CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch (though worrying about the aesthetics of how you kill someone is, um, just fucking weird). CO also works just fine - no hand flapping or straining to breath, but it also has aesthetic "issues".

Note: I don't support state sanctioned murder - if for no other reason than the abysmal record the US has for justice - even when the condemned was actually guilty of the crime, the crime was arguably that of the state, not the condemned (homeowner shoots unarmed petty thief, petty thief that is not shot dead is convicted). I doubt there are many people outside the US that don't believe there is something extremely wrong with the self-appointed moral guardian of the world (life imprisonment for a joint, fines for giving out food, secret trade agreements that breach US sponsored International Human rights, etc, etc).

If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. And yes, there really are a large number of US 'citizens' that'd like (Facebook style) the F100 method (sadly it's not unique to the US), just look at the comments on /. from people cheering the idea of prison rape, or the human hemorrhoid that gets all excited at the idea of using liquid nitrogen and a hammer for state executions. On second thought - maybe state execution is the answer, just not for the people you put inside the cells of your prisons with the world's highest percentage of incarceration[*1].

Disclaimer: I spent part of my youth in Missouri (pronounced "misery") within sight of Monsanto - it's not Denmark that reeks of something seriously rotten.

[*1] I know.. (sigh), those that deny their ugly blood lust will point to statistically insignificant data from countries with populations of less than 100K, and simultaneously justify their own countries imprisonment rate, and their "right" to armed self-defense - whilst remaining blind to all the inherent contradictions. i.e. if your prison and justice system worked your 'citizens' wouldn't need guns, and you'd have the safest nation on earth. Roll on the triumph of optimism over experience like the Sherman tank of freedom, and whenever you lose a hand - double up.

Nooooooo!! It should be decided by a house vote. Face-painters rule!

1. and?
2. so?
3. what?

a search engine that searches the internet. Not parts of the internet, all of the internet.

I'd also like the search engine to do Boolean and regex.

P.S. I couldn't give a flying fuck if it:- has ads; tries to profile my search queries. I can at least attempt to get avoid those things. But if it does not index the entire internet it's as useful as a range of shoes that consist of one size and one style only.. And no, I don't care if it doesn't come with a free set of steak knives and is 100% dolphin free and kind to puppies, as long as it indexes everything

I don't care if Bill Gates wrote the back end, hell, I'd use it even if it was run by the scumbag behind DuckDuckFuckADuck.

Thanks

Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.

Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.

Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.

My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?

Tricky..

Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.

Call me a cynic - but if Twitter chose Ireland for "privacy" purposes then it's a huge coincidence it just happens to be cheaper - as well

Switzerland is not as private as Ireland, because, um, CERN is just another name for GCHQ, unless.... oh crap, GCHQ is an NSA partner (cough* we keep the data, NSA keeps the index/metadata*cough).

Never mind, I'm obviously delusional - GCHQ doesn't have access to Ireland, what was I thinking? As you were, carry on, nothing to see here...

Is it even possible? Seller of free stuff....

Yes....

So they stole from IBM. Yes, it's coming back to me now. OS/2. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh wait, I see the problem - you're equating networking and internet. Networking was easy - little resistance from Bill there, the "internet" was something he hoped was a passing fad (tcp stack was trickier than cifs, and then their was the whole browser thingie - damn standards). Netscape, Mosaic, that's a whole 'nuther barrel of fish in the sun.

Are you simply retarded or serving a Monsanto agenda? Burbank did no genetic engineering. The Chihuahua was the result of selection over a long period of time and comes without patents or engineered infertility.

Good science is not claiming that designing monkeys that glow in the dark is the same things as selecting wolves that aren't scared of humans.

Selection over successive generations for desirable characteristics != genetic engineering. Claiming that it is, is either ignorance (the enemy of science) or sophism (the enemy of intelligent discussion). The only things stupider and more dishonest is: equating those that differentiate between the two methods of engineering a desirable change in an organism are somehow the enemies of progress/science; claiming that all engineered change is good.

The Romans had a quaint habit of making those the made bridges sit under them while a legion marched overhead. The same should be considered for genetic engineering. Not all bridges should be trusted just because the builders say it's safe.

Trust if you want - but verify. Anyone who lobbies to have the new bridges kept secret should have a legion set on their arses. If it's so fucking safe what do the builders have to hide?

Translation: Any system of "ethics" that contradicts my beliefs I deem invalid

Reality: No "system of ethics" denies you the right to self-defence, but I'll ignore that by redefining "self defence" to mean "my right to carry firearms" (and relegate police duties to traffic control only).

Strawman: No guns != No self-defence

Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of any means of "self-defense" TFTFY

Can you point to the issue of Hansard showing the legislation that says I can't exercise "self-defense"? No? (there's a surprise).

Ironically - that is an excellent example of flawed logic. Did you miss the "well regulated" bit of your constitution? How's that confirmation bias working out for you?

Excellent advice - do try it.

From the land where we've had one mass shooting. Which was, before the gun restrictions. A country where we still have a "right" to self-defense - we just don't equate self-defense with arsenals (we just call the police). Obviously us colonial subjects of the Queen would have even less Sandy Hook episodes if guns were not "well regulated" (less tiger attacks if we carried magic tiger rocks, and less rapes in the military if those women had access to firearms). Thanks for the lesson in logic.

You logic is flawed. If self-defense is a requirement for any section of society: only those prepared to shoot first will benefit; you can kiss civilisation goodbye. And before you trot out that tired old cliche about how you "can't rely on the police", maybe you should make the system work before advocating the return to a system that was abandoned in favour of law and order.

Didn't seem to stop you misusing the ABS stats.

• Rifling is done the same way in both countries - most fitters and turners consider it a basic skill.
• I've got a mate who's a gunsmith - he buys his barrels from the US and assures me I could import them without difficulties - no license required (the law does require a certificate - but the sellers don't want one and it's just steel to Customs). .50 calibre? New or used? eBay if you're lazy.

Agreed. I've seen plenty of firearms in PNG and Indonesia that were made by people without lathes. Not as lethal as those turned out by trained and well equipped gunsmiths - but the people they were used to shoot looked just as dead to me.

Not from Mexico, no. And not one way either (we ship drugs both ways - hello Rio, how's the marmalade? - hello France, how's the green skins? - etc). It's true we don't ship a lot of guns to Mexico. We do bust large quantities of drugs coming in (occasionally going out), and while we do blame China and North Korea for the origin of some of those drugs - we also recognize they are just trying to compete to satisfy the demand. Australia does have a history as a being used to route weapons through to other parts of the world - but as far as I know Mexico isn't one of those places (I suspect Virginia has a monopoly on that).