Will H

If that's how we're representing how we protect the environment, then we're doing something horribly wrong. The solution is renewable energy and more energy efficient technology, not removing ourselves from it. Sees_all1, don't forget to use the most endangered variety of herring you can find to chop down that tree.

fixed. Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests. ... you're being sarcastic, right? No; it makes sense and most likely the truth anyhow. "Do I have something to gain in this situation: yes / no " To tackle a situation of because of it's complete amorality by using an completely amoral method is hypocrisy. Or is hypocrisy acceptable too? Shall we just not bother then?

It would be amusing to see someone try to sue a UK company under American law, wouldn't it?

Yep. I think the biggest problem of all is that teachers are powerless and/or ignorant. When I was younger, my life would have been severely improved if I was given the all clear to punch a bully in the face once and walk away. Half of bullying lies in the actions of the bully, the other half lies in the fear of the school system.

fixed. Genocide and authoritarianism in other countries is ok, as long as it doesn't affect US interests. ... you're being sarcastic, right?

Yep, that's the precedent that's going to be set. If government commits crimes against humanity and declares a policy of 'no mercy' on peaceful demonstrators, and we have the capability to stop the killing, why not? So many lives have already been saved by the intervention. As for oil, I doubt anybody would trade arms with Gaddafi if Libya didn't have oil. He probably wouldn't be in power right now either. It was his only real bargaining chip.

I think that's because a few months ago there were far fewer people with 100 Dungeoneering, and therefore 3 bind slots. The blood necklace is a pretty reasonable 3rd or 4th bind, but an atrocious 2nd bind (which should be either a platebody or a shadow-silk hood, the latter being much better). I suppose it's just become much more relevant to more people nowadays. EDIT: You only need a plate if you don't have a shadow-silk hood.

To an extent there's cross party support, in that mad dictators should be stopped from killing their own people (no [cabbage] Sherlock?). You really shouldn't attempt to use that as a way of avoiding the initial embarrassment Cameron found himself in. Stepping in front of TV cameras saying the man you sold arms to only a few months ago should step down, seeking international support for a no-fly zone saying you have US support when you actually didn't at the time, and then saying the whole deal isn't about regime change whilst your foreign minister says 'Gaddafi must go'. I'm struggling to see any consistent foreign policy at all there, except "stop mass genocide" which is a trite and, frankly, obvious statement. Say what you like about the Iraq war. I was one of the two million who marched against it, but at least it was consistent with US and British policy of interventionism at the time. As it is, the Saudi authorities also butchered their own people last week. No one on either side of this country's political spectrum batted an eye lid. I cannot for the life of me fathom why. I'm not going to pretend that selling arms to Libya isn't embarrassing, although I think this is more of a wider international issue. Pretty much every government, past and present, of pretty much every country, traded/trades arms with dictatorships. To stop trading arms with these regimes on principle was pointless because they'd only buy the arms from a different country, causing us to lose revenue for zero benefit. I get the feeling that this vicious circle wasn't broken because of the oil in Libya. If I was Gaddafi, I'd threaten to cut off all oil exports if there was any kind of concerted effort to stop any further arms deals with Libya. Stalemate. We (as in non-Libyan countries) collectively do not have a right to overthrow Gaddafi ourselves, that lies with the Libyan people. That doesn't mean that we can't openly wish that Gaddafi wasn't in power. That's not inconsistent, that's just knowing where your moral jurisdiction lies. Most of international law is trite and obvious, that's how it ends up being international law, but somehow that doesn't seem to stop Gaddafi from breaching it. You're right, that's all the foreign policy is here. If we start putting in more foreign policy clauses that isn't under the UN resolution, the alliance is likely to fall apart. As for Cameron assuming US support they actually gave it, that's news to me. I can't seem to find anything that mentions that, do you have a source? About the Saudi authorities, I share your concern. Why is nothing being done?

