted fraud for reporting a phantom withdrawal, but it didn't have anything to do with PINs. You used pins at your ATMs as well, and you still do. Using a PIN for a normal transaction would't change your liability laws one iota. You'd still be in the clear (as we by and large are in Europe today as well).

P.S. Cambridge security researcher Ross Anderson has written quite a bit on this subject, he got the policeman that was convicted cleared of the charges on appeal.

OTOH, what these networks have actually learned can be eye opening.

Are you sure? I know it's not controlled here in Sweden at least. You can just order it. And if you buy a can of "motor starting gas" (or whatever it's called in English) that's at least 50% diethylether. Cheap too.

That got me curious so I looked up some numbers. Using Swedish figures (i.e. 50 kubic meters, i.e. 13k gallons, load for tanker, 0.020 litres/tonkilometer, that's for a milk tanker, doing long haul, which is the closest I could find), I get a fully laden tanker doing about 2.35 miles/gal (US).

So to burn 20% of it's load the shortest it could travel would be 6k miles (a bit longer as it would burn its own fuel during that time, and even more if it would offload part of its haul during the trip). I don't know how that would measure up to how they actually drive to their delivery point, but it seems on the long side.

P.S. I didn't check my calculations so feel free to do that, before betting any money.

No, that was part of the course: "Free warfare".

That's why the 80mm is handy. The 120mm really isn't man portable, and you can't easily store hidden ammunition in suitable spots. The 80mm is readily man portable and can be hidden most anywhere, while it still packs the punch that the 60mm decidedly lacks. In fact as the ranger battalion I did my (shortened due to injury) service in had as it's main mission to perform sabotage and ambushes of the enemy's logistical support train behind enemy lines, I'd say we had "asymmetric" down to a "T".

That said, armed insurrection against a state level enemy having just a few rifles is a pretty doomed affair. Having access to a firearm is probably the least useful attribute of a successful insurgent. Having, or having access to, intelligence, leadership/chain of command, logistical support, counter intelligence and security would be much more useful, critical even.

If you study the resistance movements that were active in Europe during WWII, you'll see time and time again that your options against a determined foe are limited, and firearms aren't a central part of it. In fact you can have a very successful resistance without any firearm. The Danish resistance (and the Norwegian to a lesser extent) for example forbade the targeting/assassination of German personnel as the resulting reprisals against the civilians took such a tool that it made such operations impossible. Instead they targeted their own countrymen that were deemed to be collaborators. Insurgency is a dirty business. So, if you come across such as juicy target that you can't ignore it, you'll want as much effect as is humanly possible, i.e. explosives and some way to deliver them (c.f. the fate of the SS Donau.) Using a gun would have been worse than useless during that operation, and would have led to failure.

So in summary. While having and knowing how to shoot a rifle isn't a completely useless skill in the "stay behind" scenario, it's not a very critical one either. There are many other skills and preparation that you can't do without. You'd probably be better off staying at home reading books than going to the range...

Well, get back to me when you have an armed service based on national service. We are all trained soldiers and we know where the ordinance is stored. So you'd better practice and practice and practice with that rifle. My 80mm mortar has a decided advantage in range... :-) I know who I would bet on as an ultimate check on government overreach.

When it comes to civilian firearms ownership, one adult male in five has at least one firearm, so it's not as if Sweden is devoid of of guns. About 20% (give or take) of all households have a gun in the house.

Where does that end? Do they have the complete right to take what I did and claim it as their own?

That you want my work free, gratis and for nothing, that's clear, but that's not freedom. Not for me. Your rights end where mine begin.

P.S. Check out some freedom indicies, then you can comment on us not understanding "true freedom". Which sounds suspiciously like a "true Scotsman".

And it was the opposite for me. Seeing the video told me things about this event that I didn't know before. Just the statement that IS "burned someone" can mean many different things, it could mean (like it did in South African during apartheid) that an angry mob showed a tire onto someone and set it alight, or it can mean something more organised.

Now when we think of IS we don't think of "organisation", so I expected to see the usual half arsed wobbly camera, spur of the moment thing, but watching the video this is far from true. This video has production values. It must have taken considerable staging and time to shoot and edit. Sure, some reported on this, but it didn't really hit home with me until I actually saw it. It looks like something from Hollywood.

I came away with a somewhat different opinion of IS after this. Not necessarily more positive, mind you, just to be clear, but different. Wathing this video more than just a report of the actual act affected my understanding of what needs, could and should be done to rid the world of them.