I prefer to discourage people from attacking my countrymen, and simultaneously limit their capabilities to do so. That often means killing the people who are trying to kill us, until they get the idea that trying to kill us is a bad idea. Their incompetence in killing us does not erase the trespass. People who get into accidents have their insurance rates go up. People who try to kill us get killed. Actions have consequences.

If your neighbor was trying to kill you, repeatedly, would you tolerate it? Would you find the milk in your cereal curdled one day from poison, push it away, then look out your window and say 'Ah, nice try Mohammed! Maybe next time!.' I mean, you might notice that next crude tripwire before you set off the IED in your hedges.

You wouldn't tolerate it. You'd have him thrown in jail at the first try. Back to the national scale, if the people trying to kill us are in countries that will have them thrown in jail, great. If not, well, now we're back to the concept of war between distinct states or peoples. The fact that one side is weak and incompetent does not mean they get to keep trying without reprisal.

What you seem to advocate- ignoring attacks by barbarians as just another risk in modern society- is in it's own special moral vacuum. I'm having a hard time fathoming how such a dereliction could seem morally superior to you, and I can only guess your education has been a steady diet of 'Western civilization is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.' That sort of 'critical theory' rubbish has been all the rage in higher education for decades.

(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)

I know that. "Crystal" anything makes me think of meth these days.

Crystal Windows? Is that something like Crystal Meth?

someone has to bear the public's wrath.

Has anyone actually borne the public's wrath over Rotherham scandal? I'm not sure anyone has even resign over it. No, just more tepid 'investigations of failures in processes.'

The problem with Rotherham wasn't that it went 'Undetected for years.' It was detected and ignored, by people who didn't want to seem racist for arresting sexually deviant immigrants. Either that, or they were on the take.

No, Rotherham represents an abject failure of people in society to act in order to protect the young. There's no slouching away the travesty by implying that sort of mass, long ignored child abuse in common elsewhere in the world. England is a country where people know better than to tolerate this, and once had the moral fortitude to do something about it.

While, myself, I have never been there, I know too many people who have.

It is hard to understand from an outsider, and it took me a lot of training to understand what is going on.

More people should try to understand....

1. Shoreham.

2. When building a power plant will involve hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyers fees to keep your sort at bay, that tends to increase cost over-runs. Which your sort then uses as a further argument against nuclear power. (Yes, there are plenty of non-lawyer related cost overruns.)

Who is listening to environmentalists these days? There's still a mass of laws and regulations they use to gum up the works constantly, but folks are starting to realize most environmentalists don't care so much about the environment as much as they hate their fellow man and his enjoyment of modern life.

Of course, you folks have your own tinpot dictator in the White House, who is a law unto himself and will probably service his ideological base with economy-crushing diktats.

I had a system where switching a SCSI card with a NIC from PCI1 to PCI2 (and vice versa of course), made Windows 2000 bluescreen. Just switching those two cards. Nothing else and the SCSI had only a scanner attached, no bootable devices.

So, yes, that is long ago, but Windows 2000 implies at least the year 2000.

Linux didn't complain at all.... Yes, I was running Linux back then in dual boot.

Like others I found the headline confusing. I read it as "Researchers are predicting the use of Wikipedia as a vector for the spread of disease". This may mean that:

• Disinformation and ignorance are diseases.
• Memes and computer viruses are diseases.
• Wilipedia contains information that leads to depression.
• Instructions on Wikipedia lead to substance abuse.
• This is getting entertaining, fill in your own reason here.

I am a citizen of Luxembourg and I don't get these advantage and I have a tax rate of 39% together with my wife. I also know small business owners here and they don't get to play these games either.

The proper response is to laugh in their face.

As a matter of reasonable debate- and I'm not going to pretend that everything on the internet needs to be, or ever will be reasonable debate- using slurs when debating religion would be unhelpful and polarizing. There are, however, religions out there whose adherents are unable to weather any criticism gracefully- which means that said religions are fragile and should be subject to even greater scrutiny and criticism.

Hayek wrote a book about this question- The use of knowledge in society. A quote:

To put it another way, no communist politburo can centrally manage the knowledge necessary to make a modern economy work. There's simply too much to know. In a market economy, the participants know how to play their role, and how to get what they need to give their customers what they want. They need to know nothing more than that. Millions of such people quietly playing their own role delivers success. In a command economy, the politburo pretends to be able to manage all the knowledge and decision making required throughout the economy- and this is an impossible task.

....of politics. They want conservative money out of politics. With the entertainment industry in lefty hands and most journalists* little more than Democratic party operatives with bylines, the Democrats have plenty of influence already.

What they want to do is choke out conservative money, because that's the primary way Republicans get heard when leftists control the culture.

Mayday PAC is transparent in this regard- they ran a video contest accepting amateur-made ads supporting their cause. A video attacking Tom Steyer, the left's Koch, won the popular vote by a large margin. They picked another video based on the 'judgement of their panel of experts.'

Interestingly in many languages it is "heaven", just not in English. Deutsch = "Steuerparadies", French = "Paradis Fiscal", Dutch = "Belastingsparadijs". They all literally mean "tax heaven".

You're right, it's not correct in English, but you might see that the error is understandable if you're not a native English speaker. I'm not and funnily enough, I am from Luxembourg.