I'd rather they make orchestrated .mp3's of the tunes first, as alternatives to the MIDI's. Jagex has its headquarters in Cambridge, a place brimming with budding musicians. It never ceases to amaze me why they still haven't taken up that opportunity. If there's enough demand though, why not? Other games have.

I'm watching that right now and I don't get your point at all. The guy wants to sound as if he knows what he's talking about but he is just clutching at straws which are not relevant to the situation. 1. Countries traded arms with Libya: Yes they did, as they do with almost all countries in the world. How though does this mean they shouldn't intervene? 2. Countries met with Gaddafi and traded economically: Again, we live in a globalised society where world leaders have to meet. Libya has a large oil supply which the rest of the world needs. While the country was at peace, the rest of the world had no choice but to trade with Libya 3. Leaders of countries leading the attacks are falling in polls: Firstly why the hell does that even matter? Secondly are you sure? I know Cameron wasn't overly popular in the UK a short while ago but I actually think his popularity has been slowly rising for a few months since the budget cuts. I don't think 'nuff was said. The video was horrendously biased and, proven by the amount of view by all that guys videos, he doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't taken seriously. I just have a lot of respect of Stefan Molyneux, sorry that you don't, he's easily one of the wisest people on the web, and I wasn't replying to anyone, just sharing. Btw, it's just ignorant to conclude someone's integrity by the amount of exposure they receive. The man is trying to pretend that he know what he's talking about in multiple areas where he really doesn't. I certainly don't like people who misuse Orwell's 1984 as a way to put cynicism beyond reason. Last I heard, Cameron's actually increasing in support like Danq said, given that he based his election plan on sorting out the Budget, which just happened a few days ago, and more importantly the Libyan intervention gained cross party support (and that's really rare), unlike what this man is implying. Everybody in the UK government knows and accepts that this is an operation to stop genocide, not a way to impose regime change. Regime change will be a byproduct of making Gaddafi toothless, but it is not the aim. There is no war against Libya, the US missiles are being sent to destroy ground to air defences and structures, not people. They are not indiscriminate, as this man is implying. Gaddafi is placing his supporters nearby ground to air defences because he knows that the Coalition won't bomb civilians. For God's sake even Gaddafi knows this! I for one am prepared to pay my taxes if it means stopping mass murder of peaceful demonstrators. The man who made that video is pretty much one of the archetypes of people I dislike. Cranking the skepticism up to a point near to 'Descartes' is the lazy way of constructing any kind of philosophical basis, and that's a sign of someone trying to get the largest amount of people listening for the least effort. I have zero respect for that.

Because no one actually reads the OT... they see "jagex message" and "mass spam email" and all of a sudden they want to act all superior and "teach all the noobs" about keeping thier acc safe without actually reading the post Would you rather take the chance of a failure in communication and inadvertently tell someone that a scam message is actually real? It's better to be safe than sorry, nothing to do with superiority here. I read the OP perfectly well, but mistakes sometimes happen with serious consequences, no need to get in a huff about it.

People have made the mistake before, it's happened.

A very common misconception here is that the objective is to take down Gaddafi's government and impose a democratic government, a la Iraq. It is not. The objective is to render Gaddafi's regime toothless enough to be incapable of killing Libyan citizens. There is nothing 'Western' about objecting to mass murder of peaceful protesters, it was the Arab League who formally requested the no-fly zone over Libya, and a Libyan popular uprising that started threatening the Libyan government. The West didn't even have any part to play in how the Arab Spring started. To call them crusades is extremely inaccurate, if a little offensive. It is inevitable that Gaddafi's government will be taken down by rebels, but what happens in that respect is the responsibility of the Libyan people. If it turns out to be really democratic, that's great but unlikely, if it turns out as a slightly more tolerant dictatorship that respects the right to protest, fine, that's not our business to deal with. In any case, I can't think of any possible sequence of events that can turn out a government that's worse than what they have now. The rebels simply wouldn't accept it. As Cameron said, "This is not another Iraq".

