atinymonkey

Er, the minimum wage in Europe is almost twice that of the US.

Really? Was this in the US? Why would the US be concerned over WWI?

Er' date=' there is a difference between preventing terrorism and creating measures to help tackle it. Taken from http://www.no2id.co.uk/IDSchemes/faq.php#9 It's combined all the supporting information, so no trawling google from me What the government is saying is that ID cards 'may' help tackle terrorism, but they don't know how. There is no information on the ID card (aside from biometric data) that the security services don't already have access to. One of the reasons the UK are not vocal supporters (even though we are the physical supporter) of the 'war on terror' is that while hundreds of civilians were being killed by IRA terrorists each year, the Sinn Féin leaders enjoyed an invitation to the White House on St Patrick's day. They were treated like national heros. I agree with Severian assertion, we Europeans are not comfortable with the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 because of the horrific acts we had to live through while the US President bought the perpetrators drinks. We support the US, we just don't like the idea that 9/11 was in someway more important than the foreign attacks because 2/3 of the victims were American. We still don't hear about the 67 British victims of 9/11, the 270 killed in Lockerbie, the Manchester bombing etc. There is a war on terror, but we know the only reason behind it is 9/11, it's totally on US terms. I know it probably doesn't make much sense, I'm not very eloquent on the subject.

Wow. Your minimum wage is only $5? That's only £446 a month in the UK. The same hours would net you £808 in the UK (or $1,446). In October 2006 that increases to £856 ($1,532) when the wage increases to £5.35 ($9.58).

Hang on. ID cards in the UK have never been about preventing terrorism. Unless you can convince terrorist groups to adopt them, your not going to have much luck with ID card based anti-terrorism.

More new buttons? What's going on?

Casper no likey bad grammer.

Good point. Broadband has inured us with high bandwidth images, we should rebel against them!

Lol, I was thinking you might have been a 16 year old Lithuanian with $60, a pocket English dictionary and a headfull of dreams. If there is one thing my travelling friends have taught me, it's this: - Wherever you go in the western world, there are always temp agencies who'll employ you. From waiter work, through bar staffing and clerical office work, and it all pays about the same. Every city has temp agencies, and they are simpler to get work through than approaching the local employment markets directly. Some of the bigger ones (like Manpower) are multinational, so you can sign on before you travel and have your details transferred when you arrive at your destination.

Do you have a work permit? How old are you? Where do you come from? What jobs have you had previously?

The Police are currently extensions of the UK/US efforts, and are a 'legitimate' non civilian target for rebels during an occupation. That's debatable. They utilised guerilla tactics, by all accounts, but I don't think they would attempt to scare the British into withdrawal (it had no precedent, you would have to scare the King to withdraw the troopts). I'd lable them Rebals or Insurgents, but not terrorists. Er, tbh I've never really been sure that they stood for anything more than relief from taxation. The whole 'democracy' thing was apocryphal, as the UK was already democratic (you couldn't rally the troops to fight for and against the same principle, but you could rally them to fight taxes). I suppose they stood for a deepseated hatred of tea.

Er, very little.

*cough* The insurgents are more akin to freedom fighters, or rebels, as they are only attacking a foreign invading army. In fact, let's face it, they have the same motivation and methods as the rebels who fought the English in the American War of Independence. Labeling them terrorists is spitting in the eye of the founding fathers and everything they stood against. Democracy is freedom for all, not freedom for only those people who agree with the whimsy of the current political regime.

Which is unusual for me, at the moment.

I don't really see your point. Why do you not just ask the research team directly how they approach it? I'm not sure what responses you'll gardener here, but the words eclectic and random spring to mind. Whatever the guess, it would be more accurate from the horses mouth O_o

The blackouts are not just due to a shortage of power, they are caused by the power surplus and the resulting blowouts at the substations. Because the national grid is not stable, there is no accurate method of monitoring demand, and the ancient infrastructure is unable to cope with the fluctuations. The surplus of power causes a great deal more damage to the infrastructure than anything else could. To put it simply, the generation of power and the purchase of white goods do not affect the electrical infrastructure in Iraq. It doesn't improve the cabling, the substations, the pylons, the phases, the fuses or the stability of the grid. I'm not saying the situation isn't improving, just that David Kerley picked a rather obtuse method for demonstrating it.

There is a thread about this in General discussion, you could ask there: - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12512

Both. It's all smiles in the picture, but a screaming radioactive pain filled reality. Blike has thirteen legs, and lazer eyes. The only sound he can make it the lonesome 'graarrrrgh' of the genetically reconstructed warbeast. He hopes oneday science will find a cure, hence the forum.

O_o that's....rather childish. If you can't summon up the effort to make any form of rebuttle above the inane, I'm afraid I'll have to take it that you don't have one. Ok, you can see an "is ought" floating around disjointedly in my posts. While I'm sure you can perceive it somewhere, I can pretty much guarantee it's something only you can see. Apart from you being unable to gauge the views of the entire forum on your fallacy, it is untrue that my opinion is unsupported. In fact, you seem to have a dearth of empathy to any view opposing your own. That aside, I really don't see why you would continue to foister the burden of proof onto me. It was your statement, you justify it. You are causing me concern now. It's not quite normal for someone to disagree with so many members, in so many threads, during such a short timescale. If the community offends you, I don't see why you would seek it out.

Tom Cruise recently aired his views on anti-depressants, because the Scientology movement which he is a part of is against the prescription of psychiatric medicine. This got me thinking, are we living in a culture where the psychiatric profession advocates pillpopping? Is it an easy solution or an effective solution? What are the effects on the depressed? I couldn't really answer my question. I've seen the negative side of anti-depressants and when they are not effective, but I've never had the opportunity to see the positive. So, I'm open to opinions. Vote me do! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4622357.stm -:Edit:- it's a multiple choice poll, so pick all that apply.

Plurium interrogationum. You'll not accept the fallacy no matter how it's presented. It's not my problem than you presented an amphiboly in your request for clarification. You asked, to my mind, for a definition and not an explanation. However, taking the request at face value, here you go: - Ecoli stated - 'it's easier to limit freedoms if you do it gradually, sneak in amendments and convince people there good' You refuted this with a statement based on inconsitant prior performance - 'there have been over ten thousand attempts to amend the Constitution. Less than thirty have succeeded' Your point references a specific aspect of historical constitutional change, whereas Ecoli was not specifically referencing the past process. It would not matter if there were thirty or three hundred prior successful attempts at amending the constitution, as past performance is not indication of future performance. I hope that clarifies for you. I'm sure you have a thrilling counterpoint, but please feel free just to suck up the criticism and move on. Yes, I've seen people comment on that before. Perhaps it would mean you'd have to start writing English, instead of American English

Sure. An appeal to history is where an argument is based on precedent rather than logic. If you have rolled dice and come up with 5 four times in a row, that is no indication that the next roll will be a 5. In historical terms past performance is an indicator of future performance, but it's a fallacy to use that as refutation of future events. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.