Oh, it worked fine for Alan Turing but even he had Keira... I mean Joan Clarke in his team, ading a woman to the team, brilliant. If only the British had this type of quality research back then... they could have solved that enigma even faster. All they needed was replace Turing and a couple of other guys with some females and BAM, could have figured that problem out in a month.

their party's next nominee

I gather there's not much lost between the Obama and Clinton camps...

You are forgetting something very conveniently, namely taxes. Maybe your reply is that majority of people do not actually pay taxes, the very poor do not and the very rich also find ways to avoid as much as possible on the personal level. However all taxes are paid by the employers, all taxes come from business revenues. People don't recognise this reality as such, but without businesses there can be no wealth generated (more than necessary for a primitive barely self sustaining society of subsistence farmers, hunters/gatherers) and no taxes paid.

I actually argue that corruption costs less than taxes in total cost of having a government system at all. It is cheaper and faster to deal with a corrupt, bribe expecting gate keeper of a politician than to have this 'civilised society' with enough red tape that basically created the poverty, the situation that so few people actually run their own businesses.

Wrong. I can even say that a man is what a man does.

Are the Slavs really more culturally similar than the Arabs, though? They feel at best "equally foreign" to me. Slavs are the eastern fringe of Europe, and Arabs are the southern fringe. They both intertwine with European history while remaining not quite entirely within it. And in the modern era, they are both more religious than the average Scandinavian, which manifests itself in fairly similar ways (the Slavs and Arabs both seem to hate gays). I'm not sure I would really prefer to have Slav neighbor than an Arab neighbor, all things considered. If anything the Slav seems more likely to try to sell my kidney to someone.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

I take it it is not self evident to you that pursuit of happiness among equals means among people that are equal under law and nothing else? Yet here you are proposing that some are not equal under law to others, that there should be laws that apply differently because some, who are not you, built and are running services that you want to purchase, they have done so without any laws that you now want to see implemented to limit their freedom. You do not want tocompete with them, you want to enslave their work to your terms.

As far as I am concerned every single (without exception) thing that governments do end up hurting me because every single thing that governments do impede upon individual freedom for self determination and ability to attempt and improve individual conditions.

No, governments should not be able to violate laws, like private property rights. This means eminent domain cannot exist, this means government cannot be allowed to intervene between any parties signing a contract, this means there can be no business or labour or money regulations.

At most government can be allowed to police borders and search for murderers and rapists and isolate them. But even these functions lead to ever greater government with more and more power that it should not have.

It is not a religion, it is an ideology of individual freedom from tyranny and from oppression. 2 or more wrongs do not make a right. Destroying more freedom now, because other freedoms were already destroyed earlier does not make a better society. Instead government needs to be abolished, 99% of what it does need to be abolished.

The only way to get a wealthy and ready qnd able to withstand long term difficulties society is not to shackle individuals in it with the chains of the murderous will of the mob. Individuals are capable and smart and may even be brilliant in pursuit of their own happiness on their own terms but the mob is none of that. Decisions made by individuals have an impact on them and on a limited surrounding circle,decisions imposed by the mob have impact upon the entire society at the expense of brilliance, wealth, inventiveness, long term health of the society.

Governments must not be allowed to stand in the way of development of society but today many equate governments and society, while the reality is that governments steal power, wealth, health of society and the benefits of this theft are limited to very few very well connected individuals.

Being one of those connected individuals is great for them, but the society is diminished and empoverished because of unequal treatment.

Switzerland just cut its losses and depegged from Euro, basically it left the Euro zone unilaterally, well, this is the first correct move by a central bank (since 1981 Volker's 21.5% interest rate) in a long time. This is a call to action. Large governments fail and the larger the government the more spectacular the failure. It is an example that applies here as well. Yes, horrible things were done, eminent domain for example, but do not compoune the error, cut your losses and cut the reason of the problem, shut down most of the government, kill all business a d labour laws, kill income related taxes, yoh have to cut losses and return to the idea and ideology of individual freedom. It built the most wealthy manufacturer bases (I do not like the word 'countries' or 'nations', they imply group ownership as opposed to individual freedom), ever in history of humanity. It took a long time to destroy that wealth in the USA, the momentum was so great, momentum built in the 19th century and dissipated in the 20th.