Extremely easy way to determine if messages from Jagex are real or fake: If it's in your RS inbox, the one you can access when you log in, it's real. If it's in your actual email, it's fake. No exceptions.

There are a lot of ways in which this can go wrong. I wonder if Jagex was smart enough to mimic already established systems like RuneHead? I really, really doubt it. On another note, updated trees!

You can't sue Jagex for something which they made explicitly clear would happen, and which we as a community still voted for. That's neither legal nor fair.

Bwahaha that's priceless. I'm thinking a huge 5 headed dragon made out of cabbages, released in the middle of Falador, lots of particle effects and multiple attacks, but it never hits anything.

Another person that doesn't know what he's talking about. And you'd let Gaddafi get away with crimes against humanity? Rational arguments is not going to stop the guy. This is an attempt to prevent genocide, a coordinated effort to stop Gaddafi from killing more Libyans. There was very little in the way of gun pointing, just a single ultimatum demanding that Gaddafi stop firing on his own people. That was ignored, so the Coalition is trying to render pro-Gaddafi forces toothless. What the rebels do to the regime is not our business.

You are again incorrect. In the United States Senators vote with the party in the mid to high 80% range, a number which itself is highly deceptive as a substantial minority of senate votes are procedural or non contentious. Nor is the party system in the United states based upon unified ideology, or party powers as you indicated based upon consistent voting - the current senate majority leader Harry Reid's voting record is in the bottom half of the Democrats' in following the party. The system overall is far more representative then one controlled directly by parties. Putting that in excel and doing some quick number crunching, the mean average is actually 90%. Calling that mid to high 80's sounds a bit conservative (pun intended). Overall, that looks reasonably consistent to me. If you want more statistics, only three Democrats and 8 Republicans have a rating below 80%. Harry Reid's rating is 94%. I think the most obvious diagnosis here is that there's a bit of internal struggle with the Republicans than anything else. I'm not saying that the system should be one that is directly controlled by the parties, I'm saying that the representatives in a party should tend towards keeping with the party line, or they may as well be an Independent. A tiny minority of occasions you might vote because of something individual about a candidate that's got nothing to do with political parties, but the overwhelming majority of the time, you vote for the party. Nowhere did I assert that anyone's freedom of speech should be abridged - indeed in the UK the Wesboro Baptist Church was banned while the US supreme court recently upheld their right to free speech. For examples closer to home, see your very own British National Party and the various Neo-Nazi groups of Germany.The system that exists in the United States allows crazy fringe groups to exist and complain as they please while allowing real business to conclude as normal (while those very same groups are banned or quasi-banned in the system you defend!) Saying that there is no need for the existence of a political group, simply justified by its relative unpopularity, contradicts freedom of speech in my book. Sorry, it just does. You've misread you're own source, the WBC is not banned in the UK, non-UK members are merely prevented from entering it. I could set up a UK branch of the WBC here right now if I had the right contacts. However, physically moving into another country to stage protests isn't acceptable, and that's what was prevented here. Citizens have a right to protest in their own country, but do not have a right to stage a protest, especially hate-filled ones, in other countries. Would you like it if I came over to America with the sole purpose of generating an uprising to smash the US government? Regarding the BNP, what are you talking about? The BNP has several seats in various councils, one in the London Assembly, and two European Parliament seats. They put a candidate up for every election, and they're given equal time allocations for their Party Political Broadcasts as any other party. They're not banned at all. What gave you that idea?

