costard

And the Golden Orb is a pretty spider.

Think "control". Someone believes that they can and should control you. The facts mean nothing to them (they're quite happy to believe in the great sky fairy) so you're left with few options beyond toleration - and tolerating the intolerant is mental and emotional ju-jitsu of the highest ordure.

DDT and shotguns took care of most of the really bad stuff years ago (check out our unpublishable history). When the croc population was getting scarily small we introduced laws to stop their being shot out - with the result that creeks I used to fish in barefoot and ten years old are now home to twelve foot salties. The snakes only to bite you if you step on them or otherwise annoy them - Darwinian selection processes tend to take care of the oxygen thieves. True Queenslanders (and Northern Territorians, I guess) have a quiet snicker to themselves each time someone gets eaten swimming in a northern waterhole - you don't mock the croc. Hey - it's all part of being an Aussie; come join us. hehehe

I believe you have an unwarrantedly cheerful view of the world, Sombra. From here, it's looking like it'll take four or five years for the banks to figure out who owes what, to whom, by which time it really wont matter.

Michael Emrys Nah - we used to freak visitors out with a verbal list of stuff that could kill you on Cape York: takes about five minutes. And that's just the animal kingdom.

Wilhammer Up north where those spiders live we used to have a saying about going swimming in the creeks and rivers - throw the dog in first, then the kids. If they're not eaten, its probably safe to go in; if they are, the croc will be too full to bother with you.

Can you orient the reinforcement marker in the scenario editor? This might fix.

Lars, no taxes? Is that what you wish for?

Hi Diesel - I'm talking stats - a good enough sample size would rule out the worst of variation due to individual reaction to the "second chance to vote" thing.

Well its doing a crapulous job of looking after the people it is meant to represent. And a sterling job of screwing things up. What is it you want a gubermint to do?

Anybody remember Snarf? I'm pretty sure the Gungans are plagiarised Zeetvahs.

Is there a mechanism for checking the machines? Any computer system is compromisable. How about this - an organisation randomly picks a significant sample of voting stations and asks the voters, on leaving, to vote again, this time on paper. Not perfect, but improves the probability of catching manipulation of the results.

JanMasterton started a thread on PoorOldSpike recently in this forum (which was then locked pretty quickly) - there is data for setup times at http://amb3940.be/pos/Gun%20setup%20times.pdf Lots of other stuff listed too - I have no idea why the thread was locked; most probably for a good reason. Cheers.

Hey, they're covered in fur and speak in yodelling growls - you want intelligence too?

Thanks Lars. So no joy for the Chinese there. Stalin's Organist - my history teacher would be disappointed with me. Was. Probably still is. Who cares - so its situation normal - just that the consequences of our all too human stupidity become further reaching and more severe? I doubt China could field 1 billion soldiers - but there is the likelihood of them having about 100 million unmarriable men in a few years time: look out for the growth industries of female slavery, bordellos and the state promotion of a homosatisfying way of life. Or war. Take your pick.

More like they religiously recorded the results of various early drug trials.

Its a cover story - the Wookies hunted the Ewoks to extinction for use as snowshows when they settled Hoth. An outcome applauded by all right thinking beings.

Sure - I'd like to see how you manage to defeat the Nazi scumbag pigdogs.

I don't know about that - Germany between the wars printed lots of money in an attempt (successful, as it turned out) to devalue the reparations to be made to the victors of WW1. The fact that the German populace had it's savings wiped out as a direct result was just the colateral damage. After all, the Chinese only hold paper, don't they? As long as they hold US treasury bonds (paying about 6%) they have a share in the growth and wealth of the US - I can't see any US government getting away with defaulting on the payments (unless a state of war existed between China and the US). Of course, if the Chinese were to dump the lot... Lars, what would happen there?

Good story - so it's only poetic justice that John Hinkley Jr used the "temporary insanity" defense"? Or is this yet another example of American irony - a movie star President playing the reel life roll (sic) of the balancing of the scales of justice?

You tell us this AFTER you ask for advice on what to do...?

I apologise for any offense caused Esquire - and I note that if Wayne had hired himself a halfway competent lawyer in the first place he most probably wouldn't have ended up in the mess he has. I guess I'm asking if the lawyers, good and bad, can see the end result of a dying legal system - no living to be made, no point in practising law. It seems that the decay of the Roman Empire was marked by a similar decay in the consistancy of judgement by the courts (though it is probable that sensationalist reporting was just as rife then as now, and the information thus transmitted as unreliable). In a way, it is the primary indicator of a society that is unable to grow - if corruption were to cost, say, 8% of GDP on an annual basis, and the economy grows at 6% on average, then you have a net loss. (These figures are small compared to those losses found in some large nations around the world.) If the behaviour of the populace cannot be regulated through a shared understanding of a citizen's rights and obligations (because they so obviously vary with the wealth available to that citizen), then the costs associated with and the benefits gained from the establishment and maintenance of a legal system cannot be profitably managed - and the society is poorer for it. I see no discipline imposed on the leadership of the society (cf. AIG and their spa bill, Michael Jackson and the extremely large endowment granted to whichever Ivy League University the presiding judge hailed from) - the rest of the society sees less and less reason to hold the law (and lawyers) in anything but contempt.

maybe this thread should be retitled - "Don Quixote and How to Change the World" or sumfink. Why is it that the money is so important to the law? He (Wayne) confesses a crime, but has no crime recorded against him - isn't that just saying that there is no hope of the rules of logic ever mattering in a court of law? Hasn't the court just denied itself the use of those methods of analysis (structured logic and the search for truth) in arriving at a judgement? What is the setting of that precedent worth to a criminal - given away by the state to protect the very doubtful worth of a sporting "hero"? And the big question - one of just a few that really need answers right now - how do we change the legal system to regain its value to our society? - oh, and we're not allowed to shoot anyone this time round. WillH - you have a dirty on the police, fer sure. Is there any group in society where honour and decency exist (without a price tag attached)? heh - sort of goes with the "Citizen Soldier" thread. Subvet - may it never happen to me.

Wayne Carey, an Australian Rules footballer, glassed his girlfriend in a restaurant in Florida. When two police officers came to his hotel room to speak with him about the incident, he became violent. Today in court he pled guilty to the assault of two police officers; his plea was accepted but no conviction was recorded. He is to perform 50 hours of community service, pay a fine and has contributed to the local police charity. When I heard about this, I was reminded of an observation another board member made about his street - a lot of his neighbours are lawyers, all of them seem to support Obama (I think it was a political thread that got locked up pretty quick). It would seem to me that there is a deal of concern in the legal community [in the US] that the court has lost the position of moral equity by which it is granted the right to judge: the executive may lie and entrap, the citizen may not. The executive may torture, the citizen may not. The executive may sell its judgement - the citizen can take a gamble on whether s/he has enough money to be able to afford a bid. When the court loses its moral right, the practitioners of law need the protection of the executive to survive: a totalitarian state comes into being or the society decays to the point of anarchy. Any thoughts? (My opinion, for what it is worth, is that you should have jailed the bastard.)

pawter - throw us a pm