So Einstein was a dumbass until 1905, when suddenly he became a genius?

They knocked like $100 off of the bill expecting me to pay 80% of the cost for a mistake which was 100% their fault. I said I was not going to pay it and that is when they started trotting out the "we'll report you to collections" line.

That's when you trot out the "I'll see you in small claims" line.

The only punishment she deserved was a stern talking to.

And an assigned essay in which she explains exactly what happened in that reaction vessel.

Now, she gets a reward to go to space camp. That's not quite an appropriate message either.

Rewarding curiosity is exactly the kind of message we want to send.

Fortunately you can find RJ-45 ports on many 16 bit ISA cards that will work in an 8-bit port(e.g. 3c509). With such a card, and mTCP, you can network any IBM PC back to the 5150.

There's something awesome about booting an XT class machine, logging in via FTP, uploading a game, and then just playing. No messing with floppy disk images, xmodem, or any such headaches.

What I meant was that every such act of war is horrible. If you are horrified by what happened in the UK, you should be a hundred times more horrified by what the UK and US have done in Afghanistan. I'm not trying to justify their acts, I'm trying to show how unjustifiable this war is. War is just terrorism commited by the state.

As for your question about POW status. If they are foreigners, then that's probably the right way to classify them. If they are citizens, then they probably should get a trial. Not because they deserve a trial, but because a government that can imprison its own citizens indefinitely without trial is more dangerous than any foreign enemy.

Remember, the objection to Guantanamo is not the indefinite detention of prisoners of war. It's that many of the inhabitants were not combatants at all, and those that were were not held in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

Now, flip the script: British soldier in Afghanistan carves up a random unarmed person on the street, with no existing threat or reasonable belief there is a threat to himself.

That's exactly what happens all the time. Except the knife is a drone.

Or are you going to be howling for that soldier's head on a stake?

Either both should have their heads on a stake or neither. There are good cases to be made for either. I don't see any good argument that the acts are essentially different and deserve to be treated differently.

This is not an act of war. It has no other purpose but institute fear.

Isn't that the purpose of warfare? To extract compliance from a population with the fear of death?

If you are unhappy with the US/UK governments you are strongly encouraged to run for office or campaign for change following the low of the land.

Seeing how most of the populace is OK with the wholesale slaughter of brown people from third world countries, I wouldn't have much of a chance.

But justifying random killings is disgusting.

I agree. I'm as disgusted by those who try to justify the war in Afghanistan as you are by this attack in the UK.

it is a bit single sided to accuse only US

Who accused only the US?

They do it for the most part because they can.

So, might makes right? Couldn't you justify this attack with the same logic?

In case you are going to refer me to some extreme christian denominations

You missed my point entirely. Our "moderate" public policy is *more extreme* than these militants. Far, far more innocent people have died at the hands of westerners in Afghanistan than have died at the hands of jihadists in the west.

Now in the light of this there is also other ways to defend you interest without random bombings

Great, now tell the US and UK so we can defend our interests with less violence.

It wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war. The UK and the US are at war, why are you so surprised when the war hits home? People are just fine with senseless random killings of muslims half a world away, but kill one white European....

I'm absolutely not defending these people at all. I'm not fine with random killings on the street whether they are in the UK or Afghanistan. I'm just saying what they've done is no worse than our own public policy implemented by people we've elected. If you hate these people, you have to hate your own government, or be a hypocrit.

If you think this act is horrible, this is what the Afghan people deal with all the time.

why would one group of people (the regulators) be better at deciding what another group of people should do (those who are being regulated)?

So you're arguing that we should deregulate murder because politicians aren't any better at deciding what people should do than murderers are?

Nobody has ever been jailed for failing to fill out the long-form census

Not because they can't, but because they choose not to, for now. That doesn't stop them from threatening you.

basically nobody ever runs afoul of the laws. The census people just come and talk to you and help you fill out the form.

I certainly have run afoul of this law. I returned the American Community Survey with a head count. They eventually gave up trying to get anything else out of me, after about 6 months of harassment.

It's criminal.

So is racketeering by the finance industry. Cry me a river. Punish real crimes first, then we'll talk.

There's never been a freedom problem with the census.

Unless you value your privacy. You don't, but I do.

An accurate census is fundamental to any government that's interested in actually governing.

When we get a government that is actually interested in governing, let me know. When that happens, I'll gladly tell them almost anything they ask politely for. Today, I have no reason to believe my answers will be used to help me rather than oppress me. That's why we have rights in the first place, because you cannot count on the government having your best interests in mind.

Lots of stuff kills cells in a dish. Until they demonstrate this in vivo, it's not even worth discussing.

Well, if you have a wife, it's not really in your interest to kill her, is it?

The problem is that people, and corporations, don't always act in their best interest or the interest of others. This is why we have laws. No politician wants to be seen as soft on crime, but that's exactly what pro-deregulation politicians are.

Unfortunately, most of my fellow countrymen only care about one thing - the economy.

Good. Because someone who actually cares about the economy won't vote for conservatives.

Why scientists feel their programs should be immune to budget cuts when governments the globe over are practicing austerity is a mystery.

Because science more important. Look at the advances in quality of life made during the 20th century. The transistor, lasers, molecular biology, antibiotics, etc., etc.. Basic science is an investment that provides a higher ROI than anything else you can invest in, but those returns accrue to society as a whole. The only organisation suited to make those kinds of investments is government.

I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.

Any liberal politician who has ever voted for or in any way promoted drug prohibition.