Since they are still north of the Equator they will be - they only become the aurora austrialis if you are viewing them looking southwards.

Partly. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_7#pt4-pb2-l1g60 provides for example in s60 the right to temporarily search anyone or any vehicle without suspicion if violent disorder is anticipated. The main search laws etc are in PACE, and these generally do require reasonable grounds. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871558

I could sign in any of my capacities of company director, Chartered Chemist or as a member of the BCS - most people belonging to organisations that grant postnominals by letters patent will be able to countersign.

The British people have never tolerated a register of where they live open to all officialdom - only in WW2 was it tolerated and it got kicked out shortly afterwards. Identity (of which there is a national birth register) is a totally different thing to address which is why passports have never had your address on them.

It is checked - I'm one of the people on the list of those who can countersign and I guess that about 20% of them are verified, might only be a phone call but they do check. For one guy who was coming from shall we say a country of interest they turned up with the application and wanted me to examine and confirm I had filled it all out.

You most certainly can. French national ID cards are perfectly valid and I know someone who travels on those documents regularly.

BTW My "idea" is not hilariously backwards as I never claimed that Microsoft was valueless because it doesnt make stuff. I pointed out that however other people can perceive it like that which is the point of the argument. Many people will not invest in something that appears intangible and ephemeral, regardless of how good or useful a software house can be.

South sea bubble, the Dutch Tulip craze, Railway mania, the Posiden bubble, 2007 Uranium bubble, and of course the NASDAQ in March 2000.... Wanna bet on how dumb investors really can be sometimes?

You mean in the eyes of the market, which in terms of evaluating what a company is "worth" is what counts. I never made such a claim at all - I proposed it as a theory... Software and IP etc while obviously valuable isn't something that you can get hold of.. it seems ephemeral, just ones and zeros. A company that is generally percevied to make "stuff" even if it is outsourced, is often held to be intrinsically more valuable than one that doesnt - the rights and wrongs of that are another entire debate. However I still think that people like Apple to some extent as they "make" things - there is a series of big shiny, well received boxes bought by high income people regularly. Against that Microsoft makes a few games consoles (that overheat) and a thing called the Zune that no-one really knows what it's for, apart from the fact it's a high priced failure. Now is that worth more than the deep penetration Microsoft has into the enterprise server market, the database market, the email and collaboration market, and lets not forget Office... well it's the markets... Reality is always playing second fiddle to peoples perception - that's why you get bank runs after all - not for any real reason but because herd mentality takes over.

Microsoft doesnt make anything... not real stuff. You can buy an Apple computer, but not a Microsoft one. Perhaps that has some bearing on the perceived value and owrht of the company - I'm just throwing the idea out there....

Actually the crime is committed the moment that you throw the brick provided it meets the tests in the Criminal Damage act. (assuming UK law here). By the time the glass is smashed then you have committed the offence.

UK law defines a crime as being the actual act "actus reus" and the intent "mens rea". Since he did both of those whilst in the UK, I'd say we have reason to prosecute quite legitimatly. The target is immaterial really - and for the purposes of the law to some extent it is irrelevant. People have been for example convicted of attempted murder in the UK when there was no possibility of any harm even occuring as the "person" wasnt even real so to that extent the target in the USA could be considered an abstraction.

Whilst it's undeniable I think that he did actual do it, there are a lot of people that cannot see why he should be extradited. The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK so it has always seemed odd to a lot of people that he should have been extradited, especially with the massive imbalance in potential sentence between the UK and US for this. I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet.

Cameron is not going to be too concerned either way one suspects, although he will probably lean towards not extraditing him. Clegg however as a hard and a fast Liberal is almost certainly going to move all that he can to ensure he is not extradited. The one person to consider though in all this is Kenneth Clarke, whos is the Justice Secretary. He has interesting views - he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity". Quite what his feelings are on the extradition - and he gets the ultimate say as Justice Minister are as yet unknown. From what little I know of him personally I suspect he would favour prosecution in the UK but for all that his views are relatively unknown.

Sorry, no. "Ex post facto" has nothing to do with increasing the punishment after conviction. It refers specifically to declaring something illegal, then prosecuting somebody under that law based on conduct that occurred before the law was passed. Regardless, punishment is increased after conviction and sentencing all the time. Violate the terms of your probation? Straight to the slammer. Start a fight in prison? You get sent to solitary. And so on.

Let's address some of the other things you may be misinformed about. This is not a bill of attainder, because it doesn't address specific people or groups of people. And no, the "group" of people who are in prison doesn't count, because potentially ANYBODY could be in prison for some other crime. If the bill stated that it only applied to black people, or people named Steve, then it would not be permissible. It's also (arguably) not a due process violation, because since it is a civil punishment and not a criminal one, the standard is lower than what is necessary to convict a person of a crime and send him to prison. You still need to convince a judge under this law, so there is still a due process issue. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address that in this case.

What's at issue here is ultimately whether the United States, given the authority to imprison somebody for a crime, can indefinitely extend that time under a civil statute based on a showing to a judge that it is necessary. This is not legally any different from the authority to put somebody in solitary confinement, or deny access to privileges based on behavior. I'm not comfortable with the ruling in this case, and I agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that this is an inappropriate extension of government power. But please get your facts and legal terminology straight before going off half-cocked based on your limited legal understanding.

$53 000 is a reasonable cost. It also has everything to do with the wishes of the deceased. And yes, there's a concrete chance of revival. I could answer your arguments against cryonics, but sadly you didn't provide any. And that's how cryonics debates usually go. You should probably read about a rabbit kidney which was cryopreserved, then thawed and implanted to a living rabbit. Of course, this is fact is in disagreement with your dishonest worldview, so you ignore it.