I as well as millions of other sysadmins would very much like this feature in Windows.

That way we can immediately patch some machines and test for problems and then have the others patch 1-2 weeks later. 99% of the time it will be fine, but that 1% will save a weeks worth of downtime.

WSUS doesn't really cut it in this regard and requires too much manual work for a sysadmin that already doesn't have enough time.

And where are all the other Breiviks? Can't you find any other? At least one per week, please.

Moving the goal posts means you've lost the argument.

You said it yourself, this guy trippled Norways yearly homicide rate in 3 days. How many of the Muslim incidents you allude to occur in war zones or countries that have an open revolution? Most of them. It's like saying all Christian nations are unsafe by Colombia as an example. The difference between us is that I can recognise BS and you cant.

Norway is an extremely safe country and a rational one. The way Norway picked up and carried on After Breivik is a shining example to us all. No fear mongering or revenge wars.

But where are the extremist Islamic attacks in Norway... at least one per week please.

I'd argue that one religion specifically actually makes me unsafe

And this makes you a xenophobe.

Which was the point of my argument, you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in things that agree with you.

Now here's the kicker, I'm an Australian, I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do considering how biased and inaccurate your sources are.

This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.

At this point in history, arguing that perhaps religion doesn't make people utterly stupid really sounds almost like arguing that perhaps the Earth is hollow.

But that isn't your argument.

Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent (which is what the site you linked to is trying to say). Dont try to change the argument to all religions because you've been proven wrong (you want a list of attacks, the IRA did over 10,000 bombings on its own).

Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.

Actually it's not.

This just demonstrates you didn't understand the argument.

You're the one arguing about religion, more specifically that one religion makes you unsafe.

I never said Norway was unsafe, I said Breivik was religiously motivated (he wrote a manifesto about it, his notion that the Christian church was being usurped was a big part of it).

Australia's gun laws are what has prevented this person from having an assault rifle. He's armed with a small single barrelled shotgun. Having more armed people will ensure that more incidents like this will occur and a lot more often.

And I am an Australian. Our gun laws have prevented things like this as criminals cant get easy access to guns.

We are not terrorised here I can assure you.

It doesn't even have the chance to get to that body count. The guy is armed with a shotgun, so thats two shots at best.

+1 sad indictment.

Pointless too - all he can do is humiliate Abbott in front of the world which Abbott has been doing himself when he gets out of reach of his handlers

Abbott's handlers would never let him.

Tony Abbott's statement on this couldn't have been more generic if it were written in beige.

But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.

This,

A thousand times this.

There's so much misinformation about firearms in Australia its not funny.

It's not hard to get guns in Australia unless you've got a criminal record. I used to have guns (I moved and it was just simpler to sell them) and my character reference was the administrator at my school (she was also a JP) and that was at age 18.

Only fully automatics and semi-automatics are banned here. That is a good thing because this tool walked into a cafe with a shotgun, not an AK47. At worst it's a double barrel sawn off.

What I would say is that Australia is a very safe place to live and your chances of getting shot here is almost zero

You've got a better chance of winning the lottery than being shot in Australia.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "bottom line", but the list itself is backed by evidence; it's not an opinion piece, just a summary of facts

Nope, the site presents a conclusion and cherry picks soundbites to suit their agenda.

What the "the bottom line" means in this context is that they started with a conclusion and went out to prove it. That alone makes the site extremely untrustworthy (a proper study starts with a question and seeks to answer it, junk science starts with a conclusion and seeks to support it).

The article the GP linked to can be summed up in this sentence. People who are dead set in a belief will look for evidence to support it no matter how irrational and ridiculous it is.

BTW, the site you linked to contains no facts, it is an opinion piece with poorly presented soundbites to make it look factual but really presents a pre-baked conclusion.

I'd like to see a list like that for other religions, really

-Northern Ireland.
-Anders Breivik,
-The Lords Resistane Army (Uganda, child soldiers, sex slaves and all that stuff you like to whinge that Muslims do).
-The Army of God (USA, bombed abortion clinics and attacked doctors).

These are just the recent non-islamic religious* motivated violence (the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland alone is enough to prove you're just ignorant). You've then got all the terrorist groups in South America which is decidedly Christian.

