You are confusing two concepts: "you" and "everyone". What is possible for you might not be for everyone else.

You do realise the fact you have to explain all these things to people means they're not as game-changing as you seem to think they are? It's like trying to explain why a joke is funny - if you have to, it's not funny.

That's only a thing to xenophobic, tiny-minded, easily-scared shadow-jumpers such as yourself. Grow up.

No, it's $3m a day. Something about "apples" and "oranges" springs to mind.

Give them something to live for. Fat, happy people don't become terrorists. Israel has made settlement after settlement, displacing families and communities for decades. It's taken water and deprived people of free movement. What do you expect the Palestinians to do? Sit down cross-legged as Israel squeezes them dry, praising their existence? When a country does something demonstrably bad to some people, and doesn't listen to the grievances of those people, eventually the only course of action left is violence. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Hamas doesn't have the capability to send warnings, and if you look at the density of Gaza you'd see there isn't much space away from anything Hamas-related, meaning Israel has carte blanche to shoot wherever it wants and claim it was targetting Hamas. You usually make a lot of sense, but it seems you have been perverted by the usual media nonsense so common over where you are. Both sides suck, but only one side is actually fighting for survival, even if both claim so. Think.

And if Israel was carved out of the Midwest instead of displacing people in British-"owned" territory, there would be even more people alive. You're doing yourself, and this discussion, a great disservice to stop looking at this issue at any point after it began. Look back to the beginning, and you might get a better understanding.

Where does that give Israel the right to kill hundreds of civilians? I'm confused.

You seem to talk about the number of rockets fired at Israel, but not the damage caused, as if "their" rockets are identical to those fired by Israel...

The Bohr model is not an accurate description of atoms, so it's pointless to try to compare anything to it and claim you are comparing to actual atoms.

2. Not entirely. There are planets without stars, and there are stars which orbit stars (well, stars which orbit a barycentre between itself and another star, which may or may not be inside the other star).

"Republic" doesn't mean what you think it does. It has nothing to do with democracy. It simply means a country that is not ruled by a dynastic leader. That's it.

So both parties have an official policy of republicanism if they are not actively seeking to replace the president with a leader chosen by dynasty.

Your claims are not mutually exclusive. Labour have had some shady dealings in the past, as have the LibDems (but less so). Both Labour and the LibDems have not engaged in the anti-poor-people tactics of the Conservatives in levels anywhere near as great. This is evident in the cuts to public spending by the Conservatives (which hurts poor people most), the attacks on unions, and the spates of privatisation.

They have a ridiculously small turning circle, surprising acceleration, and a roomy, disabled-accessible interior.

Your comment about fat people is absolutely pointless, as you well know, and doesn't exactly reflect well on you.

Cabbies talk, you know. They hang out frequently and discuss the state of the traffic and the roads. They do this because they know it helps them to all be aware of such things. Google also doesn't have good historical data, whereas cabbies can tap into the knowledge of Londoners (themselves & their colleagues) who have lived there their entire lives. Google's data on utilisation is nowhere near as accurate as cabbies' as Google isn't driving these streets every single day - their data is simply not as granular as cabbies'. The way you spell "utilization" hints you might not know precisely of which you speak...

Google doesn't know that stuff, though. Google's map data is great - don't get me wrong - but it doesn't know about the fluctuations in traffic that the cabbies do. It doesn't know about that accident that happened 30 minutes ago, that the cabby saw earlier, or that small street which is marked incorrectly on Google Maps which is navigable. It also doesn't know what "That road of Essex Road where there used to be that pub called the Red Lion or Red Dragon or something" refers to, which is something plenty of cabbies would know, as their knowledge extends far beyond The Knowledge, and includes plenty of historical data for well-travelled routes.

So yeah - Google is great, but it's not up to the standard of even an average black cab driver.