I said there aren't enough SWAT teams around to all handle the gangs, not that "nothing" could be done. Additionally it would be inefficient and ineffective for them to mobilize everytime gang violence erupted anyway, street gang violence is not like a bank holdup or house hostage situation, or a sniper, which are more static situations. Regular police patrol out in the street, ready to interact with a sudden fluid situation; SWAT does not. By the time SWAT got there, they'd have scattered like cockroaches.

While that in itself may be commendable (I've fixed hijacked computers before, it's a pain) that still doesn't excuse MS for changing the already set preferences of the user during the upgrade. It should very simple for the upgrade to leave that registry key essentially untouched, or export/import it as needed.

You can't just compare the US to a tiny homogenous island like Iceland, or several other countries for that matter. Apples to Oranges. Disarm cops in the US and they'll be simply be ignored and ineffective at best, and/or shot en masse by the gang members that have infiltrated nearly every state in the union and every city: Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, MS-13, the various mafias..etc.. Gangs have guns not just to fight cops, but each other, so they'll still have and use their guns, they most powerful they can get their hands on. There's not enough SWAT for that.

This. The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz is probably looking to learn from, or cooperate with the NSA to increase it's own capabilities, so it wouldn't make sense to become directly adversarial. All countries spy on each other anyway, it's simply not admitted publicly.
What concerns them more, I think, is how mere bloggers - ostensibly average people who wouldn't normally have that kind of professional spying capability- found out about their plans. If common bloggers can dig up secret government stuff, then they're probably worried that their national security is very vulnerable, and maybe suspecting that they have a mole or something dramatic.

Well, I never said it's the *best* investment you can make, nor did I allude to it being the best reason for buying a house; but unless you buy a lemon or fell for really crappy terms, owning your home, as opposed to renting, has historically been a pretty solid investment, especially for those are that aren't into playing around with stocks, and not everyone takes a 30 year mortgage. I was never talking about flipping houses or playing the real estate market, in any case. Lastly, buying stocks can be a very risky venture as well as rewarding, but the safer mutual funds don't have much of a return.
I agree with you on the other aspects though. Buy a house because you want it.

Guilty of using the wrong spelling of principal there, mea culpa; and I will not make excuses for it: but where I did I ever claim I was a financial guru, AC troll? Go ahead, show us.
I simply said homeownership is a better investment than renting a house, and by far most people agree, your linked editorial notwithstanding. You're the one, not I, who thinks of himself as super business saavy with all your exaggerated RRSP investments (which don't even apply in my country, genius). But now we're off-topic.

Okay.

Your landlord is just passing those costs on to you in your rent. Utilities, as well.
And I'm not proffering "financial" advice nor being "smug", just the common sense tenet that a solid house is generally a good investment, and something you can sell or pass on to your kids. The only renters I know rent only because they have to, they can't afford a down payment. They live hand to mouth, and it's sad because they're friends. Also, I'm talking about houses with property, not condos.

Thanks for the laugh and fulfilling the stereotype of an obnoxious french-canadian.

True, true, it definitely benefits to pay as much on your principle as you can. The first several (or more) years of mortgage goes almost entirely to interest. Therefore I look at it as a long run thing, I think our mortgage is 15 years (now I'll have to go back and check!)
And for those who move once in a while, renting makes more sense there.. but once you settle down for good, I think buying is the best option, as houses tend to increase in value. At least I'll have something to leave to my kid too.

I totally agree, but I'm waiting for the AC retorts of, "We knew what they meant so big deal" and "English is an evolving language"; the usual excuses for bad grammar and literacy.

I get that. I'm having my electrical box replaced this Friday due to corrosion of the rails from a water leak, which is putting me out $600 all told because we initially thought it was the air conditioning unit that went bad. Ouch. Still, I'd rather be in control of the situation than have a landlord as a middle man. My mortgage (sans taxes) is only about $800 a month for a 2 bedroom rancher with full basement and attic, and a 180 foot long yard; I know some local places where the rent is that high for much less property/housing, yet those occupants will never see equity in their home or any kind of ROI, which is a shame.

Right, pissing your money away every month to a landlord who does own the building and making a profit off of you is much better. Owning a home can be risky if you don't know what you're doing (lazy) or incredibly unlucky, but for most, it's a good solid investment, and far from "for the already rich". Unless you live in NY or Socal.

between negligent complacency and paranoid hysterics. Especially where terrorism of any kind is involved.

Where I live, I never see the sun. Someone let me out!

We are well into the 21st century, oceans or distance no longer mean containment or isolation. The geopolitical landscape is too complex to just cut ties with several of the mideast countries, as much as I wish we could. But I agree, peace is highly unlikely in our lifetimes.