I have been travelling quite a bit with trains recently since I now get a 50% discount on all tickets. While my seat is comfortable, affords me a plug for my laptop, the most thrilling part of the trip is watching Arlington Road. Next step is to get a set of vacuum cups and ride outside.
Category: Uncategorized
Should anyone ask, my sister is organising an Elephant Polo match
Yes, it does exist: Elephant polo – Wikipedia
Should anyone ask, my sister is organising an Elephant Polo match
Yes, it does exist: Elephant polo – Wikipedia
Should anyone ask, ‘There is no war on terror’
‘There is no war on terror’
It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values.
London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war.
We wouldn’t get far in promoting a civilising culture of respect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trials in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detached from it. Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law – upon which everything else depends.
Nice to see someone talking sense.  The last 5 years have had too much “but this time it’s different” rhetoric. Terrorism is not nice but it’s always been around and always will be. One only has to look at Northern Ireland or South Africa in the 80s to see that you don’t win the “war” by adding short cuts to a trusted judicial system.
‘There is no war on terror’ | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics
Should anyone ask, ‘There is no war on terror’
‘There is no war on terror’
It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values.
London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war.
We wouldn’t get far in promoting a civilising culture of respect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trials in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the process of winning convictions ought to be in keeping with a consensual rule of law and not detached from it. Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law – upon which everything else depends.
Nice to see someone talking sense.  The last 5 years have had too much “but this time it’s different” rhetoric. Terrorism is not nice but it’s always been around and always will be. One only has to look at Northern Ireland or South Africa in the 80s to see that you don’t win the “war” by adding short cuts to a trusted judicial system.
‘There is no war on terror’ | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics
Should anyone ask, don’t wear tie-die when doing science experiments.
Would you trust a hippie in a tie-die smock for your science instruction?
Should anyone ask, don’t wear tie-die when doing science experiments.
Would you trust a hippie in a tie-die smock for your science instruction?
Should anyone ask, I believe that sprawl does make us fatter
Was reading this article and came across this great comment on Slashdot:
Does Sprawl Make Us Fat?
The objections quoted in TFS are debunked quite well in the linked science article. Additionally, research earlier this year shows teenagers living in sprawling suburbs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as teens in more compact urban areas [prorev.com]These kids have never moved, never had a choice about where they live and are still much fatter.
It’s a no brainer really. Less walking opportunities = less energy expenditure = more stored energy (as well as eating crap on those long, boring car journeys to work/school to save on cooking time at home so you can sit in front of the idiot box).
Anyway, the failure of town planners is going to work out by itself in the end. As oil prices skyrocket & people in the suburbs grow fatter, the solution become obvious. Liposuction clinics combined with gas stations 😉
Should anyone ask, I believe that sprawl does make us fatter
Was reading this article and came across this great comment on Slashdot:
Does Sprawl Make Us Fat?
The objections quoted in TFS are debunked quite well in the linked science article. Additionally, research earlier this year shows teenagers living in sprawling suburbs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as teens in more compact urban areas [prorev.com]These kids have never moved, never had a choice about where they live and are still much fatter.
It’s a no brainer really. Less walking opportunities = less energy expenditure = more stored energy (as well as eating crap on those long, boring car journeys to work/school to save on cooking time at home so you can sit in front of the idiot box).
Anyway, the failure of town planners is going to work out by itself in the end. As oil prices skyrocket & people in the suburbs grow fatter, the solution become obvious. Liposuction clinics combined with gas stations 😉
Should anyone ask, dd-wrt rocks even more so.
So I was playing around with my Linksys WRT54G route this afternoon and it gets even better – it now comes with vlan support and trunking.
Can’t fault it other than the auto channel selection seems a little flacky – it always sticks me on channel 11 next to something pumping out loads of interference. Now set statically to channel 3 where none of my neighbour’s APs are.
Nice.

