leicsmac

Then I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about, because I said that firstly it isn't harmless and secondly that it has use as a civilly, rather than criminally, regulated substance in the pharmaceutical sector.

Speaking personally I would certainly not say that it's harmless (there's a body of empirical evidence showing that), but it does have uses within the medical field (which there is also empirical evidence for). It shouldn't be criminalised, but there should be some civil regulation regarding its use, as there is with other pharmaceutical products, imo.

And then it becomes a matter of both foreign policy (long term) and the effectiveness of the security services (short term).

And current evidence certainly supports that, and I'd agree.

And he most certainly should have been addressed appropriately before this horrible event occurred. However, my point is direct answer to the past above in that unless you know someone "hates the West" before they come in (is that on the immigration questionnaire, I wonder?), it's a mite tricky to not let them "come here" for that reason alone.

Indeed. Unfortunately, in the absence of being able to ascertain such feelings in advance and with a social system (rightfully) built on the presumption of innocence rather than prejudice of guilt, it makes that a rather tricky matter practically.

Gravity is always an "attractive" force, hence pulling things towards each other rather than pushing. However, it's far weaker at short ranges than either the electromagnetic or the nuclear forces. The big advantage it has it that acts at extreme distances - and how, we still don't really know.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6dgz7e4m8o The working paradigm over there is at times very grim, no lie.

That's prudent, though I'm not sure many folks would or should blame him for making a judgement based on the obvious lay of the land anyway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clye651yzdjo Andy Burnham says he would be prepared to call out Donald Trump to defend Britain's "national interest before anything else" if it is the right thing to do, in his first major interview as prime minister. Speaking exclusively to the BBC, Burnham said he had had a good first exchange with Trump, finding him to be "really warm". But asked twice if he would trust the US president, he did not say, answering, "it's a changing world isn't it, and you just obviously have to call things as they develop". In the interview, to be broadcast in full on Monday, he said: "I can't at any point say that I won't take a different opinion from him [Trump], that I will need to voice a different idea that is right for Britain." Hedging his bets a bit, then. Be prepared to be like Carney and Sanchez, Mr Burnham, please.

Picked onion Monster Munch is a good shout, but Crispy Bacon Wheat Crunchies do the bacon flavour pretty well imo.

That's the logical next step, would end up being a shorter mission unless they do a full orbit, then. Looks like they still need to sort the engine issues with the heavy booster though, 33 engines is a lot to juggle but I don't think there's been a mission yet where one or more of them hasn't failed at some critical point.

Starship Flight 13 late last night, mostly successful in that all objectives were achieved but the ship itself was a little cooked when it landed in the Indian Ocean for recovery. Hopefully they can build on this success.

I'm quite surprised that the notoriously thin skin of the man even allowed him to be there while that was going on.

It's always been hypocritical. Like the fundies in the US lambasting the Taliban when their own attitudes towards pretty much every human demographic are identical to them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20260723-south-koreas-medical-clinics-are-drawing-tourists Travellers are increasingly adding comprehensive health check-ups to their South Korea itineraries, drawn by affordable prices, fast results and English-language support. I've got to say, my own experience of the healthcare system over there was top notch. Yes, I paid their equivalent of NI contributions for the universal system, and when I needed a diagnostic check of some kind the excess would be somewhere between £80 and £250, but when I did I would have the test, the result and the prognosis within a few hours of each other, and the standard of facilities over there was A1. Edit: and prescriptions were also same day, and cost about £10 a pop, same as over here.

It's always the folks you most suspect.

I don't think Brook is ready yet. So yes, Root is really the only choice.

Think a couple of the others in the area do brisk enough custom though, if a cursory look and glance at the Google reviews is any judge. Of course, it could be astroturfing and you can have a legit customer base while still washing some money too, but...

Ah, the birthday paradox. Likewise, it only takes 23 people in a group to make the odds in favour of two of them sharing the same birthday. The nature of exponential combinations and probabilities can be pretty counterintuitive at times.

It's almost as if that part inthe Constitution about separation of church and state was... well, a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule like the rest of it, apparently. The Australian continent certainly got the better part of the migration deal at that point in time (or a bit later, anyway).

And this man has a line to the higher echelons of the current US administration.

If possible and enforceable, yes. But, just to reiterate the point again, if we fail on this one, we fail as a species, not as any individual "tribe". That's true both from historical evidence of contribution, and from the fact that those left in that world looking for those to blame simply won't make such distinctions anyway. Edit: pardon for belabouring the above point multiple times but apparently it needs to be repeated, given the amount of people still about looking to disingenuously absolve their own "group" of responsibility for all the bad times to come (should it happen).

Doesn't negate in any way the collective responsibility for all parties involved based on what's happened so far. And as per @grobyfox1990 salient argument immediately above - if things go to hell in a handbasket (which, given lack of decisive action, they will), those left behind are going to blame everyone who didn't do enough to stop the problem as well as those who "mostly" contributed to it. And they'll be right to. So as a species - all of us - we can either argue about who's killing the world or, as well as taking action ourselves as nation states, take whatever action we can to ensure others walk the walk too.

Human psychology. A lot of people don't want their comfortable status quo to change, even if that status quo will lead them and everyone else to ruin, so they will do what they can to preserve it. And that's the problem those trying to guarantee the future face; you're having to solve the same problem several times, psychologically and logistically.