I'd agree with this general viewpoint. As a Labour Party member, I wouldn't say Obama could represent my viewpoints adequately in an election. I'd actually describe the Democrats as being more like the Conservative (big C) Party than either the Lib Dems or Labour. What Americans constitute as 'left-wing' falls way short of the mark in the UK, and even further short in most of continental Europe. The idea that left-wing politics here would argue for something as tacit as the recent Healthcare Reform Bill in America is ludicrous. While Democrats may laud about it, it would be an embarassment for any Labour or Lib Dem leader to stand for this sorry excuse of a reform. And as a Conservative Party member (don't hate me), I can confirm that that's pretty accurate, although I wouldn't vote at all if I was American because I think the Democrats are a bit weak and uninspired. It's more of an action and competence thing than political views. Er, no. Unlike Europe, in the United States people vote directly for their representatives - not parties. Individual reps can and do vote against their party line on a regular basis, so to the contrary the American system is far more democratic then elsewhere as it allows direct local control unconstrained by such divisions. As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong. The system is far more efficient overall. Sorry, but you do, in the long run, vote for parties. We vote in directly our representatives here in the UK too (That might change soon, but that's for a different thread), but they cannot vote against or abstain from their party lines repeatedly without suffering diminished responsibilities and eventually being kicked out of the party altogether. The US has party whips too, so you must have the same system in effect. I'll admit, being able to vote against your party occasionally is a useful tool for democracy, but it has to be kept reasonably infrequent, otherwise the result will be a highly inefficient government as bills are drafted where nobody has any clue how much support it has, and parties would lose all structure. How the electorate would keep up with such a government is anybody's guess. As for your second point, that's just pitiful to read. There is always a need for insane far-left groups, insane far-right groups, and every other kind of group. It's one of those things that come with freedom of speech. For example, I can't stand the nonsense of the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither can most people, but I'd be completely in the wrong if I declared that they should be limited from vocalising what they believe because of what they believe. A two-party system might be efficient, but it makes the horrible assumption that a smaller voice has no value whatsoever. If you value efficiency so much, why not make it a one-party system?

Well of course, all scams need a partial basis in truth, a 'too good to be true' event suggested by the scammer, otherwise they wouldn't work. And I've been watching The Real Hustle too much. All this line of thought leads to is scamming being a legitimate business, a game where a lot of profit is to be had taking the money of the newer players. The consequences of that aren't hard to imagine. Also, I don't like it when people are condescending, especially to people who work hard to make Times articles. Handing justice to scammers is one thing, but preventing scamming from becoming mainstream is a much bigger can of worms. I enjoyed both articles.

I don't think that's true - sometimes violence is necessary for revolution, and indeed has sometimes been successful. It really depends on who ends up in power afterwards - the american revolution for example was a violent one yet it managed to stop the oppression. I agree. In this case, I don't think that it's really possible to end up with a worse outcome than the Libyan government right now. Saif Gaddafi is such a slimy character. He just gives me the chills.

There was another thread about this, and it died for a reason: Nobody cares.

You do know that nearly the entirety of American news media is left wing right? The only right-wing media I can think of is Fox and the only true impartial one is the WSJ. Literally everything else is left. Mhm. So where's the party/parties to match? ? Okay, barring the fact that the two-party system is extremely hard to dismantle, I don't think you got my point. Left-wing politics are not underrepresented- if you look at our last congressional elections you'll see that's definitely not true (and hey, the funs really going to start in the next one when even more seats are up for grabs). Left-wing opinion is overrepresented in the media. Are you European? I know that America is more right than Europe (ha, a pun), so it may seem like Americas left isn't as visible. Says England in my location, so yeah. I'm not sure how we started talking about the media, I was talking about how the government represents the people. The media has no reason to represent the people at all. I think this is where my grasp of American politics and public perception is failing me, because I don't follow what you're saying. Who are the left-wing politicians that got voted in that you are referring to? I'm calling the Democrats a centre party, the Republicans right-wing and the Tea Party far-right. What are you calling them?

I use RockMelt, it's especially useful to know the shortcut to hide the edges when you're not using them (Ctrl+Shift+\, or basically mash the bottom left corner of the keyboard) if you're on a standard monitor. When you do that, it's just as compact as Chrome. I will never use IE. That unholy excuse for a browser has irritated me to no end on university computers, and FF isn't much better when you can't customise it.