*Not picking on Christians mind you, Like Muslims I know the majority are not terrorists but these are just the most prominent examples in recent times.

This.

Its a lone wolf.

And given that his demand is a live debate with the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott its a fair assumption to say that this is directly tied to the anti-islamic raids that took place earlier this year.

This, hosting a large site costs less than a bag of golf bats.

Hell, a small site costs me A$90 per year to host in Australia on a reputable ISP (so I could get it cheaper if I used Dodgy Brothers datacentres) including registering the domain.

The problem with advertising is that it has become so intrusive and annoying. So people are fighting back with ad blockers. We dont like pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-reacharounds ads that load before content, talking ads, flashing ads so we block them. Strangely enough the text based ads I get on gmail and google are fine (and often missed by adblock). The advertisers started this arms race, now they're upset that they're losing it.

Ranting aside, the best business model I've seen for a website isn't advertising in as much as tying it to a real business. Travel forums do this a bit, they are either owned or sponsored by a local business like a bar or hotel that keeps some subtle advertisement. So people who use that site tend to frequent the business that runs it. Of course it needs to be a decent business for this to work but it works fantastically if you do run a good business.

The purpose of war is to shatter a social system that is harming our species and make space for something better.

This is about the silliest thing I've read all year... And it has a lot of competition.

The purpose of war is to gain land, money or power. Ultimately it comes down to power as money and land are just methods to get it. Even the enforcement of an ideology is to get more power for those who control or benefit from that ideology being enforced. No religious war has ever been waged to benefit god, men have always been the primary and intended beneficiaries.

If your war is moral, the cruelty of your weapons is immaterial.

OK, now this is the silliest thing I've read all year. At least your consistent.

When men decide that all means are necessary to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.

You're essentially saying that any method can be defended by the outcome. The wholesale slaughter of civilians with chemical and biological weapons is just and moral?

Sorry, but the people who were exposed to such things long ago decided that in order for a conflict to remain moral, such weapons and tactics should not be permitted. What makes a side in a conflict moral is not just why the conflict is fought, but how it is fought. You cannot keep moral intentions if your actions are immoral.

One of the religious prohibitions in Islam is making war with fire.

Has anyone explained to them how guns operate?

or bombs and mortars?

The first significant user of firearms in Europe were the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) as hand held guns came in from Asia via the middle east.

Then again a little hypocrisy in religion is nothing new. So I highly doubt it will have any effect on Muslims what so ever.

his simply isn't true. Australia operates under contract law, and unless a term is illegal or "unconscionable" to the public, they will not alter that.

And you just said I was right.

A contract has to be legal, companies cannot defer their duty of care in a contract (otherwise you'd see every mining and transport company doing this with their EBA's to reduce their liabilty insurance costs).

There are many ways lawyers can arrange this agreement to severely limit Uber's liability.

No, as long as Uber is facilitating the service they are liable. The same as any other taxi company except Uber do not get the same protections because they are operating outside the law.

For example, they could force both parties using the app to agree to terms limiting the right to sue to a certain jurisdiction friendly to them.

Shrinkwrap contracts are not enforceable in Australia. They cant simply force the app user to agree to a limitation to sue. Besides, it wont be the app user that hits them. It will be the insurers and this is where it gets interesting, what protects normal taxi companies against these lawsuits are two fold, 1. they have sufficient insurance, 2. The law protects them, limiting liability. Uber fails on both these counts. The entirely of the contract needs to be explained to you before you can agree to it. You cant even get a bank account here without being read a full page document outlining the key responsibilities of both parties.

This is not a proper use of this analogy.

Actually it is. Uber facilitates the organisation and the payment, this in effect makes it a taxi company. Attempting to claim they aren't a taxi company when they advertise themselves as such will be considered at best, "misleading conduct" if not outright fraud. The fact they use contractual drivers does not change this (cluebat, normal taxi companies use drivers con a ontract or casual basis, in fact few will be FT or PT employees).

. The contract defines the terms of the relationship, and unless they are breaching that, is valid.

Contracts do not trump Australian law, as you stated in your second sentence.

If Uber acts like a taxi company, it will be treated like one in the eyes of the law.