If there is an ideology in the idea that free people in their own pursuit of happiness will build better anx wealthier societies than what is done in systems dominated by government power, it is because of evidence, not a baseless belief system. Time a d again we see that all powerful governments destroy the society and weath while free individuals is what builds wealth and society around it. I would not contaminate that evidence with something as horrendous as a religious belief.

The question is not about the Internet access here, it is a fundamental question of human life that is at stake. Life as a free person or life as a slave to the all consuming mob.

Why? On a number of occasions I completely avoided a traffic ticket by refusing to talk to the cop. Regardless of what he said I was silent, not looking at him even. Eventually (3 cases) they give up and leave.

Yo, dawg, I heard you like your metadata, so we put metadata into your metadata, so you can metadatabase while you metadatabase.

We are considering another layer of it now.

Isn't it interesting, Churchill was a fan of H.G. Wells, Churchill was fighting against Nazism, the interesting bit is that H.G. Wells was a socialist fascist, he was arguing for a Nazi version of socialism rather than the Marxist version. Marxist version of socialism is international socialism and Nazi version is purely national version, where one socialist nation becomes the de facto ruler. Nazis realised that Marxism was impossible to implement and that the only way that socialism could work for one particular nation was if everybody else was ruled by them, basically turning to open slavery where the modern version of socialism is using a 'hidden' version of slavery, such that it is not other nations or races that are enslaved, it is classes - the wealthier you are, the more you are enslaved by those who are poorer than you.

Just an interesting tidbit.

Indeed, the parts of the sanctions that are required by law remain in effect. Congress did give the executive pretty broad discretion over parts of them, though, which is what Obama is using to modify the sanction regime (something previous presidents have also done, in both directions). Specifically the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) authorizes exports to Cuba in certain areas, such as agriculture and medicine. The law directs the Treasury Department to come up with regulations governing such exports, such as procedures for receiving a permit, and/or annual quotas, but doesn't specify these procedures in any detail. The president therefore has quite a bit of leeway regarding whether he wants the export-licensing process to be easier or harder. A president who wanted to maximally restrict exports could institute a very onerous licensing process with low limits (effectively the current process), while a president who wanted to loosen the restrictions could institute a more streamlined licensing process.

I don't know what they do in the UK, but Eastern Europeans do not integrate well here. They are pretty notorious for being heavily involved in criminality.

I don't think XChat for Windows is open-source; in fact it appears the source code isn't even available, under any license. The site does provide diffs for its modifications to the LGPL libraries it's built on, but the source to the Windows front-end isn't released.

Islam is opposed to the separation of church and state.

Eh, and so is Christianity generally. So much so that we do not even have separation of church and state in Denmark: the Church of Denmark is the official state church, which is written into the Constitution. There is freedom of conscience and worship, but one religion (Lutheran Protestant Christianity) is officially established, while the others are (according to the Constitution) merely tolerated, allowed to worship as they wish "provided that nothing at variance with good morals or public order shall be taught or done" (section 67).

Of course, in practice the church has lost almost all of its power in a gradual reform process spanning the past few decades. But I don't see this as some bit fundamental disagreement between Christianity and Islam, more a practical issue of which parts of each religion are dominant and what kinds of political power they have. In the current era, the temporal power of Christian theocrats is waning, so they are no longer much of a practical threat. But not because Christianity is doctrinally particularly great. Christian conservatives simply lost the political battle; if some things had turned out differently, they might have won, or at least come to more of a stalemate. But they didn't.

Is it really a large number? Here in Scandinavia as far as I can tell there are indeed Muslim extremists, but a quite small number. I work with a number of Muslims in a regular office job, and they are more or less normal people. More religious than the average Scandinavian, but then so are Americans.

And in terms of actual crimes committed, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of terrorism going on here. There have actually been many more people killed by anti-Muslim nativists (like Anders Breivik) than by Muslim terrorists. Meaning that the people trying to "save" us from the Muslims are killing more of us than the Muslims are. In which case I would like to request that they stop trying to "save" us...

The biggest problems are more run-of-the-mill socioeconomic problems. A large number of young people in poor suburbs of Copenhagen and Aarhus end up committing petty crimes or joining street gangs. These are disproportionately immigrants, although it applies to Danes in those areas as well (who join biker gangs, which for some reason in Denmark are very white, and heavily involved in smuggling).

Most Italians do not descend from the ancient Italic tribes.