Indeed -- en-dash is nominally as long as a lower case "n" is wide, hence the name. Can you guess what an em-dash is...? Nominally, I say, because modern typefaces normally have em-dashes that are as long as en-dashes, when "m" isn't twice as wide as "n"...

Actually, that's unlikely to be a dyslexia-caused error. Dyslexia is a problem in sound processing/distinction, and its and it's sound exactly the same. It's just a plain old spelling error, and even English teachers do it regularly when typing....

Yup, but the publisher has to work on one step more of precision and/or abstraction than the reader. The reader consumes his material in one way, but the publisher has to make sure that multiple readers can consume in different ways, and therefore must make a technically correct product.

Sorry, that hyphen does nothing. What on Earth is one of those when it's at home?!?

But the point is generally to pretend to be someone the susp^H^H^H^Hperson of interest already knows and trusts. An undercover cop invents a new identity. An online cop steals a pre-existing one.

Yes, but remember that radiowaves propagate at lightspeed, even if they're too primitive for ET now, they might not have been millions of years ago....

Because it wears underpants.

Nope, I'm an operator.

(Etymologically speaking, robots are manual workers, labourers. I'm a trained professional who works at desks, tables and flipcharts.)

And Spain formed a government that was overthrown by a fascist military coup. A few years later, the rest of Europe celebrated the defeat of fascism in Europe, while refusing to do a thing to restore democracy in Spain... because Spain voted for socialism.

More than you do, apparently.

It was created by the government, or at least the king. The professionals of the court were employed by the king (Henry II started this off). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the liberal anarchist narrative you've built for yourself, but history is clear on this. The Wikipedia entry seems to match pretty closely what the book I was using when teaching the subject in university says....

Erm... the entire history of Scotland up to the union with England was one of a hereditary monarchy. If you mean no democratic government, that's a different thing entirely and irrelevant to your point. Even though the king held sovereign power, like most medieaval monarchs, he held parliament in his court, from the 13th century at the latest. If the Lordship of the Isles sometimes went against the king, that doesn't imply there was no central government, just that it wasn't 100% effective. Some consider the Lordship of the Isles as effectively a second "kingdom" within Scotland -- a second state with its own effective government under the "Mòd" (parliament) that MacDonald of the Isles would call with the lesser clan chiefs.

And what is the biggest hangover of frontier law in modern US law today? Plea bargaining. Buying testimony with a "get out of jail free" card.

Besides, there was law in the "wild west". There was a state. There were sheriffs, and judges, and marshals. I fail to see your point.

Well, before restating that you'll have to actually present some facts to support your ridiculous notion of a "government-less" Scotland, and to deny the accepted wisdom of the Platagenet kings' common law courts.

As for pollution... well, all that proves is the system is corrupt. All systems can be corrupt, stated or stateless.

Now, tell me this: without a state, how would a legal system work?

"Common law" is a state system. The common law was a synonym for the king's legal system. It was a power play by the English king to take control away from local feudal lords, as the citizens were given the right to choose the king's common England-wide law in any disputes, as opposed to the local law.

As for insurance companies having agreements to avoid court fees... well... yes. But if there were no courts, there would be no fees, and no fees means no fees to avoid. Without a government there is no-one to enforce the decisions of the court, except mercenaries. How does that do anything but support the entrenched interests of the elites? And as for having a court without state... sorry, once you have a court, you have a territorial jurisdiction with its own laws and norms... and that sounds like a state to me.

In a stateless society, insurance wouldn't exist, because there would be no judiciary to enforce liability. Why insure when no-one can sue you anyway?

Top Gear themed rides? Well, I suppose it gives an excuse to be a little shit. The "Be a Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car" roller coaster: not quite as fast or thrilling as the "Ferraris" at other theme parks....

Which leads to an interesting question -- why limit it to BBC? Alice in Wonderland is out of copyright, and the Disney production borrowed its aesthetic very heavily from the original illustrations. Why not be some kind of "Britainland" for American tourists?

BBC Worldwide is a commercial entity that gets money by reselling BBC content oversees. It gets no part of the license fee or any other public funding. It is arguable that it has unfair advantage in that the production costs of most of its assets were covered by the BBC; however, it's a fair stretch to say that the public will be paying for this theme park, particularly given that they're looking to outside investors to fund it.